Time to share Antarctic stations and reform the treaty

Friday, 6 July 2018

OPINION: In December, China started building a research station on Inexpressible Island, 350 kilometres north of New Zealand's Scott Base.

Under the Antarctic Treaty System this should not have happened until the proposal had been considered at this year's Antarctic treaty meetings in May.

Such contraventions are not unusual. Indeed, the final decision on whether to start construction rests solely with the proposing country.

Antarctica is mostly pristine. Ice-free areas comprise about 0.3 per cent of a continent nearly twice the size of Australia. In these areas, the most obvious inhabitants are moss, lichen and algae. Their growth is very slow.

Although tough enough to survive a harsh environment, they are easily disturbed by humans. A footprint can obliterate a centuries-old lichen.

Life is richest within 5 kilometres of the coast. This is also where most research stations are found.

Sixty-nine of Antarctica's 76 stations are on ice-free areas. The South Shetland Islands under Argentina have 20 stations, all on small exposures of land. A similar proliferation is developing in the vicinity of Inexpressible Island.

Within 38 kilometres of China's new station are the German Gondwana​ station, the Italian Mario Zucchelli​ station and the South Korean Jang Bogo​ station. At the Italian station an aircraft runway over two kilometres long is planned. About 270,000 cubic metres of rock will be quarried for its construction.

The treaty requires nations pursuing such activities to submit a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation. Other nations can then suggest how to better protect the environment. Comments typically address electricity generation and waste disposal.

Environmental awareness has improved considerably over the last 40 years. However, impact increases with each new research station and runway. The treaty is able to encourage environmentally good practice around stations but only reform of the treaty will be able to limit their number.

There is also concern that science is not a main motive for some nations. Professor Anne-Marie Brady, a political scientist at University of Canterbury, translated Chinese language documents as saying their new station is at a location with 'resource potential'.

The treaty has a central focus of peaceful international co-operation in science. This undoubtedly occurs. There are large international programmes of essential science on climate change and marine ecology.

However, only at four locations does co-operation include sharing stations. The French-Italian Concordia​ station is on the ice plateau. Finland and Sweden share a mountain peak. The Netherlands and Germany each have a small laboratory within large stations of other nations.

More sharing of stations need not compromise research. Fewer stations might mean fewer scientists but this could be compensated by use of modern technologies to gather and transmit data.

A recent public event in Christchurch, Extreme Environments from Antarctica to Space, included presentations from leaders in the NZ technology and space industries. They enthusiastically described the potential for locally generated innovations to contribute to Antarctic science.

Science does not benefit from 20 stations in the South Shetland Islands. Likewise four stations are not needed in northern Victoria Land. One shared facility at the location most easily re-supplied would suffice.

On Ross Island, rebuilds are planned for both Scott Base and McMurdo Station. New Zealand and the US should share. That would encourage other nations to do likewise. Our environmental footprint would be reduced while still supporting the most important science.

❑ Dr Paul Broady was a teacher and researcher in the School of Biological Sciences at University of Canterbury with a particular interest in the ecology of life on land in Antarctica.