IP (number)
Agenda Item:
CEP 7d
Presented by:
ASOC
Original:
English
Evolution of Footprint:
Spatial and Temporal Dimensions of
Human Activities
1
IP (number)
Summary1
“Footprint” refers to the spatial extent of impacts left by human activities and their outputs at a particular
point in time; “evolution of footprint” also captures the temporal change to the dimensions of human
activities and outputs. The acceptance and the widespread use of the concept of footprint is essential in
quantifying the impacts of human activities and their effects on Antarctica’s, and the Southern Ocean’s,
tangible and intangible values. The concept of footprint has been discussed since the first meeting of the
Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) and the topic has received more detailed consideration as
part of the Committee’s strategic planning carried out since the mid-2000s. It is an accepted concept that
needs to be applied more rigorously in order to help the CEP in addressing the increasingly complex aspects
of a growing human presence in the Antarctic.
1.
Why Talk About Footprint?
The Antarctic environment is subject to diverse human impacts on local, regional and global scales. The first
sealing activities in the Southern Ocean started in the late 1700s, followed by whaling and fishing, all of
which seriously depleted target species and altered ecosystems. Humans first set foot on the Antarctic islands
in the early 1800s and the first overwinter stay occurred in 1899 (Headland, 2009). Prior to that, it can be
assumed that there was no human footprint in the Antarctic, as the region and its values were unaffected by
human activities. Over the years, humans have altered landscapes and introduced foreign materials, alien
species, and contaminants (e.g. Blanchette et al., 2004; Kennicutt et al., 2010).
The concept of footprint has been discussed since the first meeting of the CEP and the topic has received
more detailed consideration as part of the Committee’s strategic planning carried out since the mid 2000s
(Australia, 2010). The documentation of how the human footprint has evolved has been considered as useful
for a number of purposes. Such information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
“Can provide background information for future planning and data needed for status and trend
analysis” (United States, 1998).
Contributes towards addressing cumulative impact issues (United States, 2003; IAATO, 2007;
SCAR, 2008).
Can be used as an environmental monitoring indicator to assess pressure on aesthetic values,
including “physiognomy of the environment, silence, and perception of beauty and the untouchable”
(Brazil, 2007).
Can contribute towards “identifying regions at highest risk of non-native species introductions”
(United Kingdom, 2010).
Can contribute towards “informing the future designation of protected areas” (United Kingdom,
2010).
Is important to inform future science programs as to where science values may have been affected by
past human activity (Annex III, Art. 8 (3)2).
What is Footprint?
Australia produced a topic summary on footprint at CEP XIII (IP 48). Based on a review of CEP meeting
reports and meeting papers, the paper concluded that most past discussions have offered definitions of the
term “footprint” in terms of national program activities. Within the context of national program activities, the
1
Lead authors Dr. T. Tin, R. Summerson, and Dr. R. Roura. ASOC acknowledges Rupert Summerson of University of
Melbourne and Tina Tin for initiating the discussion for this paper.
2
“Each such Party shall, as far as is practicable, also prepare an inventory of locations of past activities (such as
traverses, fuel depots, field bases, crashed aircraft) before the information is lost, so that such locations can be taken
into account in planning future scientific programmes (such as snow chemistry, pollutants in lichens or ice core
drilling).” Only a few Parties have reported on their work inventorying such locations e.g. Germany (1999, 2000).
3
IP (number)
analysis found that “most references appear to consider footprint as a measure of the spatial extent of
physical disturbance” (see also Jabour, 2009). The “Practical Guidelines for Developing and Designing
Environmental Monitoring Programmes in Antarctica” developed by COMNAP (2005) provided a clear and
concise description of footprint, as:
Area subject to human activity, e.g. spatial coverage of buildings and associated impact
including roads, pipes etc; number and location of field expeditions.
These Guidelines also identified “footprint” as a potential indicator for use in monitoring programmes in
Antarctica.
Outside the context of national program activities, ASOC (2008) used the concept of footprint in the
discussion of tourism issues combining the concepts of the area visited by tourists and the residence time in
the Antarctic Treaty Area:
Area subject to human activity, e.g. tourist visits.
Human residence time in the Antarctic Treaty Area, defined in person-days.
The first description contains information about the spatial dimension at a particular point in time (but also,
implicitly, a temporal dimension as defined by e.g. “permanent” infrastructure). The second description
contains information about both the spatial and temporal dimensions.
These definitions, thus far, have addressed just the impacts of human presence on the Antarctic land; as
noted below, footprint also applies to impacts at sea around Antarctica.
3.
“Footprint” in the context of existing terminologies
The topic summary on footprint highlights the fact that the term “footprint” has been used since the first CEP
meeting in 1998. Meanwhile there have been few definitions or discussions of the substance of the term.
Discussions at CEP XIII highlighted possible overlaps of the term “footprint” with other terms already in use
in the CEP’s EIA Guidelines (CEP XIII final report, para 241). Here, we explore the different terminologies
and attempt to reach a harmonization and a better understanding of the different terms.
According to the COMNAP EIA guidelines, “an output is a physical change (e.g. movement of sediments by
vehicle passage, noise) or an entity (e.g. emissions, an introduced species) imposed on or released to the
environment as the result of an action or an activity.” Examples include “emissions, dust, mechanical action
on substrate, fuel spills, noise, light, electromagnetic radiation, wastes, heat, introductions of alien species”.
The guidelines further noted that “the geographical spread of an output has to be accurately estimated in
order to determine to what extent the environment is exposed”.
Footprint, as defined as “an area subject to human activity” (COMNAP, 2005) is related to the concept of
output, and can be considered as:
The geographical spread of outputs.
As “an area subject to human activity” and a representation of “the geographical spread of outputs”,
footprint, by that definition, captures the spatial dimension of human activities and their outputs. The
evolution of footprint through time, on the other hand, captures both the spatial and temporal dimensions of
human activities. A full appreciation of the spatial and temporal dimensions of human activities and their
outputs is very useful in environmental management since they may be linked to actual or potential exposure
of the environment to human activities, and eventual environmental impacts. It will become increasingly
4
IP (number)
crucial as human activity continues to increase, diversify and intensify in the Antarctic in the 21st century,
and different tools need to be adopted to adequately manage increasingly complex situations.
4.
Case studies of research on human footprint in the Antarctic
4.1
McMurdo Station (USA)
The environmental monitoring program at McMurdo station included the monitoring of how the station
footprint evolved through time (United States, 2008). Researchers documented the evolution of the aerial
extent of the area impacted by the station itself (excluding ancillary facilities in the area) through aerial
photographs and satellite imagery. Their results showed that the station expanded rapidly in spatial extent
during its first decade (from 1956 to the 1960s). After that, the station continued to expand but at a much
decreased rate. The current station footprint lies predominantly within areas that have been in use since the
first 10-15 years of the station’s operations. This information has been considered useful as “a baseline from
which future changes in the spatial extent of areas impacted by human activities can be monitored” (Klein et
al., 2008). In addition, a regular reassessment of the station footprint is considered to be desirable, and can be
used to address management questions (United States, 2008).
4.2
Marambio Station (Argentina)
The terminology of footprint was not used in the environmental review of Marambio Station published in
1998. However, this environmental review serves as an early example of how information on the natural
environment and human activities were superposed on maps to provide pictures of the location and extent of
impacted areas and how this information was then used to support management decisions (Agraz et al.,
1998). The environmental variables of geology, drainage system and vegetation were superposed on top of
information on buildings, roads, waste deposits, fuel accumulation, effluent discharge and ice accumulation
against structures. The analysis identified a number of environmental impacts resulting from the rapid,
unplanned expansion of the station. It also proposed guidelines in land use planning, redesign of the road
system and zoning, etc. in order to coordinate the planning of the future evolution of the station.
4.3
World Park Base (Greenpeace)
A footprint study was carried at the former Greenpeace base site, located at Cape Evans, Ross Island,
Antarctica with a focus on the monitoring and remediation of hydrocarbon contamination (Roura, 2004).
The base was built at a site where previously stood the base of a private expedition between 1984 and 1986.
World Park Base operated year-round between 1987 and 1991 and was entirely removed in 1991–1992.
Increased levels of hydrocarbons occurred in sediments nearby the base as a result of very minor spills,
including possibly from fuel spills predating Greenpeace activities. Hydrocarbon distribution was highly
localised and largely contained in the active layer. Low impact, low technology remedial action applied at
some sites removed a significant percentage of fuel in the active layer, thus reducing hydrocarbon
concentrations and the potential for secondary effects. In some locations within the site hydrocarbon
concentrations are likely to be detectable for the longer term. However, visual traces of human activity
disappeared within a few seasons: opportunistic visual examination of the site from the late 1990s to the late
2000s indicated that there are virtually no traces of past human activity (Roura, 2011). The site is now a
designated helicopter landing pad for visitors to the adjacent ASPA 155 containing the historic Terra Nova
hut (Measure 2, 2005). More recently the site has been used as a campsite by the Antarctic Heritage Trust.
These more recent activities contribute to further cumulative impacts and to a lasting, and possibly
expanding, footprint over that site (Roura, in prep.).
4.4
British activities in the Antarctic Peninsula region
At CEP XIII, the UK presented WP 23 “Assessing cumulative environmental impacts: identifying the
distribution and concentration of national operator activities in Antarctica”. Researchers gathered
information on the positions and dates of ground-based field activities that have taken place in the vicinity of
ice-free areas and plotted this information on maps. They also plotted the location of logistic infrastructure
and field activities. The footprint of logistic infrastructure is more long-term, while the footprint of field
activities is more short-term (or transitory). This information has been identified as being useful for (i)
identifying areas at potential risk of cumulative environmental impact, (ii) identifying regions at highest risk
of non-native species introductions, (iii) revealing impact-free areas that may be preserved for future science,
and (iv) informing the future designation of protected areas.
5
IP (number)
4.5
Antarctic tourism and the polar cultural heritage
Historic sites in the Polar Regions represent the footprint of earlier activities in those regions. Some of these
sites are protected by legislation, and some are subject to modification by later activities. Roura (2011)
described and interpreted the effects of tourism on historic sites in Antarctica and other polar locations. The
basic concepts of this research are applicable to other kinds of polar sites where tourism takes place as well
as to other activities in the Polar Regions. Research methods included site surveys, ethnographic
observations, and repeat photography. Tourism behaviour consists largely of a basic repertoire of actions
that may result in interactions between tourists, and historic sites (or individual features thereof). The
tourism “footprint” that derives from these interactions consists of an assemblage of behavioural traces of
erosion or accumulation, which develop on different temporal, spatial, and behavioural scales, and which
modify the traces of earlier activities. At a local level, the footprint of tourism is defined by a tourist activity
area that is superimposed over a historic activity area – the two areas are not necessarily identical. Traces of
tourism can be ephemeral; however, some traces may recur over consecutive years and be, in a sense,
permanent. Other traces – such as paths and the occurrence of artefacts that have broken or removed from
the site – are longer lasting or permanent. In general terms the relative importance of historic site decay by
effect of natural processes is greater than the disturbance caused by tourist behaviour. However, tourism has
the potential to diminish the archaeological value of historic sites and to accelerate the ongoing decay caused
by various natural and cultural processes (other than tourism) that affect historic sites.
4.6
Footprint of fishing activities
The term “fishing footprint” is sometimes used to refer to areas that are being or have been fished. This
information is inferred from catch data or management information (e.g., Penney et al., 2009; Martin-Smith,
2009). It can also be seen in the response of an ecosystem to the depletion of target species, as documented
for the Southern Ocean in the case of baleen whales (Laws 1977, Ballance et al. 2006) or the depletion of
demersal fish (Barrera-Oro et al. 2000, Ainley and Blight 2009, Baum and Worm 2009). Indeed, the
CCAMLR treaty was formulated in anticipation, and fear, of the ‘footprint’ that the impending fishery for
Antarctic krill would leave on the Southern Ocean ecosystem.
Fishing, depending on technology used, can also leave a physical footprint. This is evident in the impressions
on the seafloor left by fishing gear and can be recorded using underwater cameras. The deployment of
fishing gear, especially that associated with bottom trawling and long lining, often results in physical
disruption of the seafloor, ripping from the substrate and damaging sessile fauna, such as cold-water corals,
and destroying fish habitat on the tops of banks and seamounts (Pitcher et al., 2010). Recently, researchers
from the Australian Antarctic Division attached cameras to the bottom of benthic trawling gear that they
lowered into the Southern Ocean. The cameras brought back images of widespread long straight furrows on
the seafloor, possibly gouged by bottom longlines set to catch Patagonian toothfish
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/20/2903890.htm). Fear of the impact to long-lived benthic
communities, some in place for thousands of years, undisturbed, has led CCAMLR to invoke several
Conservation Measures to protect Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (e.g. CM 22-08 prohibiting long lines in
waters <550m).
5.
Conclusions
In the context of national program activities in the Antarctic, the concept of “footprint” has most often been
used to refer to “an area subject to human activity”. In EIA terminology, footprint can also be understood as
the geographical spread of “outputs”. Footprint captures the spatial dimension of human activities and their
outputs. Human activities have not only a spatial dimension but also a temporal dimension; together they
define the evolution of footprint through time, which can expand or contract, and be more or less lasting
depending on the case. Human footprint in the Antarctic can be measured and quantified using objective
standardized methods. Recent examples from McMurdo station and UK activities in the Antarctic Peninsula
region demonstrate the feasibility of documenting the evolution of footprint of Antarctic research activities.
They also highlight the utility of such information, some of which should be collected by Parties in
compliance with Annex III, Art. 8 (3) of the Protocol.
The overall footprint of Antarctic activities has been receiving increasing consideration in CEP’s
deliberations as a significant and present environmental pressure, which is likely to persist into the future. As
6
IP (number)
part of its strategic initiatives, ASOC encourages the CEP to strongly promote: (i) the documentation and
monitoring of the evolution of human footprint through time, (ii) the availability of data that would allow
such monitoring to be feasible, and (iii) the consideration of this information in decisionmaking. A clear
overview of the human footprint and its evolution through time is essential in order to be able to address
long-term, large-scale strategic issues and to ensure long-term protection of Antarctica’s tangible as well as
intrinsic values, as required by the Protocol.
6.
References
Ainley, D.G. and Blight, L.K. 2009. Ecological repercussions of historical fish extraction from the Southern
Ocean. Fish and Fisheries 10: 13-38.
Agraz, J., Sánchez, R.A., Rinaldi, C.A. and Acero, J.M. 1998. Environmental review of the Argentine
activities at Marambio Station. ATCM XXII / CEP I, IP 49.
ASOC. 2008. A decade of Antarctic tourism: status, change, and actions needed. ATCM XXXI / CEP XI, IP
41.
Australia. 2010. Topic summary: footprint. ATCM XXXIII / CEP XIII, IP 48.
Ballance, L., Pitman, R.L., Hewitt, R.P., Siniff, D.B., Trivelpiece, W.Z., Clapham, P.J. and Brownell, R.L.,
Jr. 2006. The removal of large whales from the Southern Ocean: evidence for long-term ecosystem
effects? In: Whales, Whaling and Ocean Ecosystems (eds J.A. Estes, D.P. Demaster, D.F. Doak, T.E.
Williams and R.L. Brownell, Jr). University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 215–230.
Barrera-Oro, E.R., Marschoff, E.R. and Casaux, R.J. 2000. Trends in relative abundance of fjord Notothenia
rossii, Gobionotothen gibberifrons and Notothenia coriiceps at Potter Cove, South Shetland Islands,
after commercial fishing in the area. CCAMLR Science 7: 43–52.
Baum, J.K. and Worm, B. 2009. Cascading top-down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances.
Journal of Animal Ecology doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01531.x
Blanchette, R.A.; Held, B.W.; Jurgens J.A.; Aislabie J; Duncan, S.M.; & Farrell, R.L. (2004). Environmental
pollutants from the Scott and Shackleton expeditions during the ‘Heroic Age’ of Antarctic exploration.
Polar Record 40 (213). 143–151.
Brazil. 2007. A monitoring programme for the Admiralty Bay Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA
No. 1). ATCM XXX / CEP X, IP 111.
COMNAP. 2005. Practical guidelines for developing and designing environmental monitoring programmes
in Antarctica. ATCM XXVIII / CEP VIII, WP 26.
Germany (1999): Inventory of locations of past scientific activities of Germany in Antarctica. ATCM XXIII,
IP031.
Germany (2000): Inventory of location of past scientific activities of Germany in Antarctica - ongoing
studies. SATCM XII, IP 4.
Headland, R.K. 2009. A chronology of Antarctic exploration. A synopsis of events and activities until the
International Polar Years, 2007-2009. Bernard Quaritch, 716pp.
IAATO. 2007. IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism 2006-2007 Antarctic season. ATCM XXX CEP X, IP
121.
Jabour, J. (2009). National Antarctic Programs and their impact on the environment. In K.R. Kerry & M.J.
Riddle (Eds.). Health of Antarctic wildlife: A challenge for science and policy (pp. 211-230). Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer.
Kennicutt, M.C., Klein, A., Montagna, P., Sweet, S., Wade, T., Palmer, T., Sericano, J. and Denoux, G.
2010. Temporal and spatial patterns of anthropogenic disturbance at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.
Environmental Research Letters, 5 034010 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034010.
Klein, A.G., Kennicutt, M.C., Wolff, G.A., Sweet, S.T., Bloxom, T., Gielstra, D.A. and Cleckley, M. 2008.
The historical development of McMurdo station, Antarctica, an environmental perspective. Polar
Geography, 31(3-4), 119-144.
Laws, R.M. 1977. The significance of vertebrates in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. In: Adaptations within
Antarctic Ecosystem (ed. G.A. Llano). Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, pp. 411–438.
Martin-Smith, K. 2009. A risk-management framework for avoiding significant adverse impacts of bottom
fishing gear on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. CCAMLR Science 16: 177-193.
Penney, A.J., Parker, S.J. and Brown J.H. 2009. Protection measures implemented by New Zealand for
vulnerable marine ecosystems in the South Pacific Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 341354.
7
IP (number)
Pitcher, T.J., Clark, M.R., Morato, T. and Watson. R. 2010. Seamount fisheries: do they have a future?
Oceanography 23(1): 134-144.
Roura, R.M. 2004. Monitoring and remediation of hydrocarbon contamination at the former site of
Greenpeace’s World Park Base, Cape Evans, Ross Island, Antarctica. Polar Record 40 (212), 51-67.
Roura, R.M. 2011. The footprint of tourism. Tourist behaviour at cultural heritage sites in Antarctica and
Svalbard. Doctoral thesis. Circumpolar Studies 7. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of
Groningen, Arctic Centre.
Roura, R.M. (in prep): Disturbance and at recovery the former site of Greenpeace’s World Park Base, Cape
Evans, Ross Island, Antarctica.
SCAR. 2008. International Polar Year 2007-2008 Planning Document: 2008 and beyond. ATCM XXXI /
CEP XI, IP 59.
United Kingdom. 2010. Assessing cumulative environmental impacts: identifying the distribution and
concentration of national operator activities in Antarctica. ATCM XXXIII / CEP XIII, WP 23.
United States. 2008. Monitoring of human impacts at McMurdo station, Antarctica. ATCM XXXI / CEP XI,
IP 122.
United States. 2003. Final report from the Intersessional Contact Group on cumulative environmental
impacts. ATCM XXVI / CEP VI, WP 6.
United States. 1998. Developing an environmental monitoring program – a work in progress. ATCM XXII /
CEP I, IP 34.
8