No 1(17) (2018): Ukrainian Antarctic Journal
Articles

The Optimization of Selection and Planning Criteria for the Antarctic Protected Areas

А. P. Fedchuk
State Institution National Antarctic Scientific Center, Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 16 Taras Shevchenko Blvd., Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine
Published June 3, 2019
Keywords
  • environmental management,
  • selection criteria,
  • Antarctic protected areas,
  • systematic conservation planning

Abstract

The Aim of this piece of research is to generalize the best practices of applying selection criteria, principles and priorities, identified under the legal regime of the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the development on scientific basis the ways of optimize the further expanding an effective and representative system of the Antarctic Protected Areas.

Methodology. The comparative legal method and method of interpretation of the legal norms for the analysis of international legal acts, which form the current environmental regime of the region, have been applied. Additional analysis of the reporting, working and informational materials submitted at the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, and their working body – the Committee on Environmental Protection, have been made.

Results. The definitions of the concept of protected areas in the international and regional contexts, the task and principles of spatial protection and management of the terrestrial and marine environment within the Antarctic Treaty Area are analyzed. The selection criteria of possible protected areas within different categories, as well as environmental risk assessment and feasibility criteria for assessment of possible protected areas are systematized as well. It is shown that further optimization of the development the protected areas network should be carried out by the mean of systematic conservation planning, which allows creating a comprehensive and scientific based regime of complementary areas of special protection and management with the provision of three key principles for area design – comprehensiveness, representativeness, and adequacy. The comprehensiveness means coverage of the both terrestrial and marine environments, as well as areas affected by anthropogenic impact and pristine areas. The representativeness is based on the results of environmental and biogeographical regionalization with the best available spatial data on regional biodiversity. Finally, the adequacy mean the designation the most appropriate category of the area meet the specified environmental objectives – from implementing strict protection, to the definition of multiple-use areas, or the spatial management of specific activities (e.g. fisheries or tourist activities) based on adaptive zoning tools, as well as ecosystem-based management.

Conclusions. Obtained conclusions and recommendations could be served as a ground for systematic conservation planning process of designation an effective and comprehensive system of spatial protection and management throughout the whole region of Ukrainian scientific interests in Antarctica.

References

  1. ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2000. Guidelines for implementation of the framework for protected areas set forth in Article 3, Annex V of the Environmental Protocol. Attachment to Resolution 1 (2000).
  2. ATCM. 2001. Systematic Environmental-Geographic Framework for Protected Areas Under Annex V of the Environmental Protocol. Working Paper WP-012 submitted by the New Zealand at the XXIV ATCM, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 09-20 Jul, 2001, 4 p.
  3. ATCM. 2005. A Review of the Antarctic Protected Areas System. Working Paper IP-011 submitted by New Zealand at the XXVIII ATCM, Stockholm, Sweden, 06-17 Jun, 2005, 3 p.
  4. ATCM. 2006a. Approaches to marine bioregionalisation for the Southern Ocean. Information Paper IP-006 submitted by the United Kingdom at the XXIX ATCM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 12-23 Jun, 2006, 13 p.
  5. ATCM. 2006b. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) - Tools for Protection and Management. Working Paper WP-004 submitted by the United Kingdom at the XXIX ATCM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 12-23 Jun, 2006, 6 p.
  6. ATCM. 2006c. Rationale for the development of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Antarctica. Information Paper IP-003 submitted by the United Kingdom at the XXIX ATCM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 12-23 Jun, 2006, 8 p.
  7. ATCM. 2006d. The work of CCAMLR on Marine Protected Areas. Working Paper IP-007 submitted by the CCAMLR at the XXIX ATCM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 12-23 Jun, 2006, 3 p.
  8. ATCM. 2007. Criteria for the selection of Marine Protected Areas. Information Paper IP-053 submitted by the United Kingdom at the XXX ATCM, New Delhi, India, 30 April - 11 May, 2007, 8 p.
  9. ATCM. 2007. Marine Protected Areas - Steps Forward for the ATCM. Information Paper IP-087 submitted by the ASOC at the XXX ATCM, New Delhi, India, 30 April -11 May, 2007, 6 p.
  10. ATCM. 2008. Proposed approach for the identification of important marine areas for conservation. Information Paper IP-003 submitted by the United Kingdom at the XXXI ATCM, Kyiv, Ukraine, 02-13 Jun, 2008, 7 p.
  11. ATCM. 2008. Workshop on Bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean (Brussels, Belgium, August 2007). Information Paper IP-002 submitted by the United Kingdom at the XXXI ATCM, Kyiv, Ukraine, 02-13 Jun, 2008, 10 p.
  12. ATCM. 2009. Spatial protection and management of Antarctic marine biodiversity. Working Paper WP-034 submitted by the United Kingdom at the XXXII ATCM, Baltimore, USA, 6 - 17 April, 2009, 12 p.
  13. ATCM. 2016. A Systematic Approach to Designating ASPAs and ASMAs. Information Paper IP-080 submitted by the ASOC at the XXXIX ATCM, Santiago, Chile, 23 May - 01 Jun, 2016, 7 p.
  14. Cowling R.M., Pressey R.L., Rouge, M. & Lombard A.T. 2003. A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot - the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation, 112: 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00425-1
  15. Dudley N. (ed.) 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. www.iucn.org/pa_categories. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en
  16. Fedchuk A. 2009. Structure of broad-scale management in the Vernadsky station area. Ukrainian Antarctic Journal. 8, 307-319. - in Ukrainian.
  17. Fedchuk A. 2012. The evolution of the Antarctic Treaty System: a structure and dynamics of the acts adopted for 1961-2011. Ukrainian Antarctic Journal. 10(11), 406-427. - in Ukrainian.
  18. Game E.T., and Grantham H.S. 2008. Marxan User Manual:For Marxan version 1.8.10. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, and Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  19. Harris C.M., Lorenz K., Fishpool L.D.C., Lascelles B., Cooper J., Croxall J.P., Emmerson L.M., Fijn R., Fraser W.L., Jouventin P., LaRue M.A., Le Maho Y., Lynch H.J., Naveen R., Patterson-Fraser D.L., Peter H.-U., Poncet S., Phillips R.A., Southwell C.J., van Franeker J.A., Weimerskirch H., Wienecke B., and Woehler E.J. 2015. Important Bird Areas in Antarctica 2015 Summary. BirdLife International and Environmental Research & Assessment Ltd., Cambridge.
  20. Hughes K.A., Ireland L.C., Convey P., Fleming A.H. 2016. Assessing the effectiveness of specially protected areas for conservation of Antarctica's botanical diversity. Cons. Biol., 30, 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12592.
  21. Hughes K.A., Pertierra L.R., Walton D.W. 2013. Area protection in Antarctica: How can conservation and scientific research goals be managed compatibly? Environmental Science & Policy. 31, 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.03.012
  22. Justine D., Shaw, J.D., Terauds, A., Riddle, M.J., Possingham, H.P., Chown, S.L. 2014. Antarctica's protected areas are inadequate, unrepresentative, and at risk. PLoS Biol., 12(6), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001888.
  23. Kelleher, G. (ed.). 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.1999.PAG.3
  24. Lombard, A.T., Reyers, B., Schonegevel, L.Y., Cooper, J., Smith-Adao, L.B., Nel, D.C., Froneman, P.W., Ansorge, I.J., Bester, M.N., Tosh, C.A., Strauss, T., Akkers, T., Gon, O., Leslie, R.W. and Chown, S.L. 2007. Conserving pattern and process in the Southern Ocean: designing a Marine Protected Area for the Prince Edward Islands. Antarctic Science ,19(1): 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102007000077.
  25. Margules, C.R., and Pressey, R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405: 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251
  26. Morgan F., Barker G., Briggs C., Price R., and Keys H. 2007. Environmental Domains of Antarctica Version 2.0. Final Report, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd, 89 pages.
  27. Terauds A., Chown S., Morgan F., Peat H., Watts D., Keys H., Convey P., and Bergstrom D. 2012. Conservation biogeography of the Antarctic. Diversity and Distributions, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00925.x.
  28. Tin T., Liggett D., Majer P.T., Lamers M. 2014. Antarctic futures: human engagement with the Antarctic environment. Springer, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6582-5.
  29. United Nations. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 Aug - 4 Sep 2002). United Nations, New York.