Suchergebnisse

To date, Antarctica is the only continent to have escaped the COVID-19 pandemic. This was facilitated by the continent's isolation and low human presence, combined with the global emergence of the pandemic at the end of the Antarctic summer season and the rapid action of those national governmental operators and other actors still active on and around the continent during the early phases of the outbreak. Here, we consider the implications of the pandemic for Antarctic governance, national operator logistics, science, tourism and the fishing industry, as well as for Antarctic environmental protection. Global disruption will result in a temporary decrease in human activity in Antarctica, in turn leading to a reduction in environmental impacts for a period, but also a reduced capacity to respond to environmental incidents. Given the diversity of transmission routes and vectors, preventing the introduction of the virus will be difficult, even with stringent quarantine procedures in place, and the risks and implications of virus transmission to Antarctic wildlife are largely unknown. With control of the pandemic a major global challenge, international cooperation will be essential if Antarctica is to remain free of coronavirus.

The introduction of non-native species to Antarctica in association with human activities is a major threat to indigenous biodiversity and the region's unique ecosystems, as has been well-demonstrated in other ecosystems globally. Existing legislation contained in the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty does not specifically make the eradication of non-native species mandatory, although it is implicit that human-assisted introductions should not take place. Furthermore, to date, eradications of non-native species in the Treaty area have been infrequent and slow to progress. In 2005 an additional Annex (VI) to the Protocol was agreed concerning "Liability arising from environmental emergencies." This annex focusses on prevention of environmental emergencies, contingency planning and reclaiming costs incurred when responding to an environmental emergency caused by another operator within the Antarctic Treaty area. However, the types of environmental emergencies covered by the annex are not defined. In this paper we highlight potential difficulties with the application of Annex VI in the context of non-native species control and eradication, including, for example, whether a non-native species introduction would be classified as an "environmental emergency" and therefore be considered under the terms of the annex. Even if this were the case, we conclude that the slow pace of approval of the annex by Antarctic Treaty Parties may prevent it coming into force for many years and, once in force, in its current form it is unlikely to be useful for reclaiming costs associated with the eradication or management of a non-native species.Keywords: Liability Annex; non-native species; Environmental Protocol; Antarctic Treaty area; eradication; environmental emergency(Published: 12 May 2014)To access the supplementary material for this article, please see Supplementary files in the column to the right (under Article Tools).Citation: Polar Research 2014, 33, 22103, ...

The introduction of non-native species to Antarctica in association with human activities is a major threat to indigenous biodiversity and the region's unique ecosystems, as has been well-demonstrated in other ecosystems globally. Existing legislation contained in the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty does not specifically make the eradication of non-native species mandatory, although it is implicit that human-assisted introductions should not take place. Furthermore, to date, eradications of non-native species in the Treaty area have been infrequent and slow to progress. In 2005 an additional Annex (VI) to the Protocol was agreed concerning "Liability arising from environmental emergencies." This annex focusses on prevention of environmental emergencies, contingency planning and reclaiming costs incurred when responding to an environmental emergency caused by another operator within the Antarctic Treaty area. However, the types of environmental emergencies covered by the annex are not defined. In this paper we highlight potential difficulties with the application of Annex VI in the context of non-native species control and eradication, including, for example, whether a non-native species introduction would be classified as an "environmental emergency" and therefore be considered under the terms of the annex. Even if this were the case, we conclude that the slow pace of approval of the annex by Antarctic Treaty Parties may prevent it coming into force for many years and, once in force, in its current form it is unlikely to be useful for reclaiming costs associated with the eradication or management of a non-native species.

Antarctica's terrestrial ecosystems are vulnerable to impacts resulting from climate change and local human activities. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) provides for the designation of protected areas through the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Unsystematic use of agreed management tools, including Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), has resulted in a protected area system lacking representation across the full range of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems and Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) methods provide established mechanisms to fulfil ATS protected area designation goals. However, how would a continent-wide ASPA system be delivered should appropriate sites be identified using SCP or other methods? Although the rate of area protection has slowed recently, we show that newer Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty are increasingly active as ASPA proponents and may have scope for further engagement with protected area management activities. Furthermore, all 16 ACBRs were found to be within the operational footprint of at least two Parties, indicating that this current logistical footprint could support the implementation and management of a continent-wide ASPA system. Effective management of a representative Antarctic protected areas system could be delivered through greater participation by those Parties with currently more limited protected area management responsibilities and greater use of remote-sensing technologies for protected area monitoring, where appropriate. Crucially, political will to implement an ASPA system identified through SCP approaches may be greater once a pragmatic means of delivery and effective management has been identified.

Antarctic non-native species legislation is contained within the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, with 2016 marking the 25th anniversary of its adoption. We take this opportunity to evaluate the Antarctic Treaty signatory Parties' collective development and implementation of non-native species policy. In general, scientific and policy outputs have increased in the past decade. However, data detailing Parties' current implementation of biosecurity practices are not readily available. Little widespread, internationally coordinated or systematic monitoring of non-native species establishment has occurred, but available data suggest that establishment of non-native micro-invertebrates may be greatly underestimated. Several recent small-scale plant eradications have been successful, although larger-scale eradications present a greater challenge due to seed bank formation. Invertebrate establishment within research station buildings presents an increasing problem, with mixed eradication success to date. The opportunity now exists to build on earlier successes, such as the 'CEP Non-native Species Manual', towards the development of a comprehensive response strategy based upon the principles of prevention, monitoring and response, and applicable to all Antarctic environments. To help facilitate this we identify areas requiring further research and policy development, such as to reduce anthropogenic transfer of indigenous Antarctic species between distinct biogeographic regions, avoid microbial contamination of pristine areas and limit introduction of non-native marine species. A response protocol is proposed for use following the discovery of a potential non-native species within the Antarctica Treaty area, which includes recommendations concerning Parties' initial response and any subsequent eradication or control measures.

More than 1,000 species of fungi have been reported from the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic region. Most are species known from elsewhere in the world, particularly from cool temperate and alpine habitats: few are considered truly endemic to the Antarctic region. Several legislative mechanisms are available that could be used to protect or conserve the Antarctic mycota. These include national legislation within the sub-Antarctic islands, and the Measures and Decisions of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting which have jurisdiction within the Antarctic Treaty area south of latitude 60° S.

United inwardly by love : Augustine's social ontology / Phillip Cary -- Truthfulness as the bond of society / Robert P. Kennedy -- Friendship as personal, social, and theological virtue in Augustine / Kim Paffenroth -- Freedom beyond our choosing : Augustine on the will and its objects / David C. Schindler -- Between the two cities : political action in Augustine of Hippo / Robert Dodaro -- Democracy and its demons / Michael Hanby -- Local politics : the political place of the household in Augustine's City of God / Kevin L. Hughes -- Augustine and the politics of monasticism / Thomas F. Martin -- The glory and tragedy of politics / Thomas W. Smith -- Toward a contemporary Augustinian understanding of politics / Todd Breyfogle -- Sexual purity, "the faithful," and religious reform in eleventh-century Italy : Donatism revisted / Louis I. Hamilton -- The enchanted city of man : the State and the market in Augustinian perspective / Eugene McCarraher -- Machiavelli's City of God : civic humanism and Augustinian terror / Paul R. Wright

Antarctica is experiencing significant ecological and environmental change, which may facilitate the establishment of non‐native marine species. Non‐native marine species will interact with other anthropogenic stressors affecting Antarctic ecosystems, such as climate change (warming, ocean acidification) and pollution, with irreversible ramifications for biodiversity and ecosystem services. We review current knowledge of non‐native marine species in the Antarctic region, the physical and physiological factors that resist establishment of non‐native marine species, changes to resistance under climate change, the role of legislation in limiting marine introductions, and the effect of increasing human activity on vectors and pathways of introduction. Evidence of non‐native marine species is limited: just four marine non‐native and one cryptogenic species that were likely introduced anthropogenically have been reported freely living in Antarctic or sub‐Antarctic waters, but no established populations have been reported; an additional six species have been observed in pathways to Antarctica that are potentially at risk of becoming invasive. We present estimates of the intensity of ship activity across fishing, tourism and research sectors: there may be approximately 180 vessels and 500+ voyages in Antarctic waters annually. However, these estimates are necessarily speculative because relevant data are scarce. To facilitate well‐informed policy and management, we make recommendations for future research into the likelihood of marine biological invasions in the Antarctic region.

Antarctica currently has few non-native species, compared to other regions of the planet, due to the continent's isolation, extreme climatic conditions and the lack of habitat. However, human activity, particularly the activities of national government operators and tourism, increasingly contributes to the risk of non-native species transfer and establishment. Trichocera (Saltitrichocera) maculipennis Meigen, 1888 (Diptera, Trichoceridae) is a non-native fly originating from the Northern Hemisphere that was unintentionally introduced to King George Island in the maritime Antarctic South Shetland Islands around 15 years ago, since when it has been reported within or in the vicinity of several research stations. It is not explicitly confirmed that T. maculipennis has established in the natural environment, but life-history characteristics make this likely, thereby making potential eradication or control a challenge. Antarctic Treaty Parties active in the region are developing a coordinated and expanding international response to monitor and control T. maculipennis within and around stations in the affected area. However, there remains no overarching non-native invasive species management plan for the island or the wider maritime Antarctic region (which shares similar environmental conditions and habitats to those of King George Island). Here we present some options towards the development of such a plan. We recommend the development of (1) clear mechanisms for the timely coordination of response activities by multiple Parties operating in the vicinity of the introduction location and (2) policy guidance on acceptable levels of environmental impacts resulting from eradication attempts in the natural environment, including the use of pesticides.

Until recently the Antarctic continent and Peninsula have been little impacted by non-native species, compared to other regions of the Earth. However, reports of species introductions are increasing as awareness of biological invasions as a major conservation threat, within the context of increased human activities and climate change scenarios, has grown within the Antarctic community. Given the recent increase in documented reports, here we provide an up-to-date inventory of known terrestrial non-native species introductions, including those subsequently removed since the 1990s, within the Antarctic Treaty area. This builds on earlier syntheses of records published in the mid-2000s, which focused largely on the sub-Antarctic islands, given the dearth of literature available at that time from the continental and maritime Antarctic regions. Reports of non-native species established in the natural environment (i.e. non-synanthropic) are mainly located within the Antarctic Peninsula region and Scotia Arc, with Deception Island, South Shetland Islands, the most impacted area. Non-native plants have generally been removed from sites of introduction, but no established invertebrates have yet been subject to any eradication attempt, despite a recent increase in reports. Legislation within the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty has not kept pace with environmental best practice, potentially presenting difficulties for the practical aspects of non-native species control and eradication. The success of any eradication attempt may be affected by management practices and the biology of the target species under polar conditions. Practical management action is only likely to succeed with greater co-operation and improved communication and engagement by nations and industries operating in the region.

AbstractAntarctica currently has few non-native species, compared to other regions of the planet, due to the continent's isolation, extreme climatic conditions and the lack of habitat. However, human activity, particularly the activities of national government operators and tourism, increasingly contributes to the risk of non-native species transfer and establishment. Trichocera (Saltitrichocera) maculipennis Meigen, 1888 (Diptera, Trichoceridae) is a non-native fly originating from the Northern Hemisphere that was unintentionally introduced to King George Island in the maritime Antarctic South Shetland Islands around 15 years ago, since when it has been reported within or in the vicinity of several research stations. It is not explicitly confirmed that T. maculipennis has established in the natural environment, but life-history characteristics make this likely, thereby making potential eradication or control a challenge. Antarctic Treaty Parties active in the region are developing a coordinated and expanding international response to monitor and control T. maculipennis within and around stations in the affected area. However, there remains no overarching non-native invasive species management plan for the island or the wider maritime Antarctic region (which shares similar environmental conditions and habitats to those of King George Island). Here we present some options towards the development of such a plan. We recommend the development of (1) clear mechanisms for the timely coordination of response activities by multiple Parties operating in the vicinity of the introduction location and (2) policy guidance on acceptable levels of environmental impacts resulting from eradication attempts in the natural environment, including the use of pesticides.

Antarctica currently has few non-native species, compared to other regions of the planet, due to the continent's isolation, extreme climatic conditions and the lack of habitat. However, human activity, particularly the activities of national government operators and tourism, increasingly contributes to the risk of non-native species transfer and establishment. Trichocera (Saltitrichocera) maculipennis Meigen, 1888 (Diptera, Trichoceridae) is a non-native fly originating from the Northern Hemisphere that was unintentionally introduced to King George Island in the maritime Antarctic South Shetland Islands around 15 years ago, since when it has been reported within or in the vicinity of several research stations. It is not explicitly confirmed that T. maculipennis has established in the natural environment, but life-history characteristics make this likely, thereby making potential eradication or control a challenge. Antarctic Treaty Parties active in the region are developing a coordinated and expanding international response to monitor and control T. maculipennis within and around stations in the affected area. However, there remains no overarching non-native invasive species management plan for the island or the wider maritime Antarctic region (which shares similar environmental conditions and habitats to those of King George Island). Here we present some options towards the development of such a plan. We recommend the development of (1) clear mechanisms for the timely coordination of response activities by multiple Parties operating in the vicinity of the introduction location and (2) policy guidance on acceptable levels of environmental impacts resulting from eradication attempts in the natural environment, including the use of pesticides.

Biodiversity conservation is a main goal of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Policy should be based on the best scientific data available, and policy-makers are eager to have access to up-to-date and high quality information. Scientists are on the frontline to gather relevant data, though their primary aim is to publish in international refereed journals. However, once the data, and resulting information, have been scrutinized and quality-checked during the review process, their usefulness for policy-making should be also considered as they may have the potential to inform conservation measures or document processes affecting biodiversity.