Search

The Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) Final Summit What: One hundred eighty-seven scientists, stakeholders, and representatives from operational forecasting centers and international bodies assembled in person and online to review the accomplishments and impacts of YOPP and make recommendations on prediction-related priorities for future international polar research projects. Where: Montreal, Canada When: 29 August-1 September 2022.

The Polar Regions are undergoing rapid environmental change while simultaneously witnessing growth and diversification of human activity. These changes call for more responsive, detailed and specialized weather, water, ice and climate (WWIC) information services so that the risks related to human activities can be minimized. Drawn from an extensive literature review this article provides an examination of selected sectors and their uses of WWIC information services in order to offer an initial understanding of diverse environmental forecasting needs. Utilizing a mobilities perspective we provide a characterization of mobility in the Polar Regions to help contextualize current WWIC uses and needs. Using four illustrative case studies of polar mobilities (community activities; cruise tourism; shipping; and government and research operations) the article explores two broad questions: (1) How are mobilities characterized in the Polar Regions? (2) What is known about the role of WWIC information in Polar mobilities? The findings suggest an incongruence between the information provided and the ways in which WWIC information is both used and needed by various sectors. Knowledge gaps are outlined that suggest more efforts are needed to understand the highly complex set of interconnections between WWIC users, providers, mobilities and decision-making across the Polar Regions.

ObjectiveTo examine SARS-CoV-2 vaccine confidence, attitudes and intentions in Australian adults as part of the iCARE Study.Design and settingCross-sectional online survey conducted when free COVID-19 vaccinations first became available in Australia in February 2021.ParticipantsTotal of 1166 Australians from general population aged 18–90 years (mean 52, SD of 19).Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome: responses to question ‘If a vaccine for COVID-19 were available today, what is the likelihood that you would get vaccinated?’.Secondary outcome: analyses of putative drivers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status and sources of trust, derived from multiple survey questions.ResultsSeventy-eight per cent reported being likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Higher SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions were associated with: increasing age (OR: 2.01 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.77)), being male (1.37 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.72)), residing in least disadvantaged area quintile (2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.37)) and a self-perceived high risk of getting COVID-19 (1.52 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.14)). However, 72% did not believe they were at a high risk of getting COVID-19. Findings regarding vaccines in general were similar except there were no sex differences. For both the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and vaccines in general, there were no differences in intentions to vaccinate as a function of education level, perceived income level and rurality. Knowing that the vaccine is safe and effective and that getting vaccinated will protect others, trusting the company that made it and vaccination recommended by a doctor were reported to influence a large proportion of the study cohort to uptake the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Seventy-eight per cent reported the intent to continue engaging in virus-protecting behaviours (mask wearing, social distancing, etc) postvaccine.ConclusionsMost Australians are likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Key influencing factors identified (eg, knowing vaccine is safe and effective, and doctor’s recommendation to get vaccinated) can inform public health messaging to enhance vaccination rates.

Antarctic and Southern Ocean environments are facing increasing pressure from multiple threats. The Antarctic Treaty System regularly looks to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for the provision of independent and objective advice based on the best available science to support decision-making, policy development and effective environmental management. The recently approved SCAR Scientific Research Programme Ant-ICON - ‘Integrated Science to Inform Antarctic and Southern Ocean Conservation‘ - facilitates and coordinates high-quality transdisciplinary research to inform the conservation and management of Antarctica, the Southern Ocean and the sub-Antarctic in the context of current and future impacts. The work of Ant-ICON focuses on three research themes examining 1) the current state and future projections of Antarctic systems, species and functions, 2) human impacts and sustainability and 3) socio-ecological approaches to Antarctic and Southern Ocean conservation, and one synthesis theme that seeks to facilitate the provision of timely scientific advice to support effective Antarctic conservation. Research outputs will address the most pressing environmental challenges facing Antarctica and offer high-quality science to policy and advisory bodies including the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, the Committee for Environmental Protection and the Scientific Committee of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

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., 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 longterm 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., Secretary of Universities and Research (Government of Catalonia), Horizon 2020 Programme of Research and Innovation of the European Union under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 801370, Juan de la Cierva Programme funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (Incorporation grant IJCI-2017-31478), NERC core funding to the BAS “Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation” Team

A change of editors of the Conference Reports and Notes section in The Polar Journal coincides, unwittingly, with COVID-19 and the unravelling of so much that is familiar in our professional and pe...

The Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula have been warming at a higher rate than any other region in the world with profound environmental, socioeconomic and political consequences. The prospects of ...

Environmental conditions in Polar Regions are becoming more dynamic due to climate change. As sea ice melts, the range of human activities in Polar Regions are projected to increase, while weather conditions are becoming more extreme and unpredictable. Provision and use of weather, water, ice and climate (WWIC) information plays a key role in ensuring that polar activities are conducted as safely as possible and can contribute to a reduction of the environmental footprint of human activities. In this article, we explore the WWIC information provider landscape in a polar context, drawing on a database we compiled to characterize the diversity of providers. The database is built on available literature and on an extensive desk-based research of WWIC information provider websites. We analyse the 374 providers categorized by (a) institutional background (public vs private), (b) the position of the provider relative to activities in the WWIC information space, and (c) the users they serve. While governmental institutions have a strong presence in information provision, new types of providers are now entering the scene. Scientific actors seem to play a substantial role as users as well as major providers of WWIC information services.

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.

Nine cross-cutting issues which could foster or impede food and nutrition security are discussed. These are the concept of the right to food; gendering food security; land tenure; population growth pressure on land and water resources; empowerment and resilience through access to factors of production; food security governance; government capacity to formulate, implement, and institutionalize change and reform; food sovereignty; and climate change.

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

Situated to the south of New Zealand in the Southern Ocean are the New Zealand Subantarctic Islands, comprising the Auckland, Campbell, Antipodes, Snares and Bounty Islands. Sometimes referred to as the ‘Forgotten Islands’, these island groups are among the most remote and hostile within New Zealand waters. Yet, as they harbour some of the country’s most unique biodiversity and contain some of the world’s least modified landforms, they were recognized in 1998 with the designation of World Heritage Area status. It is not surprising therefore that the Islands have long appealed to visitors wishing to explore and understand the Islands’ rich natural and cultural environments. Typically, fare-paying tourists arrive by sea in small- to medium-sized expedition-style cruise vessels, although in recent years, the number of small vessels, such as yachts and sail boats, has increased. The most recent Conservation Management Strategy (2016) proposes developing and implementing a visitor monitoring programme to determine the effects of visitors on the natural and cultural environment, as well as on the visitor experience itself. However, there is only piecemeal data published on visitor numbers (especially since the mid-1990s) upon which to base visitor monitoring, and there is only limited evidence regarding the range of possible impacts visitors may have, including direct and indirect impact on wildlife, soils, and vegetation. In order to address this gap in knowledge, this case study draws on stakeholder interviews (n = 4), and a range of secondary sources (including visitor statistics from the Department of Conservation, tour operators and other published works) to provide an overview and update on visitation to the Islands, including site-specific data, an assessment of tourist impacts, and how impacts are currently monitored and managed.

Sustainable management of nature-based tourism sites is a pertinent issue in vulnerable Arctic environments. Arctic tourism operators often act collectively to protect their common interests of ensuring the sustainability of tourism sites. Nowadays, information and communication technology (ICT) is increasingly used to support these collaborative efforts, but the remoteness and risks associated with Arctic tourism operations challenge the success of such collective action. This study explores the use of ICT as a management tool for Arctic tourism sites to ensure their sustained quality. Drawing on a case study of an expedition cruise operators’ network in Svalbard, we explore how the use of ICT affects collective action and sustainable management of tourism sites. Our findings show that, through increased noticeability, the creation of artificial proximity and the development of new management practices, ICT can help to overcome the challenges for collective action that are posed by the Arctic environment. The use of ICT results in changes in a network’s relational and normative structures, which can as much add to as detract from the success of collective action. Our study indicates that the successful application of ICT depends on a high level of social capital, in particular norms, to guide interactions between ICT and network actors.

The Arctic is affected by global environmental change and also by diverse interests from many economic sectors and industries. Over the last decade, various actors have attempted to explore the options for setting up integrated and comprehensive trans-boundary systems for monitoring and observing these impacts. These Arctic Observation Systems (AOS) contribute to the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of environmental change and responsible social and economic development in the Arctic. The aim of this article is to identify the two-way relationship between AOS and tourism. On the one hand, tourism activities account for diverse changes across a broad spectrum of impact fields. On the other hand, due to its multiple and diverse agents and far-reaching activities, tourism is also well-positioned to collect observational data and participate as an actor in monitoring activities. To accomplish our goals, we provide an inventory of tourism-embedded issues and concerns of interest to AOS from a range of destinations in the circumpolar Arctic region, including Alaska, Arctic Canada, Iceland, Svalbard, the mainland European Arctic and Russia. The article also draws comparisons with the situation in Antarctica. On the basis of a collective analysis provided by members of the International Polar Tourism Research Network from across the polar regions, we conclude that the potential role for tourism in the development and implementation of AOS is significant and has been overlooked., Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research

Antarctic and Southern Ocean science is vital to understanding natural variability, the processes that govern global change and the role of humans in the Earth and climate system. The potential for new knowledge to be gained from future Antarctic science is substantial. Therefore, the international Antarctic community came together to ‘scan the horizon’ to identify the highest priority scientific questions that researchers should aspire to answer in the next two decades and beyond. Wide consultation was a fundamental principle for the development of a collective, international view of the most important future directions in Antarctic science. From the many possibilities, the horizon scan identified 80 key scientific questions through structured debate, discussion, revision and voting. Questions were clustered into seven topics: i) Antarctic atmosphere and global connections, ii) Southern Ocean and sea ice in a warming world, iii) ice sheet and sea level, iv) the dynamic Earth, v) life on the precipice, vi) near-Earth space and beyond, and vii) human presence in Antarctica. Answering the questions identified by the horizon scan will require innovative experimental designs, novel applications of technology, invention of next-generation field and laboratory approaches, and expanded observing systems and networks. Unbiased, non-contaminating procedures will be required to retrieve the requisite air, biota, sediment, rock, ice and water samples. Sustained year-round access to Antarctica and the Southern Ocean will be essential to increase winter-time measurements. Improved models are needed that represent Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in the Earth System, and provide predictions at spatial and temporal resolutions useful for decision making. A co-ordinated portfolio of cross-disciplinary science, based on new models of international collaboration, will be essential as no scientist, programme or nation can realize these aspirations alone.

The scope and intensity of human activity in the Antarctic region has changed considerably over the past 100 years, resulting in significant modifications to the Antarctic environment and its ecosystems, and to the institutional arrangements governing human activities. Since the nineteenth century, Antarctica has seen periods of heavy resource exploitation followed more latterly by swells of governmental scientific research programmes which have, in turn, led to a plethora of international agreements. By the end of the twentieth century, commercial tourism was also firmly established. Development in human engagement with the Antarctic environment has been accompanied by changes in human values, technologies and ways of thinking. This chapter sets the scene for the entire volume by providing a historical background on human activities, their management and their implications, which other chapters build upon. The purpose of this chapter is not to explore the full breadth of human activities, environmental impacts and governance arrangements in Antarctica. Rather, it aims to provide a contextual framework that can be used to anchor together the diverse subjects treated in the subsequent chapters.

The future scenarios developed by the contributors to this volume communicate a strong message. They concur that existing environmental management practices and the current system of governance are insufficient to meet the obligations set out under the Madrid Protocol to protect the Antarctic environment, let alone to address the challenges facing a warmer and busier Antarctic in the twenty-first century and beyond. However, not all is doom and gloom. A variety of environmental protection provisions have already been agreed. Reassertion and full compliance to their objectives, as well as wider use of existing environmental management tools (e.g. monitoring, information sharing, systematic designation of protected areas) can significantly increase the protection of the Antarctic environment. Notwithstanding, contentious and strategic issues need to be addressed urgently and proactively. Long-term and large-scale considerations need to permeate throughout all the steps of planning, decision making, implementation, enforcement, monitoring and compliance. Decisions should be guided by long-term visions and goals that are supported by genuine commitment from all actors. Multiple dimensions and perspectives of human engagement with the Antarctic environment (e.g. time, space, individual and collective values, ecosystems) need to be taken into consideration. Effective Antarctic environmental governance can only exist within the context of a stable and supportive governance regime that is invested with genuine political will and necessary resources. This ultimately depends on how much Antarctic Treaty Parties or, in fact, humankind in general, want to protect the Antarctic environment. The future of human engagement with the Antarctic environment draws on basic human values that underlie all decision making. We strongly recommend continued and coordinated studies into the values that different publics and Antarctic Treaty Party members actually associate with Antarctica and into how these values manifest themselves in human behaviour in Antarctica as well as in its governance. Finally, the Antarctic exists within a global context, and its environment cannot be protected through efforts within the Antarctic only. The sustainability of the Antarctic environment also depends on the preservation and broadening of agreed provisions within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), links between the ATS and other relevant global environmental agreements and global environmental initiatives.

The Antarctic Treaty System has established the strategic vision of Antarctica as a natural reserve, set aside for peace and science in the interest of all of humankind. However, the strategic focus that is implied by the notion of a stable, long-term institutional arrangement is not reflected in the system’s current operating rules and regulatory decisions. A combination of the growing human footprint, avoidance to deal with contentious issues, weaknesses in the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and lack of strategic thinking in the environmental management of the Antarctic region as a whole contribute to the accumulation of environmental impacts, the degradation of the once-pristine Antarctic environment and the attrition of Antarctica’s unique values. Experiences in the use of strategic thinking and strategic environmental assessment tools in and outside of Antarctica represent exemplars that can be adopted by stakeholders in an Antarctic setting and can be scaled up to the Antarctic region as a whole. A more strategic approach to environmental governance in Antarctica should consist of different components, including strategic thinking (resulting in visions, goals and action plans), planning, decision making (engaging decision makers to commit the necessary resources to implement decisions), implementation and monitoring (observing and reflecting on the effectiveness of actions). In view of growing global interests in Antarctic activities and resources and the loss of Antarctic exceptionalism, a more collective and structural approach to strategic governance is necessary to guarantee the future sustainability of the Antarctic region.