Suchergebnisse

This multi-disciplinary book will cater to students and those who want to have a more critical look behind the scenes of Antarctic science. This book will take a systems approach to providing insights into Antarctic ecosystems and the geophysical environment. Further, the book will link these insights to a discussion of current issues, such as climate change, bio prospecting, environmental management and Antarctic politics. It will be written and edited by experienced Antarctic researchers and scientists from a wide range of disciplines. Academic references will be included for those who wish to delve deeper into the topics discussed in the book.

Based on results of the 2010 Oslo Science Conference on the International Polar Year of 2077-2009, this book explores the broad-ranging consequences of a business-as-usual approach to the Antarctic environment, and surveys alternative plans of action.

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.

Antarctic terrestrial and marine environments are under increasing pressure from national operator activities, tourism and climate change. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty provides overarching legislation concerning the environmental management of the Treaty area, with 2016 marking the Protocol's 25th anniversary. The Protocol also established the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) to provide advice to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) on environmental matters. Today, the CEP's Five-Year Work Plan and Climate Change Response Work Programme lists and prioritises issues that need to be addressed to ensure impacts in Antarctica by human activities are both recognized andminimised.Despite all of this, recent evaluations have suggested that a slow pace of environmental policy development presents a significant threat to effective Antarctic conservation. Progress on many environmental issues, including wildlife disturbance, the conservation status of Antarctic species, area protection and pollution management, is glacial or has stalled completely. Whilst in some cases capacity issues concerning those responsible for Antarctic environmental policy work may be a contributing factor, the level of interaction between researchers and those responsible for environmental management and decision-making is also of importance. Without quality science - and effective interpretation of research results - policymakers have little evidence on which to base their decisions. But researchers need to know policymakers' needs. Two-way communication is essential: policymakers could ask the research community to answer specific environmental questions, and, in turn, researchers could present evidence-based recommendations and highlight emerging threats. But how is this to be funded? Ultimately, effective communication is needed between national government departments responsible for funding Antarctic research and those dealing with Antarctic environmental protection. Hopefully, this will ensure essential research informing environmental policy decisions is adequately resourced. In reality, the cost is likely to be trivial compared with the resources spent by Parties on Antarctic logistics.

Abstract
The polar regions are facing a wide range of compounding challenges, from climate change to increased human activity. Infrastructure, rescue services, and disaster response capabilities are limited in these remote environments. Relevant and usable weather, water, ice, and climate (WWIC) information is vital for safety, activity success, adaptation, and environmental protection. This has been a key focus for the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) Polar Prediction Project (PPP), and in particular its "Societal and Economic Research and Applications" (PPP-SERA) Task Team, which together over a decade have sought to understand polar WWIC information use in relation to operational needs, constraints, and decision contexts to inform the development of relevant services. To understand research progress and gaps on WWIC information use during the PPP (2013–23), we undertook a systematic bibliometric review of aligned scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles (n = 43), examining collaborations, topics, methods, and regional differences. Themes to emerge included activity and context, human factors, information needs, situational awareness, experience, local and Indigenous knowledge, and sharing of information. We observed an uneven representation of disciplinary backgrounds, geographic locations, research topics, and sectoral foci. Our review signifies an overall lack of Antarctic WWIC services research and a dominant focus on Arctic sea ice operations and risks. We noted with concern a mismatch between user needs and services provided. Our findings can help to improve WWIC services' dissemination, communication effectiveness, and actionable knowledge provision for users and guide future research as the critical need for salient weather services across the polar regions remains beyond the PPP.

Significance Statement
Every day, people in the Arctic and Antarctic use weather, water, ice, and climate information to plan and carry out outdoor activities and operations in a safe way. Despite advances in numerical weather prediction, technology, and product development, barriers to accessing and effectively communicating high-quality usable observations, forecasts, and actionable knowledge remain. Poorer services, prediction accuracy, and interpretation are exacerbated by a lack of integrated social science research on relevant topics and a mismatch between the services provided and user needs. As a result, continued user engagement, research focusing on information use, risk communication, decision-making processes, and the application of science for services remain highly relevant to reducing risks and improving safety for people living, visiting, and working in the polar regions.

International audience ; The Antarctic has significant environmental, scientific, historic, and intrinsic values, all of which are worth protecting into the future. Nevertheless, the area is subject to an increasing level and diversity of human activities that may impact these values within marine, terrestrial and cryosphere environments. Threats to the Antarctic environment, and to the aforementioned values, include climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and non-native species introductions. Over time, a suite of legally binding international agreements, which form part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), has been established to help safeguard the Antarctic environment and provide a framework for addressing the challenges arising from these threats. Foremost among these agreements are the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Many scientists working in Antarctica undertake research that is relevant to Antarctic environmental policy development. More effective two-way interaction between scientists and those responsible for policy development would further strengthen the governance framework, including by (a) better communication of policy makers' priorities and identification of related science requirements and (b) better provision by scientists of 'policy-ready' information on existing priorities, emerging issues and scientific/ technological advances relevant to environmental protection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has a long and successful record of summarizing policy-relevant scientific knowledge to policy makers, such as through its Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) up to 2002, currently the SCAR Standing Committee on the Antarctic Treaty System (SCATS) and recently through its involvement in the Antarctic Environments Portal. Improvements to science-policy communication mechanisms, combined with purposeful ...

International audience ; The Antarctic has significant environmental, scientific, historic, and intrinsic values, all of which are worth protecting into the future. Nevertheless, the area is subject to an increasing level and diversity of human activities that may impact these values within marine, terrestrial and cryosphere environments. Threats to the Antarctic environment, and to the aforementioned values, include climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and non-native species introductions. Over time, a suite of legally binding international agreements, which form part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), has been established to help safeguard the Antarctic environment and provide a framework for addressing the challenges arising from these threats. Foremost among these agreements are the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Many scientists working in Antarctica undertake research that is relevant to Antarctic environmental policy development. More effective two-way interaction between scientists and those responsible for policy development would further strengthen the governance framework, including by (a) better communication of policy makers' priorities and identification of related science requirements and (b) better provision by scientists of 'policy-ready' information on existing priorities, emerging issues and scientific/ technological advances relevant to environmental protection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has a long and successful record of summarizing policy-relevant scientific knowledge to policy makers, such as through its Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) up to 2002, currently the SCAR Standing Committee on the Antarctic Treaty System (SCATS) and recently through its involvement in the Antarctic Environments Portal. Improvements to science-policy communication mechanisms, combined with purposeful ...

International audience ; The Antarctic has significant environmental, scientific, historic, and intrinsic values, all of which are worth protecting into the future. Nevertheless, the area is subject to an increasing level and diversity of human activities that may impact these values within marine, terrestrial and cryosphere environments. Threats to the Antarctic environment, and to the aforementioned values, include climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and non-native species introductions. Over time, a suite of legally binding international agreements, which form part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), has been established to help safeguard the Antarctic environment and provide a framework for addressing the challenges arising from these threats. Foremost among these agreements are the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Many scientists working in Antarctica undertake research that is relevant to Antarctic environmental policy development. More effective two-way interaction between scientists and those responsible for policy development would further strengthen the governance framework, including by (a) better communication of policy makers' priorities and identification of related science requirements and (b) better provision by scientists of 'policy-ready' information on existing priorities, emerging issues and scientific/ technological advances relevant to environmental protection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has a long and successful record of summarizing policy-relevant scientific knowledge to policy makers, such as through its Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) up to 2002, currently the SCAR Standing Committee on the Antarctic Treaty System (SCATS) and recently through its involvement in the Antarctic Environments Portal. Improvements to science-policy communication mechanisms, combined with purposeful ...

The Antarctic has significant environmental, scientific, historic, and intrinsic values, all of which are worth protecting into the future. Nevertheless, the area is subject to an increasing level and diversity of human activities that may impact these values within marine, terrestrial and cryosphere environments. Threats to the Antarctic environment, and to the aforementioned values, include climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and non-native species introductions. Over time, a suite of legally binding international agreements, which form part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), has been established to help safeguard the Antarctic environment and provide a framework for addressing the challenges arising from these threats. Foremost among these agreements are the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Many scientists working in Antarctica undertake research that is relevant to Antarctic environmental policy development. More effective two-way interaction between scientists and those responsible for policy development would further strengthen the governance framework, including by (a) better communication of policy makers' priorities and identification of related science requirements and (b) better provision by scientists of 'policy-ready' information on existing priorities, emerging issues and scientific/technological advances relevant to environmental protection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has a long and successful record of summarizing policy-relevant scientific knowledge to policy makers, such as through its Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) up to 2002, currently the SCAR Standing Committee on the Antarctic Treaty System (SCATS) and recently through its involvement in the Antarctic Environments Portal. Improvements to science-policy communication mechanisms, combined with purposeful consideration of funding opportunities for policy-relevant science, would greatly enhance international policy development and protection of the Antarctic environment. ; Peer reviewed

The Antarctic has significant environmental, scientific, historic, and intrinsic values, all of which are worth protecting into the future. Nevertheless, the area is subject to an increasing level and diversity of human activities that may impact these values within marine, terrestrial and cryosphere environments. Threats to the Antarctic environment, and to the aforementioned values, include climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and non-native species introductions. Over time, a suite of legally binding international agreements, which form part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), has been established to help safeguard the Antarctic environment and provide a framework for addressing the challenges arising from these threats. Foremost among these agreements are the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Many scientists working in Antarctica undertake research that is relevant to Antarctic environmental policy development. More effective two-way interaction between scientists and those responsible for policy development would further strengthen the governance framework, including by (a) better communication of policy makers' priorities and identification of related science requirements and (b) better provision by scientists of 'policy-ready' information on existing priorities, emerging issues and scientific/technological advances relevant to environmental protection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has a long and successful record of summarizing policy-relevant scientific knowledge to policy makers, such as through its Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) up to 2002, currently the SCAR Standing Committee on the Antarctic Treaty System (SCATS) and recently through its involvement in the Antarctic Environments Portal. Improvements to science-policy communication mechanisms, combined with purposeful consideration of funding opportunities for policy-relevant science, would greatly enhance international policy development and protection of the Antarctic environment. ; KH is supported by UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) core-funding to the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). JCX is supported by the Investigator FCT program (IF/00616/2013) and had the support of 'Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia' (FCT), through the strategic project UID/MAR/04292/ 2013 granted to MARE. AW is a Research Associate of the Belgian Funds for Scientific Research – FNRS and acknowledges the support of the Belgian Science Policy Office for the CCAMBIO and MICROBIAN projects and her participation to the Belgian delegation in CEP

The polar regions provide valuable insights into the functioning of the Earth's regulating systems. Conducting field research in such harsh and remote environments requires strong international cooperation, extended planning horizons, sizable budgets and long-term investment. Consequently, polar research is particularly vulnerable to societal and economic pressures during periods of austerity. The global financial crisis of 2008, and the ensuing decade of economic slowdown, have already adversely affected polar research, and the current COVID-19 pandemic has added further pressure. In this article we present the outcomes of a community survey that aimed to assess the main barriers and success factors identified by academic researchers at all career stages in response to these global crises. The survey results indicate that the primary barriers faced by polar early and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) act at institutional level, while mitigating factors are developed at individual and group levels. Later career scientists report pressure toward taking early retirement as a means of institutions saving money, reducing both academic leadership and the often unrecognized but vital mentor roles that many play. Gender and social inequalities are also perceived as important barriers. Reorganization of institutional operations and more effective strategies for long-term capacity building and retaining of talent, along with reduction in non-research duties shouldered by EMCRs, would make important contributions toward ensuring continued vitality and innovation in the polar research community. ; BF received funding from the post-doctoral fellowships programme Beatriu de Pinós funded by the Secretary of Universities and Research (Government of Catalonia) and by the Horizon 2020 Programme of Research and Innovation of the European Union under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 801370 (Incorporation grant 2019 BP 00183) and the Juan de la Cierva Programme funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (Incorporation grant IJCI-2017-31478). PC and HJG were supported by NERC core funding to the BAS "Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation" Team. ; Peer reviewed

The view from the south is, more than ever, dominated by ominous signs of change. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are intrinsic to the Earth system, and their evolution is intertwined with and influences the course of the Anthropocene. In turn, changes in the Antarctic affect and presage humanity's future. Growing understanding is countering popular beliefs that Antarctica is pristine, stable, isolated, and reliably frozen. An aspirational roadmap for Antarctic science has facilitated research since 2014. A renewed commitment to gathering further knowledge will quicken the pace of understanding of Earth systems and beyond. Progress is already evident, such as addressing uncertainties in the causes and pace of ice loss and global sea-level rise. However, much remains to be learned. As an iconic global "commons," the rapidity of Antarctic change will provoke further political action. Antarctic research is more vital than ever to a sustainable future for this One Earth.