Human impacts on
Antarctic
What do you think the
concerns might be?
1
Until the 1960s, some species of whales
and seals were taken to the brink of
extinction by human activities in
Antarctica.
Waste and garbage was left where it fell,
burnt in great open fires or was deposited
in the ocean.
Fisheries were non-existent or on a very
small scale, but either way were
completely unregulated.
What
happened in
the 1960’s?
2
Over the years since the Antarctic Treaty came
into force, ever greater environmental
awareness has led to increasing regulation by
the Antarctic Treaty System.
All plants and animals in Antarctica are now
protected and there are measures in place to
prevent pollution of this - the worlds most
pristine environment.
3
What does this mean?
No Antarctic bird or mammal can be killed or
captured without a permit - granted only for
scientific reasons
Measures must be taken to minimize harmful
interference with wildlife and control the
introduction of non-native species - animal or
plant, even to the point of not taking soil or
growing compost to Antarctica as it may contain
plant seeds, fungal spores and adults or eggs of
any number of soil-dwelling invertebrates.
The establishment of specially protected areas
to protect sites of outstanding scientific
interest and designate specially protected
species.
4
What does this mean?
Seals in particular are covered by a 1972 convention
designed to prevent the resumption of sealing killing of
both Ross and Antarctic fur seals is totally prohibited
and catch limits on the other 4 species are set
deliberately at low levels.
Commercial fisheries in the Southern Ocean are
controlled by the CCAMLR - Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. The
aim of the Convention is to conserve marine life of the
Southern Ocean - this does not exclude harvesting
carried out in a rational manner.
Any discharges into the sea within the Antarctic Treaty
Area are strictly regulated .
Mining has been prohibited.
5
What about people going there?
The Environmental Protocol of the Antarctic Treaty
became law in 1998 after legislation in each of the
member countries. One of the ways in which this
protects Antarctica is by only allowing visitors to
Antarctica by member nations as long as they are given a
permit to do so.
The granting of a permit is dependent on the visitors
agreeing to adhere to certain rules and guidelines.
Each nations rules are not the same in the detail,
though they are similar in the general principles.
In the case of UK citizens you need permission from the
Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affair
This includes all scientists, any ships or aircraft and any
fishing
6
What about rubbish?
From ships, oily water must be discharged at a
port outside of Antarctica
Sewage has to be treated and then can only be
discharged outside 12 nautical mile limit – as can
food waste that cut up into pieces smaller than
25mm – bones and bigger bits have to be
discharged in a port in the same way as the oily
water.
Waste from the bases – no dumping at sea and
no open burning – it has to be packed up and
shipped out – however some food/sewage is
permitted and careful monitoring show that
there are no ill effects.
However many of the stations are now installing
biological treatment plants
7
In 1991 however, the fear that distemper from
dogs could spread to seals led to a new clause in
the Antarctic Treaty.
"Dogs shall not be introduced onto land or ice
shelves and dogs currently in those areas
shall be removed by April 1 1994".
8
Fishing ??
Fishing is now the only large-scale resource exploitation
that is going on in Antarctica. Most other world
fisheries have been over exploited even where controls
are in place to prevent this and this has to be a concern
for Antarctic fisheries too.
The potential problems are:
Over fishing of a particular target species.
Effects on other species that depend on the target
species as a food resource or are eaten by the target
species.
Killing of other fish, vertebrate or invertebrate species
accidentally caught alongside the target species, the so
called "by-catch".
Destruction of habitat by fishing gear
9
Pirates?
Some of the world’s fishing grounds like the North
Atlantic are already in trouble. Numbers of cod are at a
twenty year low. More fishing boats have headed south
to Antarctica. Antarctic waters may be the most
regulated in the world, but as no-one owns the continent
it is difficult control unlicensed fishing.
Pirates fishing in the area are seriously threatening
Antarctica’s fish stocks. The Patagonian toothfish is a
particularly prized catch – fishermen can sell these fish
for £10 a kilo, which is a lot when just one can weigh
over 100 kilos! Some pirate fishermen can make more
money than drug traffickers. In parts of Antarctica, it
has been estimated that up to 90% of the Patagonian
toothfish caught may have been fished by pirate boats..
Seabirds (including the albatross) are another victim.
They drown as they get caught on hooks as they dive to
catch the fishermen’s bait.
10
Whales
The story of Antarctic whaling is one of greed and
excess. One after another species had been hunted to a
point of extinction
The Antarctic whale fishery has been described as
being more like mining than a sustainable fishery.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) tried to
regulate the industry to a position of sustainability
(where catches are balanced by production) but largely
failed.
But in the 1960s blue and humpback whales were fully
protected, protection that was then extended to fin and
sei whales in the 1970s. In 1986 the IWC suspended all
commercial whaling.
However some nations particularly Japan continue to
take whales for 'scientific research'. All these whales
end up in restaurants and one whale can have
a $1,000,000 market value at the restaurant table!
11
Flotsam
An increasing problem in Antarctic
waters (and in the rest of the world
too) is flotsam and debris lost
overboard from ships, particularly
fishing ships.
Bits of fishing net, fishing line,
boxes, strapping bands etc. might
sound harmless if unsightly, but they
can have a deadly effect on wildlife.
Fur seals can suffer the most as
the youngsters in particular are
very playful and what starts off as
a game with a plastic band can soon
turn nasty as it gets stuck over the
seals head.
Unable to remove the band it
begins to cut into the flesh causing
physical injury, infection and ultimately
a long and slow death
12
Mining - this is what we know there is
How are your chemical symbols?
13
Mining - this is what we know there is
Key
Ag - Silver
Au - Gold
Co - Cobalt
Cu - copper
Cr - Chromium
Fe - Iron
Mb Molybdenum
Mn Manganese
Ni - Nickel
Pb - Lead
Ti - Titanium
U - Uranium
Zn - Zinc
14
There has never been any commercial mining in
Antarctica, there are no current plans to mine
Antarctica and mining is currently completely
banned by the Antarctic Treaty. There are no
known future plans by any of the Antarctic
Treaty nations to reverse this decision.
Exposed rock is a rarity in Antarctica
When the original Antarctic Treaty was signed
in 1959, the exploitation of resources was not
discussed at all for fear of jeopardizing the
Treaty. In the 1980's the issues were raised
again, and led eventually to the Protocol on
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
Treaty (an addition to the treaty).
The Madrid Protocol was signed in 1991 by the
signatories to the Antarctic Treaty banning
mining, this is up for review in 2041.
15
Though it might sound like an impressive piece of
regulatory legislation, it was quite clear before it
became law that there was no real commercial interest
in mining or oil exploration in Antarctica for the
foreseeable future.
Antarctica's weather, ice and distance from any
industrialized areas mean that mineral extraction would
be extremely expensive and also extremely dangerous.
The icebergs that drift around the continent frequently
grind into the ocean floor like billion (or trillion) tonne
ploughs. Pack ice can be blown miles in a day and
transportation even in the relatively ice-free summer
months is far from assured.
As recently as the 2002/2003 season for instance, the
annual relief of the UK Halley Bay base had to be
completed by air after numerous attempts to reach the
base by sea were beaten.
Any oil or minerals would need to shipped or piped out
and then there's the problem of those vast icebergs
again.
16
Coal
Coal has been found in two regions in Antarctica - the
Transantarctic Mountains and Prince Charles Mountains.
One of the Antarctic Treaty nations hired a mining
consultant to have an economic assessment made to
potentially mine the Transantarctic Mountains coal.
After a brief visit to Antarctica, the conclusion was not
to waste money on having an appraisal done.
The coal he found was low quality - high moisture, high
ash content - thin and in broken bands. Far better
reserves are found elsewhere on earth and they are not
yet exploited.
The Prince Charles Mountains coal was better and had
they been close to a major user of the coal may have
been exploited. However, the distance and difficulty in
getting them mean that once again they are not
economically viable.
17
Iron Ore
Iron ore is widespread in surface rocks in
Antarctica and has been traced deep
under the ice.
Once again however the fact that it is
isolated in Antarctica means that it is not
worth getting.
In addition, it contains only about 35%
iron against other regions outside
Antarctica where ores that are less than
60% are considered to not be worth
mining as they contain so little iron.
18
Oil and gas
Rocks in Antarctica have been suggested to
contain oil or gas. Even if this was the case - no
drilling has taken place to find any - it is unlikely
that they could ever be exploited commercially.
Reliable authorities have estimated that it would
cost over US$100 per barrel to get oil from
Antarctica. Current oil prices per barrel (Sunday
May 17 2009) are around $55.
There are over 30 years worth of reserves of
oil left, possibly even up to 100 years worth, so
there is no urgency to get Antarctica's oil.
There is also another obstacle, oil shale as a
source of oil becomes economically viable
19
Two points of view
20
Sidney Suit says: “Dig it up”
The value of Antarctica in money terms is as
big as it gets - as a source of fish and squid, a
new frontier for tourists or to use the treasure
trove of minerals that may lie beneath the ice
and the surrounding seas. In Antarctica,
anything is possible.
In the future, global companies could become more
powerful than governments. In many ways they already
are. Oil and mining companies will be some of the most
powerful, and most are driven by profit. If there’s money
to be made in Antarctica, technologies will be found to
deal with the conditions. It is also easy to see a future
where these companies will pressure governments to give
up the Antarctic Treaty and let mining and drilling go
ahead.
I am certain that the future will see increased
commercial activity in Antarctica, and I don’t think this
is necessarily bad. I believe in progress - economic
development makes the world a better place.
21
Sidney Suit says: “Dig it up”
Companies will come to Antarctica for profit, but I believe that
shareholders, customers and even the board of directors will
influence the ways in which they make money. These stakeholders
can guide companies to act in ways that don’t ruin Antarctica’s
environment. Let’s face it, to make money you have to sell what
people want, and you have to send out positive messages about what
your company stands for. If the market cares enough about
Antarctica, customers won’t put up with companies that wreck it.
We need a new vision for Antarctica – one that focuses on the
positive, much like the way people look at activities in space with
awe and wonder, full of amazing possibilities.
Companies could use Antarctica without destroying it. In return for
a licence to mine resources, companies could put money into science
projects, vital to us all. There are other business opportunities too.
With the right marketing, vodka on million year old Antarctic ice
could become the drink of choice. They could even tow an iceberg
from the Antarctic to ease water shortages elsewhere – the
technology for this already exists.
So I think that Antarctica will be used commercially one day, but
this can be controlled. At the same time we can draw on the pulling
power and profit of global companies in ways that won’t destroy the
host”.
22
Laura Leaf says: “Let it be!”
“At the moment, the Antarctic Treaty
determines what people can or cannot do on the
continent, but there is always a risk that
governments will abandon the treaty.
Discussions on opening up Antarctica for mining
resources like coal and oil, or using it for a dumping
ground for waste should never happen. The ban on these
activities must be permanent. Antarctica is too precious
– it should have guaranteed protection for another
thousand years, not fifty.
Scientists from over 25 countries have already proved
the importance of Antarctica in learning about life on
Earth, both present and future. It is an essential place
for measuring changes in the global climate and air
pollution, yet no scientist can be certain about the
impact of human activity in generations to come.
That’s why it’s best to use ‘the precautionary principle’
for any decisions over Antarctica’s future – to play safe
rather than be sorry later.
23
Laura Leaf says: “Let it be!”
For example it was, scientists working for the British
Antarctic Survey discovered the hole in the ozone layer.
With improvements in technology, who knows what else
we will discover so we can take action before it is too
late.
I want to see the Antarctic Treaty as only a starting
point. The Treaty’s rules and regulations should be
tightened up so that in the future:
Satellite technology will track illegal fishing boats to stop them
even entering Antarctic waters.
Stricter controls on tourism will prevent damage from the
growing number of visitors
All Antarctic research stations will be powered by renewable
energy sources like solar energy and wind.
So my view of Antarctica’s future is keep it as it is
today, except with better management and tighter
controls to guarantee lasting protection for this special
place.
24
To develop or to
leave as an
international park?
What would you like to happen?
Do you think that is the way it will go?
25
But the big story this year has been
tourism
In terms of numbers, tourists greatly
outnumber national research programme
personnel
46,069 as against 4,000 in the 2007/2008
season for instance
tourist numbers were up 14% on the
previous year leading to calls to limit the
number of tourists allowed to go
But the national programme personnel
clock up far more person-days and impacts
are difficult to compare directly.
26
While tourists may only spend a relatively small time on
landings, it is relatively "high-impact" time - compared to
a scientist or electrician say who probably spend most of
their time on a permanent or semi-permanent base.
Tourists will want to visit the most picturesque and
wildlife rich areas of Antarctica, and they tend to do so
in numbers far greater than the entire compliment of
many Antarctic bases.
Also the national programmes have relatively few visits
of supply ships, whereas in the season, the great
majority of all shipping activity in Antarctica is of tour
ships.
There have been accidents with ships being grounded on
uncharted rocks and there have been oil-spills.
With the best safe-guards in the world (and it has to be
said that marine regulations for Antarctic ships, both
statuary and self-imposed are as good as they get) the
more ships there are, the more accidents there will be.
27
Homework
So there have been calls to restrict
tourism, while others say that it is a once
in a lifetime experience that everyone
should have the opportunity to do once.
You have been provided with a few links to
choose from – some taking each side.
Having investigated a bit, decide whether
you think Antarctic tourism ought to be
stopped or whether it is such a special
place that everyone ought to be able to go
once - state your opinion and explain why.
28