Global IssuesInternational OrganisationsAfricaAntarcticaNew Zealand and AntarcticaAntarctic Treaty SystemNew Zealand Procedures for Visitors to AntarcticaLegislationNZ Antarctic and Southern Ocean Science Directions and Priorities 2010 2020AsiaAustraliaEuropeLatin AmericaMiddle EastNorth AmericaPacific
Fundamental concerns with the process. There should have been wider involvement from the full Antarctic science community from the beginning of the process.
All Antarctic science organisations should have been surveyed to understand their current capacities and future opportunities as the first step in the strategic planning process. New Zealand’s logistics platforms that support science should also have been identified in this original step.
Antarctic science organisations should have been consulted on the setting of the key priorities in the document, to facilitate ‘buy-in’.
The Australian Strategy includes a fourth thematic domain “frontier science” that allows for internationally important science to be funded (which could be currently excluded if they don’t fit under one of the three domains in the existing Framework).
There is a need to explain how New Zealand’s current science has given New Zealand credibility in the Antarctic Treaty System in the document.
Generally supportive of the Framework and the priorities for research.
The Framework needs to give information that allows competing research proposals to be prioritised (given limited funds, the expense of polar research, and that the Framework is so broad)
There should be a clearer rationale provided as to why New Zealand should invest in Antarctic and Southern Ocean Science and what the research is expected to achieve (i.e. if it is about facilitating Government policy then the policies that the research should inform need to be outlined).
How does the funding relate to each of the three domains? (Even split between three?)
Given the context of limited resources, the Strategy needs to be clearer about whether funding will be given to a wide range of research at a low level or a more targeted range of research at a higher level (which is more useful, especially as science often requires repeated measurements taken over a number of years).
Changes to the ecosystem of the Ross Sea region in the period 2010-2020 may occur as a result of fishing as well as global change. The Strategy needs to reflect these two potential drivers of ecosystem change in the Southern Ocean.
Under each of the three domains it would be useful to identify the relative importance of strategic (to provide information and knowledge that contributes to the shaping of NZ policy), tactical (to provide information and knowledge that allows existing NZ strategy to be implemented more effectively) and informative (to improve our understanding of the world) research outcomes. Research on open marine systems of the Southern Ocean between 2010-2020 should be expected to contribute to the development and implementation of relevant New Zealand strategic policy.
It is not clear to what extent informative research (i.e. blue sky research) outcomes are valid in the proposed Framework.
There is too much focus on the importance of representativeness of a network of MPAs in the Ross Sea. Representativeness is only one of the four criteria identified by the 2005 CCAMLR MPA workshop on the designation of MPAs in the CCAMLR area. (Other criteria include: scientific areas to distinguish effects of harvesting and other activities from natural ecosystem changes, areas potentially vulnerable to human activities, the protection of spatially predictable features that are critical to function of local ecosystems.)top of page
ECO supports the three research domains.
It is important that the Framework covers all aspects of research undertaken or funded by government agencies including research into marine areas and any Ross Sea fisheries.
As a member of CCAMLR, and also as a participant in Antarctic toothfish fishery managed under CCAMLR, New Zealand has a responsibility to contribute to science which supports the management of fisheries in accordance with CCAMLR’s conservation principles, including monitoring the effects of fishing.
In addition to the Antarctic Treaty, Protocol and CCAMLR conventions there are a number of other international obligations to which this research is relevant to the Framework. New Zealand is a member of the Agreement on Conservation of Albatross and Petrels, International Whaling Commission, the Convention on Biodiversity, as well as the Montreal Protocol and the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.
There are a number of marine species that range between the New Zealand EEZ into Antarctic waters, including marine mammals, sea birds. A range of the species found in Antarctic waters are also found in the New Zealand EEZ including Patagonian toothfish.
The goal of protection should extend to include the marine realm and not be restricted to the inshore and the continent.
Research benefits include New Zealand’s input into the work of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, and the Montreal Protocol and Vienna Convention on ozone depleting substances.
The research provides information for the development and management of ASMAs and ASPAs in the region.
The research enables:
It is important that New Zealand keep the focus of marine research on better understanding the marine biodiversity in the Ross Sea region. The Ross Sea is an area of global significance and needs protection.
The Framework lacks a stated vision. The Framework needs to identify where stakeholders want to be in ten years time and who these stakeholders are. There is little evidence stakeholders have been engaged in the development of the Framework.
Another question not addressed in the Framework is, “where is New Zealand best placed to contribute to research advancement in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean?” Where do NZ’s strengths lie in research, facilities and logistics? Opportunities for Antarctic research also need to be identified.
Opportunities should be identified from scientific drivers and where Antarctic research is best placed to contribute and lead in a global sense, the potential funding opportunities, AntNZ’s ability to support activities, stakeholder interest and opportunities for international collaboration.
All funding sources need to be represented in the Framework (funding from government agencies and individual institutions) and their strategic interest in the Framework recognised.
The Framework also requires buy-in from the researchers, who must be committed to the vision of the strategy and its implementation plan. The Framework does not effectively detail how the various domains combine to contribute to an overarching vision. top of page
Before a Framework can be established a body needs to be created to oversee the development of a Science Plan and there needs to be an assessment of the current Antarctic capability.
New Zealand should consider the establishment of a body, such as the Australian Antarctic Science Advisory Committee (ASAC) to coordinate NZ science in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, which is currently managed in a piece-meal and uncoordinated way.
Developing a scientific programme does require consideration of the provision of logistical requirements (i.e. by AntNZ). Logistics resources will constrain what can effectively be done.
Before making decisions on what kind of science should be undertaken under the Framework, three things need to be considered:
Answering these questions will help define the kind of science that can reasonably be considered within a NZ framework. It’s important to take advantage of strengths that exist.
Within a unifying theme of Global Change, the draft Framework proposes a strong focus on outcomes that lie within Environmental topic areas. Geoscience research will be almost entirely restricted towards issues of climate change. Whereas GNS Science appreciates past support of its world renowned research programmes in this field, the newly proposed strategy falls short in recognising research on tectonic processes and older geological history.
Our concerns are principally that:
As a minimum, GNS Science recommends broadening the proposed Domain 1 to include the “lithosphere”, with an associated research goal that’s states: “improved understanding of the lithosphere and geological framework of the Ross Dependency.”
The Seafood Industry stakeholders broadly support the research goals of Domain 3 (Open Marine Systems). We support the goal of pursuing successful management of the Ross Sea tooth fish fishery in accordance with CCAMLR’s conservation principles and adopted conservation measures. However, there is no provision in the framework to take a scientific interest in Antarctica beyond the Ross Sea.
The Seafood Industry acknowledges the interest in establishing a representative network of MPAs and that fishing entails impacts on the environment. However fishing is undertaken to provide economic benefit. These benefits should be acknowledged.
Domain 3 suggests that once representative areas are established as refuge in the Ross Sea, wider national interests in the sustainable management of the Ross Sea would not be of significance, except as they would be addressed collectively through CCAMLR. WE doubt this would indeed be the outcome and suggest the scope of the outcome be widened to ensure that NZ’s national and Treaty-related interests are more fully addressed. top of page
The diagram illustrating how the high-level research domains overlap is unnecessary and creates confusion, particularly with respect to what science falls in the overlapping areas. The sizes of the various circles/shapes also create ambiguity with respect to resourcing and funding.
The term ‘domain’ should revert to ‘outcomes’, to avoid ambiguity with FORST’s usage of the term ‘outcome’.
Domains 2 and 3 have a Ross Sea regional focus and have similar goals and outcomes (the difference being that one domain focuses on terrestrial/coastal ecosystems and the other on marine ecosystems). The Domains should be combined into a single “Ecosystem Domain” covering both marine and terrestrial ecosystems.
Domain 1’s title should be changed to “Ocean, cryosphere, atmosphere: Improved understanding of the significance and implications of the role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in global change and implications of global change for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.”
Further minor textual suggestions.
Specific textual changes laid out in the submission.
The melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet should be specifically mentioned in Domain 1, give its potential impact on global sea level rise. The behaviour of floating sea ice also form an important understanding of the process contributing to loss of ice from the ice shelves, as will the changes in circulation and temperature of the Southern Ocean.
Coastal ecosystems should be moved from Domain 2 and placed in Domain 3 with Open Marine Ecosystems, reflecting the reality that the coastal marine ecosystems are part of a tightly integrated with the open marine systems addressed in Domain 3.
MAF supports the initiative to better understand anthropogenic threats such as the introduction of non-native species, tourism and other human activities to Antarctic flora and fauna (along with the impacts of global change)
Domain 3 (Open Marine Ecosystems) needs a similar point on understanding the threat of non-native species.
While the objectives of the Framework have merit, it is too narrowly focussed and constrains science in a way that’s inappropriate. The Framework focuses almost entirely on climate science, but excludes geology. Priorities for science may change over a 10 year period.
The Framework is focussed on the evidence for and understanding of climate and climate change, however by 2015 it’s likely the world would have reached consensus diplomatic action or inaction in response to a changing climate. Therefore further research into understanding climate will have little benefit. In the meantime, focus on other sciences like earth science would have been marginalised.
For example, the latest geophysical work in the western Ross Sea suggests a major boundary break which separates the northern and southern sectors. Further on-shore geology is necessary to understand the significance of this boundary. top of page
Strongly endorses the content and approach of the Framework, but it is lacking with respect to Research Infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure is vital to ensure the goals of the NZ Antarctic Programme can be attained. The current facilities (the Hatherton Lab and Wet Lab) are rudimentary.
Scott Base requires a scientific research facility that allows the analysis of samples on site. Those Programmes with Antarctic research laboratories shows that those with better facilities attract a broader and more sophisticated scientific interest. Science infrastructure is also required that can be used to execute modern science priorities.
At Scott Base a laboratory is recommend with a central region that houses basic services (centrifuge, freezers etc) and specialist rooms for microscopy, molecular work, controlled temperature, dark room etc.
The proposed Framework will serve New Zealand Antarctic science well into the next decade, and I applaud the inclusion of capacity building and international collaborations.
The assumption that all ‘blue skies’ research will be supported primarily by the Marsden Fund is limiting, as it has notoriously low success rates, and favours medium sized projects that last three years. There should be an establishment for a collaborative international basic Antarctic research programme that uses different criteria to the Marsden, and perhaps funds smaller projects for shorter periods of time to allow for quick response to extraordinary opportunities, mobility, capacity building and to foster international collaborations.
The Framework places the onus of outreach and science collaboration on scientists, who may not have the communication skills/time available to do this. A wiser route would be to develop a central Antarctic science outreach centre.
Currently the level of science funding for Antarctic research is too low to deliver the priorities of the document. To do this either Antarctica NZ should be given an allocation to fund research or the New Ministry of Science and Innovation be directed to establish an Antarctic research proposal.
The Framework should also include responsibilities that New Zealand has for research and its funding in the area of stewardship of the expedition bases associated with the first explorers of the Ross Sea region of Antarctica (both in terms of conservation science and fundamental/applied research).
The framework should consider Ocean Iron Fertilisation, given the possibilities to regenerate plankton which absorbs iron from the ocean and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and emit dimethyl sulphide that creates cloud nuclei to increase clouds above the polar oceans and lower the sun’s effects. There are also possible spin offs for fish stocks of ocean fertilisation. top of page
The focus of the document is on Antarctic science requiring logistics support from Antarctica New Zealand, rather than the wider range of multi-disciplinary research that is needed in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. The Framework should be broadened to include the human and social sciences (including Law and Policy studies) as they constitute important aspects of any robust multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research projects under the umbrella of global change.
With the exception of palaeo-climate research, geological research has been excluded from Domain 1 and Domain 2. The Ross Sea region contains at least 75 percent of the exposed rocks of Antarctica and they are the key to understanding the continent.
The Framework needs to be aligned with SCAR’s science strategy due in the next 12 months and so may need to be reviewed prior to December 2015.
The Framework should also include a clear statement that covers the inclusion of new, innovative research that may not necessarily fit into the Framework’s three domains but still may require support.
Specific textual comments.
With respect to the Unifying Theme “Global Change” the document states that “Antarctica provides a baseline from which change can be measured and understood…” This assumes we understand present day processes in Antarctica, which is not necessarily the case. For example knowledge of sea-ice thickness is still very poor across Antarctica.
Domain 1 focuses entirely on global change, without acknowledging any current lack of knowledge in the system. New wording could read: “Climate, Cryosphere, Atmosphere: Improved understanding of the role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in the global climate system, and implications for global change in Antarctica. The Research goals do seem to address the need to understand current processes.
There are many additional international networks outside SCAR.
Specific textual suggestions.
Specific textual suggestions
WWF welcomes the intention that a coherent strategy is developed to guide New Zealand Government agencies research in Antarctica for the next 10 years, and would simply like to highlight how important it is that the strategy is truly coherent.
Outside the Antarctic Treaty System it is important to realise other international commitments relevant to Antarctic science, including the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, the International Whaling Commission, the International Maritime Organisation, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
With respect to science that supports the management of the Ross Sea toothfish fishery, WWF proposes that this factor is broadened to ensure it encompasses the management of the fishery and also the wider ecosystem and the impact of fishing on it.
WWF supports the theme of global change, but there are other challenges to the future management of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, which could be reflected in a unifying theme (i.e. delivering ecosystem management in the context of global change).
The importance of developing strong national and international connects with science bodies and NGOs should be acknowledged.
Collaboration section should be broadened to refer to other national science programmes in the Ross Sea region.
top of page