Shaun Brooks and Julia Jabour* say Australia’s plan to build a concrete runway in Antarctica will damage the country’s reputation as an environmental leader on the continent.
Australia wants to build a 2.7-kilometre concrete runway in Antarctica. The plan, if approved, would have the largest footprint of any project in the continent’s history.
The runway is part of an aerodrome to be constructed near Davis Station, one of Australia’s three permanent bases in Antarctica.
It would be the first concrete runway on the continent.
The plan is subject to Federal environmental approval.
It coincides with new research showing Antarctica’s wild places need better protection.
The area around Davis Station is possibly Antarctica’s most significant coastal, ice-free area.
It features unique lakes, fjords, fossil sites and wildlife.
Australia has successfully operated the station since 1957 with existing transport arrangements.
While the development may win Australia some strategic influence in Antarctica, it’s at odds with our strong history of environmental leadership there.
The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) argues the runway would allow year-round aviation access between Hobart and Antarctica.
Presently, the only Australian flights to Antarctica take place at the beginning and end of summer.
Aircraft land at an aerodrome near the Casey research station, with interconnecting flights to other stations and sites.
The stations are inaccessible by both air and ship in winter.
The AAD says year-round access to Antarctica would provide significant science benefits.
These include better understanding of sea level rise and other climate change impacts; opportunities to study wildlife across the annual lifecycle, and allowing scientists to research through winter.
Leading international scientists had called for improved, environmentally-responsible access to Antarctica.
However, the aerodrome project is likely to reduce access for scientists for years, due to the need to house construction workers.
Australia has traditionally been considered an environmental leader in Antarctica.
For example, in 1989 under the Hawke Government, it urged the world to abandon a mining convention in favour of a new deal to ban mining on the continent.
Australia’s 20-year Action Plan promotes “leadership in environmental stewardship in Antarctica”, pledging to “minimise the environmental impact of Australia’s activities”.
The aerodrome proposal appears at odds with that goal.
It would cover 2.2 square kilometres, increasing the total ‘disturbance footprint’ of all nations on the continent by 40 per cent.
Within this footprint, environmental effects will also be intense.
Construction will require levelling 60 vertical metres of hills and valleys along the length of the runway.
This will inevitably cause dust emissions — on the windiest continent on Earth — and the effect of this on plants and animals is poorly understood.
Wilson’s storm petrels that nest at the site will be displaced.
Native lichens, fungi and algae will be destroyed, and irreparable damage is expected at adjacent lakes.
The proposed area is also important breeding habitat for Adélie penguins.
Eight breeding sites in the region are listed as “important bird areas”.
Federal environment officials state the penguins are likely to be impacted by human disturbance, dust, and noise from construction of the runway, with particular concern for oil spills and aircraft operations.
The summer population at Davis Station will need to increase from 120 to about 250 during construction.
This will require new, permanent infrastructure and increase the station’s fuel and water consumption, and sewage discharged into the environment.
The AAD has proposed measures to limit environmental damage.
These include gathering baseline data (against which to measure the project’s impact), analysing potential effects on birds and marine mammals and limiting disturbance where practicable.
Full details won’t be provided until later in the assessment process.
We expect Australia will implement these measures to a high standard, but they will not offset the project’s environmental damage.
So given the environmental concern, why is Australia so determined to build the aerodrome?
We believe the answer largely lies in Antarctic politics.
Australian officials have said the project would “contribute to both our presence and influence” on the continent.
Influence in Antarctica has traditionally corresponded to the strength of a nation’s scientific program, its infrastructure presence and engagement in international decision-making.
Australia is a well-regarded member of the Antarctic Treaty.
It was an original signatory and claims sovereignty over 42 per cent of the continent.
It also has a solid physical and scientific presence, maintaining three large year-round research stations.
Other nations are also vying for influence.
China is constructing its fifth research station. New Zealand is planning an upgrade to Scott Base.
On King George Island, six stations have been built within a five-kilometre radius, each run by different nations.
This presence is hard to justify on the basis of scientific interest alone.
We believe there are greater and more urgent opportunities for Australia to assert its leadership in Antarctica.
For example, both Casey and Mawson stations, Australia’s two other permanent bases, discharge sewage with little treatment.
Outdated fuel technology at Australia’s three stations regularly causes diesel spills.
At Wilkes Station, which Australia abandoned in the 1960s, thousands of tonnes of contaminants have been left behind.
Australia should fix such problems before adding more potentially damaging infrastructure.
This would show genuine Antarctic leadership.
*Shaun Brooks completed his PhD with the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, studying how conservation can be planned into how we manage our research stations’ footprint in Antarctica. He is an Associate at the University of Tasmania.
*Julia Jabour specialises in Antarctic and marine law as an Adjunct Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania.
This article first appeared on The Conversation website.
