The Polar Retrospective – Chemical pollutants in Antarctica raise questions
The Polar Retrospective looks at stories of the past week that are related to the Arctic and Antarctic and focuses on one or more aspects. This time it is the pollution of the Antarctic by harmful substances, which was discussed at an international workshop in Siena, raising many questions but providing few answers. Nevertheless, it can be seen as a first success.
“The last untouched wilderness on Earth” is one of the slogans that polar travel operators very often use to advertise Antarctica, followed by images that underscore this slogan: seemingly unspoilt snowy and icy landscapes in a symphony of white and blue hues, with individual touches of colour. Not a single soul and none of the problems we know of, such as environmental pollution.
Contemporary problem in historic halls
But the international scientists who gathered last week in the halls of the University of Siena, which are over 800 years old, paint a different picture of Antarctica: PFAS, PCBs, POPs, CFCs, PAHs, endocrine disruptors, mercury, microplastics and much more in Antarctic soils, waters, animals and plants. The often invisible messengers of human civilization have also reached this part of the world, and not just recently, most likely for quite some time.
Organized by the German Federal Environment Agency, the Helmholtz Centre Hereon and the Universities of Genoa and Siena, several dozen experts presented both on site and online the latest findings on the topic of pollutants in the Antarctic. However, it was not just about drawing up a list of where which pollutants have been discovered and in what concentrations. Rather, questions were raised about how to deal with the situation. A situation that has existed for a long time and which a few researchers have been warning about for decades, yet the extent of which has only been recognized in the last few years thanks to new technologies and methods. The bottom line: no specific answers were found, but at least insights into the direction that action should and must take.
SCAR ImPACT POLEMP
The subject is not really new. Wherever humans create infrastructure, numerous opportunities for the introduction of pollutants automatically arise. For the Antarctic, these were and are primarily stations and means of transport. That is why long-term monitoring measurements had been set up at some stations. But for most of the Antarctic, it was assumed that, on the one hand, the Antartic Convergence serves as a barrier and, on the other hand, the size of the Southern Ocean and the areas create a kind of dilution factor, meaning that effects would hardly occur.
But thanks to technical developments, these assumptions were refuted and suddenly it was recognized that even low levels of pollutants can have a major impact on organisms. In addition, new types of pollutants were discovered, such as PFAS, which make headlines as “eternal pollutants”; or flame retardants, which were actually designed to protect stations and people from the greatest danger in Antarctica, namely fire.
This led to an ever-increasing awareness of the problem. A highlight of international efforts was the “Berlin Declaration”, in which a 10-point plan was published on how to tackle pollution in polar regions. For the Antarctic, monitoring and measurement programs such as SCAR ImPACT, an action group of 19 countries within SCAR (Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research) for the monitoring and investigation of POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants), were established. Or, under the leadership of the German Federal Environment Agency, the POLEMP project, which aims to develop a comprehensive concept for monitoring and recording pollution in the Antarctic. In addition to German research institutions, Italy, Australia and above all China are also involved in POLEMP.
Southeast Asian interest
These two projects in particular show the great potential for genuine international cooperation. In addition to numerous European countries, South American and Asian countries are also represented in SCAR ImPACT. And at the workshop in Siena, many participants originated from South Korea and China, who presented their research and measurement programs. This shows how serious these countries are regarding the issue of pollution and its impact on the environment. One example is China, which presented the results of ten years of measurements at the Great Wall Station on King George Island, which showed that pollution is not only caused by the station’s infrastructure, but that transport by air from much more distant regions such as South America also makes a significant contribution.
Other ways in which the unwanted, yet ubiquitous substances reach Antarctica are less surprising. At the top of the list are vessels and planes, which bring tens of thousands of visitors, staff and other people into the white wilderness every year. Despite compliance with protection protocols and many measures, harmful substances hitchhike into the Antarctic ecosystems. This raises the question of how to prevent this type of input: Stopping tourism flows, banning expeditions and the associated transportations?
Questions upon questions and no answers (yet)
This was just one of the questions discussed by the experts in the venerable hall in Siena. Other questions that arose during the two days included how to coordinate international research efforts on this topic and integrate them more closely with Antarctic research; what pollutants should be studied at all; and whether research protocols should be harmonized to make data comparable. This issue also raised the question of how the data should be stored (how, where and under whose control). Other issues discussed included the effects and toxicity of these substances to organisms, which organisms should be studied, where are the baseline values, and what should be the measurement points for chronic and acute effects and exposures. And, of course, the question of how climate change affects pollution in Antarctica is an ongoing concern.
However, in addition to the practical and science policy aspects, the way in which the findings should be handled and how they should be communicated to whom was also discussed in detail. Opening up to the various stakeholders and, above all, the general public was considered essential, as solutions can only be developed through cooperation between politics, society, business and science.
Ultimately, it became clear that despite the exciting and wide-ranging contributions and discussions, the workshop could not provide answers. The topic is simply too complex and far-reaching. But if the 800-year-old walls of the University of Siena and other academic institutions have taught us anything, it’s that big problems need to be broken down into many small problems so that we can work together to find answers and solutions. This also applies to the invisible threat of POPs, PFAS, PCBs, PAHs, CFCs to the “last pristine wilderness on Earth”.
Dr. Michael Wenger, Polar Journal AG
Link to the SCAR ImPACT website
Link to the POLEMP website
More on the subject
