Photo: O. Sakharov Conservation challenges at Fildes Peninsula Hans‐Ulrich Peter 1 , Jan Esefeld 1 , Fritz Hertel 2 , Osama Mustafa 3 , Simone Pfeiffer 4 , Christina Braun 1 1 Polar & Bird Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, University of Jena, Germany 2 Federal Environment Agency, Dessau‐Rosslau, Germany 3 ThINK Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection, Jena, Germany 4 Section for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture and Forestry, University of Goettingen, Germany
Transcript
Phot
o: O
. Sak
haro
v
Conservation challengesat Fildes Peninsula
Hans‐Ulrich Peter1, Jan Esefeld1, Fritz Hertel2, Osama Mustafa3, Simone Pfeiffer4,Christina Braun1
1 Polar & Bird Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, University of Jena, Germany2 Federal Environment Agency, Dessau‐Rosslau, Germany
3 ThINK Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection, Jena, Germany4 Section for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture and Forestry, University of Goettingen, Germany
IntroductionStudy area
• Southwestern part of King George Island• Intensively used for scientific, logistic and
tourism‐related activities
Introduction
Fildes Peninsula‐ King George Island ‐
58 58‘ W, 62 12‘ SProjection & Coordinates:
UTM (Zone 21 E)
Dart Island
Two Summit Island
Ardley Island
Nebles Point
Marsh (CHL)
Ripamonti Base (CHL)Ballve (ARG)
Ripamonti Refuge (CHL)
Great Wall (CHN)
Priroda (RUS)
Artigas (URU)
Bellingshausen (RUS)
Frei (CHL)
Escudero (CHL) Estación Marítima Antárctica (CHL)
Nation Station name Open sinceChile Estación Marítima
Antárctica1987
year‐round since 2005
Chile Escudero 1994
Chile Frei & Marsh 1969
China Great Wall 1985
Russia Bellingshausen 1968
Uruguay Artigas 1984
Source: COMNAP Antarctic Facilities List 2014, Antarctic Treaty Electronic Information Exchange System
Study area
• Populated since 1968• Six stations, several field huts• Runway turns the area into a
logistic hub for inter and intra‐continental flighs
• Western Maxwell Bay asgateway for ships and yachts
Adelie Penguin 307 ‐ 559 ↓
Chinstrap Penguin 8 ‐ 29
(~ 70 Drake coast)
↓
Gentoo Penguin 4429 ‐ 6417 ↑
South. Giant Petrel 225 ‐ 407 ± 0
Light‐mantled Sooty Albatross 0 ‐ 5 ± 0
Cape Petrel ≈ 70 ‐ 450
Wilson’s Storm Petrel ~ 3500 ‐ 5000 ± 0
Blackbellied Storm Petrel ~ 500 ‐1000 ± 0
Lesser Sheathbill 1 ‐ 2 ± 0
Brown Skua 27 ‐ 85 ± 0
South Polar Skua 12 ‐ 254 ↑
Mixed / Hybrid Skua Pairs 2‐32 / 0 ‐ 24 ± 0
Kelp Gull 50 ‐ 139 ± 0
Antarctic Tern <100 ‐ 900 ↓
Breeding pair number of birds and their trends(seasons 2003/04-2005/06 & 2008/09-2013/14)
ResultsBreeding birds
Breeding site of four seal species andthirteen bird species
Introduction
2 Antarctic Specially Protected Areas
Study area
No. 150 Ardley Island
No. 125 Fildes Peninsula:
rich fossil deposits
high species diversity of
fauna & flora
Introduction
4 Historic Sites and Monuments (HSM) commemorating historic events
Large concentration of historical/archaeological sites dating from the 1820s
Study area
IntroductionConflict of interests
Fildes paradigm
OutlineData collection
b) Assessment of the current impact of station logistic, scientific activities, leisure activities of station members to certain indicator species (fauna and flora)
a) Survey of numbers and distribution of flora and fauna
c) Assessment of the current environmental impact of tourist activities to certain indicator species (fauna and flora)
e) Evaluation of current and expected environmental risks (e.g. by cumulative effects or non‐native species)
d) Assessment of the current environmental impact of tourist activities to certain indicator species (fauna and flora)
• Human impact research since 2003/04: risk assessment
• Recent research to provide an update of dataset and to point out new developmentsc
Significant trends in breeding pair numbers of three sympatric Pygoscelid penguins
Southern giant petrel (SGP) = highly sensitive to noise and disturbance
Giant petrel populationBreeding birds
monitoring data since 1979/80stable population
but
striking variations betweenvarious sub‐colonies
South
East
North
South‐east
SGP breeding sites (pooled into 4 groups) showed clear response to construction of new station in the 1980s through nest site shift.
Giant petrel populationBreeding birds
Season
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Bre
edin
g pa
ir nu
mbe
r
0
50
100
150
200
Season
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Bree
ding
pai
r num
ber
0
50
100
150
200
Season
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Bre
edin
g pa
ir nu
mbe
r
0
50
100
150
200
Season
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Bred
ing
pair
num
ber
0
50
100
150
200
East
• New changes in breeding pair numbers in the last decade
• Significant decrease of giant petrel breeding success since 1979/80
• Changes not attributable solely to environmental conditions as adjacent sub‐colonies were unequally affected
• Areas frequently visited during summer by station members showed greater declines
• Slight increase in non‐visited areas nest site shift
Giant petrel populationBreeding birds
Season1980 1990 2000 2010
Chi
cks/
Pai
r (%
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
R2 = 0.38, p = 0,01
SGP as indicator of human disturbance
ResultsSea traffic
• Strong increase of ship arrivals (mean: 77 ship arrivals per season, max.: 102)
• On average ship activity on 75 % of days of the study period
• Increasing proportion of cruise vessels offering air‐cruise programs
Season
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/102010/112011/122012/132013/14
Num
ber o
f shi
p ar
rival
s
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Proportion of ship days (%)
20
40
60
80
100
MiscellaneousPatrol vesselSupply vesselResearch vesselCruise vesselYacht Ship days (%)
study period:10 December – 26 February = 79 daysno data for 2006/07 & 2007/08
ResultsSea traffic
• Intensive ship and yacht traffic lead to various risks for the environment and human safety
• Example = sinking of a private yacht in April 2012 (risk of an oil spill in a sensitive area) and yacht recovery in January 2013 (huge logistic and manpower effort).
Foto: R. Eliseev
Foto: R. Eliseev
ResultsSea traffic
• on average on 62 % of ship days with more than one ship per day (max.: 85 %)• often connected with flight activity
Cumulative effects
Season
2003
/0420
04/05
2005
/0620
06/07
2007
/0820
08/09
2009
/1020
10/11
2011
/1220
12/13
2013
/14
Freq
uenc
y in
day
s
0
10
20
30
401 Ship per day 2 Ships per day 3 Ships per day 4 Ships per day 5 Ships per day 6 Ships per day 7 Ships per day
study period:10 December – 26 February = 79 daysno data for 2006/07 & 2007/08
Increasing accumulation of ship activities(mainly logistic operations and passenger transfers)
Crabeater seal injured by Zodiac propeller
ResultsAir traffic
• In total no increase in number of days with aircraft activity (mean 68 % days of the study period )
• Helicopter ↓, Hercules C‐130 ↑, private company DAP ↑
study period:10 December – 26 February = 79 daysno data for 2006/07 & 2007/08
ResultsAir traffic
study period:10 December – 26 February = 79 daysno data for 2006/07 & 2007/08
• on average on 67 % of aircraft days with more than one aircraft operation per day
• often connected with ship activity (tourist transfer)Cumulative effects
Season
2003
/0420
04/05
2005
/0620
06/07
2007
/0820
08/09
2009
/1020
10/11
2011
/1220
12/13
2013
/14
Num
ber o
f day
s
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 Aircraft per day2 Aircrafts per day3 Aircrafts per day4 Aircrafts per day 5 Aircrafts per day6 Aircrafts per day7 Aircrafts per day8 Aircrafts per day
Increasing accumulation of aircraft activities)
Resolution 2 (2004) XXVII ATCM:Guidelines for Aircraft near concentrations of birds: minimum vertical distance: ~ 610 m above bird coloniesminimum horizontal distance: 200 ft (~ 610 m) from bird colonies, 1/4 nautical mile (~ 460 m)from the coastline
season 2004/05
ASPA No. 150
ResultsAir traffic near Ardley Island
Low overflights over Ardley Island were common in the past.
Penguin colony
Hercules C‐130
ResultsAir traffic near Ardley Island
* Twin Otter, Beechcraft King Air A‐100, Dash‐7,BAE 146, Basler BT‐67, DC‐3, etc.
Season
2003
/0420
04/05
2005
/0620
06/07
2007
/0820
08/09
2009
/1020
10/11
2011
/1220
12/13
2013
/14Num
ber o
f Ard
ley
over
fligh
ts/a
ppro
ache
s
0
20
40
60
80Helicopter Smaller airplanes *Hercules C-130
• Significant reduction of aircraft use near Ardley Island (ASPA No. 150: penguin & southern giant petrel colonies)
• Suspected reason: increased acceptance and implementation of the guidelines
study period:10 December – 26 February = 79 daysno data for 2006/07 & 2007/08
Observed shortcomings: ‐ Open waste deposits & Open waste burning‐ Land fill of waste‐ Active feeding of birds‐ Open discharge of organic waste
Decay of building and research installationsEnduring distribution of waste
ResultsStation extensions
Great Wall Station
Stations Frei, Escudero, Est. Marítima
Bellingshausen Station
Artigas Station
Station extensions in the last decade lead to an increased number of station members≈ 120 in winter (+ 30 %)> 300 in summer (+25 %)
ResultsConstruction activities
Negative environmental impacts, mainly caused by the extractionof construction material.
• Damage of beach ridges of high scientific value
• Damage of vegetation
• Damage of breeding grounds of seabirds
• Disturbance of resting seals
Increase of vehicle use beyond the existing road net (esp. by Quads bikes) causing vegetation damage and disturbance of birds
ResultsHuman activities
Leisure activities of station members
excursions into sensitive areas (fishing, barbecue)“sunday visits” to Ardley Island (ASPA No. 150)
ResultsHuman activities
Not in compliance with ASPA Management Plan (Ardley Island)crossing areas with dense vegetation, bird breeding sites (skuas, terns)disturbance of animals (e.g. chasing, touching, catching)
Results
Alarming lack of knowledge of code of conducts andlegally binding regulations like the ASPA Management Plans!
Human activities
Wide range of tourism and other activities, still expanding!sea‐borne tourism (only station visits or short guided walks) air‐borne tourism (guided walks)air‐sea‐borne tourism (cruise ship passenger exchange)adrenalin sport activities (basejumping, kiting, surfing)Manager Training Wharton University, Pennsylvania, USA (guided walks, camping)Marathon (4 events scheduled for 2014/15)educational programsmedia teamsgovernmental delegationsprivate use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
Conclusions
• Notable improvements:− reduction of very low overflights over protected or sensitive areas− waste collection and removal− installation of up‐to‐date sewage treatment plants
• Still existing environmental shortcomings:− waste management (dumping of organic material, open waste deposits, open waste burning, land fill)
− fuel and oil handling− insufficient reaction after a larger oil spill− vehicle traffic beyond the road net vegetation damage−material extraction for construction activities damage of vegetation, bird breeding sites and beach ridges
− leisure activities affecting breeding birds, seals and vegetation− lack of knowledge of station members regarding existing guidelines to protectfauna and flora (even of ASPA Management Plans)
− tourists without guidance and knowledge about existing regulations− relatively low scientific and logistic co‐operation and coordination
Human activities
If no additional management measures will be applied, the expected environmental risk will probably increase further.
ConclusionsManagement
Fauna index Visitor indexConflict potential
Zoning recommended as a visitor management tool
Overlay of seabird monitoring data and visitor observations to detect conflict zones
Boundary corners62 14 26 S ‐ 62 08 16 S58 50 36 W ‐ 59 02 45 W
Area62.5 km2
Proposal by Germany (2007):Antarctic Specially Managed AreaFildes Peninsula Region
Boundary of 1/4 nautical mile (~ 460 m) from the coastline according to the recommendation ofWorking Paper on Guidelines for the Operation of Aircraft near Concentrations of Birds in AntarcticaXXVII ATCM, Cape Town, 2004
ConclusionsManagement
CEP: International Working Groupabout Possibilities for Environmental Management of Fildes Peninsula Region
Proposals:‐ Designation of ASMA FildesPeninsula Region‐ Implementation of spatialzoning system
ConclusionsManagement
No agreement upon anyimproved management
• Implementation of a general Fildes Peninsula Region Code of Coduct,suppl. by C. o. C. for Facility Zones, C. o. C. for Scientific Research and C. o. C. for Visitors
• Establishment of a Management Group− implementation of management guidelines− coordination of ASPA visits− organization of meetings
• National Antarctic Programs ensure briefing of station personnel about the requirementsof the Management Plan and supplemental documents
• Tour operators ensure briefing of visitors about the requirements of theManagement Plan and supplemental documents
• Harmonization/ improvement of contingency plans for station emergencies,oil spills, etc. recommended
Further possible activities to improve area protection and management :
Management Conclusions
Acknowledgements:
• J. Krietsch, U. Grünewald, T. Guetter, T. Herrmann, T. Kahl, S. Janowski, A. Nordt, A. Nordt, M.C.-Rümmler, M. Stelter
• all members of the Fildes stations
Foto: Sakharov
Thank you for your attention!
Peter, H.‐U., Buesser, C., Mustafa, O. & Pfeiffer, S. (2008): Risk assessment for the Fildes Peninsula and Ardley Island, anddevelopment of management plans for their designation as Specially Protected or Specially Managed Areas:(http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/3478.pdf)
Braun, C., Mustafa, O., et al. (2012): Environmental Monitoring and Management Proposals for the Fildes Region (KingGeorge Island, Antarctica). Polar Research 31, 18206.
Braun, C. & Lüdecke, C. (2012): Fildes Peninsula – A Place of Threatened Historic Sites. Presented at: IPHC Conference"Conservation Challenges, Solutions and Collaboration Opportunities in Uncontrolled Environments", Hobart,International Polar Heritage Committee:http://www.polarheritage.com/content/library/Cornelia_Luedecke_Brau_IPHC_2012.pdf.
Peter, H.‐U., Braun, C., Janowski, S., Nordt, A., Nordt, A., Stelter, M. (2013): The current environmental situation andproposals for the management of the Fildes Peninsula Region:http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/461/publikationen/4424.pdf
