Articoli di riviste sul tema "Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea"

At least a quarter of the world's cetaceans were recently confirmed as endangered and the situation may be worse as the status of many others remains unclear. Climate change is affecting the oceans and a number of studies have recently highlighted its potential impact on cetacean species - for example, there are important linkages between sea ice and krill, the primary prey for baleen whales in Antarctica. This paper provides a synthesis of new information available on this theme and considers its implications for the future conservation and management of cetacean populations and species.The more mobile (or otherwise adaptable) cetaceans may be able to respond to climate related changes, although the extent of this adaptability is largely unknown. However, there is broad agreement that certain species and populations are likely to be especially vulnerable to climate related changes, including those with a limited habitat range, or those for which sea ice provides an important habitat for the cetacean population and/or that of their prey. International conservation bodies, such as the Convention for Migratory Species and the International Whaling Commission, are striving to address these issues. The challenges presented by climate change require an innovative, large scale, long term and multinational response from scientists, conservation managers and decision makers. This response that should encompass a precautionary approach, including addressing the detrimental effects of other factors negatively impacting populations and species.

Black Sea cetaceans are isolated and nominated as endemic subspecies listed in the IUCN Red List of Endangered species: the harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin as Endangered (EN) and the common dolphin as Vulnerable (VU). Studies of their distribution and abundance are scarce but obligatory for assessment of their conservation status. Being highly mobile apex predators entails large variations in spatial and temporal distribution. Two vessel line–transect distance sampling surveys were conducted in 2017 in the Bulgarian shelf with the aim to estimate the density, abundance and distribution during spring and autumn. Results have revealed a shift from the coastal to offshore shelf of harbour porpoises with marked southern movement. Density of porpoises varied from 1.423 ind./km2 (CV = 25.4%) in spring to 0.576 ind./km2 (CV = 43.43%) in autumn. The density of common dolphins was also decreasing, from 0.391 ind./km2 (CV = 36.84%) to 0.088 ind./km2 (CV = 42.13%), which was more significant in offshore (0.031 ind./km2, CV = 58.04%) than in the coastal shelf (0.138 ind./km2, CV = 48.59%). Bottlenose dolphins had almost constant density in both seasons in the coastal shelf: 0.211 ind./km2 (CV = 52.15%) and 0.187 ind./km2 (CV = 52.13%) but a very low density in the offshore shelf in autumn: 0.042 ind./km2 (CV = 71.07%). The importance of existing NATURA 2000 sites for the harbour porpoise (BG0000621 Shabla-Ezerets, BG0000573 Kompleks Kaliaka, BG0001001 Ropotamo and BG0001007 Strandzha) and bottlenose dolphin (BG0000621 Shabla-Ezerets, BG0000573 Kompleks Kaliaka, BG0001501 Emona and BG0001001 Ropotamo) were confirmed.

Cetacean strandings are valuable sources of data about their life history, health status, population trends, and impact of threats. We examined the strandings along the Bulgarian coast of the Black Sea for a period of 13 years from 2010 to 2022. A total of 1528 cetacean strandings of all three species inhabiting the basin were recorded: 1031 harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena, 199 bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus, 97 common dolphins Delphinus delphis, 19 delphinids and 182 unidentified. The highest numbers were observed in 2016 and 2022. Monthly peaks for harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin were in July and August and for common dolphin in May. An unusually high mortality of porpoise neonates was recorded in 2015 and 2016. The overall sex ratio showed a slightly higher share of males at 120:100. This bias was the most pronounced for males of common dolphins. Spatial distribution varied interspecifically but was predominantly along the southern coast. Bycatch signs were detected in 80 animals including during the turbot fishing ban period, suggesting the existence of illegal fishing operations. All of this highlights the need for better reinforcement and control to ensure both the conservation of endangered cetaceans and the sustainability of fisheries. Improvement in data collection is needed to improve the quality of information.

Based on the results of winter monitoring of bats conducted in 2020–2022 in key wintering sites—limestone mines located within the continental part of the Back Sea area and the steppe area of Ukraine (Mykolayiv and Odesa ob-lasts)—we have recorded 7 species of bats: Myotis daubentonii, M. dasycneme, M. aurascens, M. mystacinus, Plecotus auritus, P. austriacus, and Eptesicus serotinus. Compared to results of monitoring conducted between 2008 and 2011, the number of bats that winter in the mentioned mines has doubled, from 702 to 1421 spe¬cimens. One individual of M. aurascens, which was ringed in the mine KVL-K in 2008–2011, was recorded there for the sec-ond time. The ring number is VТ 03492, Kyiv, Ukraine. Five species of bats were recorded in each of the three moni-tored sites. The results of the two monitoring sessions appear to be almost identical both by species composition and abundance. The dominating species in the inspected sites and, apparently, generally for winter aggregations of the same type in the region is M. daubentonii. The species share in the total sample was 77%. In Kovalivka (KVL-K) and Illyinka (ILN-K) mines, the co-dominance of two species—M. daubentonii and M. aurascens—was observed (23.3% and 26.8%, respectively). The species M. mystacinus was recorded only in the Kovalivsky mines (9.6%), whereas P. auritus was found only in the Nova Odesa mines (0.1%). The Nova Odesa mines play a key role in pre-serving the rare M. dasycneme in Ukraine harbouring the most abundant and widely known accumulation of this species. All investigated caves are particularly important for the preservation of bat populations in the region and their support during critical stages of their life. Granting the Kuyalnik Estuary the status of nature reserve will con-tribute to the conservation of habitats important for bats. Monitoring of key habitats for conservation of bat species is an important task for the implementation of EUROBATS agreement, which was signed by Ukraine. The obtained data are especially crucial considering the invasion of the russian federation to Ukraine since it is unclear when there will be a chance to continue the monitoring of bats in these key wintering sites and what is their current condition.

ABSTRACT Prevention of oil spills and effective action in the case of a spill are crucial to protecting and maintaining the environment. Up-to-date, reliable, and easily accessible research and information are extremely important and help to ensure a united front of preparation and to facilitate remedial action should a spill occur. The better the information available, the better the chance for prevention and, in the event of a spill, efficient and effective cleanup. The Interspill 2004 conference in Trondheim, Norway, hosted a U.S.-Russian Workshop on Oil Spill Prevention and Response. The workshop, which focused on dispersants, was the culmination of agreements signed by U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Russian Minister of Energy Igor Yusufov to discuss energy issues of interest to both countries and to implement the oil spill prevention and response agreement developed between the United States and Russia. To assist the participants and in concert with the workshop, the Black Sea and Caspian Sea Environmental Information Center (http://pims.ed.ornl.gov) posted relevant material from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Coast Guard. Although this web site offers information on region- and country-specific initiatives, its usefulness is far-reaching—the Center's information on oil spill prevention and response, research and development, and communications and related technologies have worldwide applications. Indeed, more than a hundred organizations from all over the world have registered, and interested organizations are encouraged to do the same to promote their technologies, services, or research activities. The site is being accessed at roughly 1,000 hits per day from 115 countries all over world. During July 2004, there were more than 40,000 hits on the web site. The oil industry strongly supports the information center and has representatives participate in all of its workshops. The Center is intended to be used as a tool to provide a comprehensive source of information:It publishes results and lists participants of several workshops.It hosts online “real-time” meetings that allow participants to plan structured meetings at an optimal time across different time zones.It provides information on oil spill prevention, cleanup, monitoring, and related commercial technologies and offers on-line discussions of these issues.It provides information about the laws, regulations, and standards of various countries relating to the environmental condition of the sea.It posts relevant published scientific papers.It publishes lists of participants working on Black Sea and Caspian Sea environmental issues.It is home to a growing database of historical pollution-testing data from research institutes in the region.

On the west coast of the Black sea excavations of ancient cities have been conducted for more than a century and a half. Among them, a special place is considered to be the Dorian colony of Kallatis, founded by immigrants from Heraclea of Pontius, most likely in the VI century BC. Currently on its territory there is a Romanian city of Mangalia. In 1959, during the excavations of the ancient mound on the Hellenistic burial ground, an ungraded burial in a stone sarcophagus was discovered. It was a backbone of an adult with a gilded bronze wreath. Near his hands there was an ancient Greek papyrus. For his conservation a Soviet restorer M. Alexander was invited, he managed to preserve the rarity. At the request of the Romanian side, he took the papyrus for restoration to Moscow, where his traces were lost. In 2001, Romanian archaeologists began searching for the papyrus. After three years of work in museums and libraries, they were able to locate the rest of the scroll. It turned out that they are stored in the Center of restoration Grabar in Moscow. As a result of the negotiations, thanks to the good will of the Russian side, it was possible to reach an agreement on the return of a unique discovery for Romania to its historical homeland.

The Convention on Migratory Species’ Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia (Raptors MOU) represents a unique international agreement dedicated to the preservation of migratory raptors belonging to the orders Accipitriformes, Falconiformes, and Strigiformes. At the Third Meeting of Signatories to the Raptors MOU (MOS3), held in Dubai from 3 to 6 July 2023, significant progress was made towards advancing commitments for the conservation of these majestic birds. The primary outcomes of MOS3 are summarized below. Revised MOU mandate: An evaluation of the MOU’s implementation conducted in 2020 underscored the need to better align and enhance the clarity of the commitments contained in the MOU’s Text and in its Annexes (one of which being the MOU’s Action Plan). Consequently, several amendments to these documents were made. Notably, the Activities of the MOU’s Action Plan were comprehensively rewritten, with each now being accompanied by clear targets and means of verification. Updated list of species: The MOU now encompasses 94 distinct species of migratory bird of prey. Notably, the Yellow-billed Kite (Milvus aegyptius) is now recognized as a separate entity from the Black Kite (M. migrans). In addition, the MOU’s revision includes the new order Accipitriformes. Revised species categorization: Species listed under the Raptors MOU are categorized into one of three categories based on their extinction risk. At MOS3, individual species’ categories were updated according to the latest IUCN Red List assessment. The update resulted in an increased number of species classified under Category 1 (globally threatened or Near Threatened species) and Category 2 (species considered to have an unfavourable conservation status at a regional level), reflecting a deteriorating conservation status for 13 species. Conversely, only three species saw their conservation status improve and move to a lower category. Expanded list of internationally important sites for raptors: The MOU previously included a “Provisional list of Important Bird Areas that are known to be significant congregatory sites for birds of prey in Africa and Eurasia”. Now named “List of Internationally Important Sites for Migratory Birds of Prey”, the list has been broadened to incorporate sites listed as Important Bird Areas due to their importance for at least one species listed in Annex 1 of the MOU or because are “bottleneck” locations for migrating raptors. Additionally, those sites proposed by Signatories as meeting the same criteria have been included. Furthermore, for States current and former Members of the European Union the list includes sites designated as Special Protection Areas under the European Council’s Birds Directive. This network of important sites now represents the most extensive collective effort for raptor conservation in Africa and Eurasia, with the potential to significantly contribute to their preservation. Renewed membership of the Technical Advisory Group to the Raptors MOU (TAG): The purpose of the TAG is to serve and assist Signatories in the effective implementation of the Raptors MOU. A renewed TAG membership was elected at MOS3, increasing the number of serving women from one to four. First Raptor Conservation Status Assessment Report: Under the coordination of BirdLife International, the TAG has produced an assessment report of the conservation status of the raptor species covered by the MOU. This report paints a disconcerting picture of the rapidly declining conservation status of the 94 listed species, with 54% presenting declining global populations and 34% now facing elevated extinction risk. The most threatened group are Vultures (93% of spp. included in Category 1), followed by Eagles (50%) and Falcons (26%). The rate of extinction of migratory raptor listed in the MOU is outpacing that of all birds and even all raptors in general. The report emphasizes that the principal threats to these birds are habitat loss and degradation, illegal killing and taking, and electrocution and collision with energy infrastructure. Notably, the impact of electrocution and collision may be underestimated, as one-third of satellite-tagged raptors (excluding vultures) fall victim to these hazards. In light of these alarming findings, it is evident that a coordinated, collaborative effort involving researchers, conservationists, governments and other stakeholdersis imperative to mitigate the decline of migratory raptors. The Raptors MOU stands as a crucial technical framework that can facilitate and guide these essential conservation endeavors. The development of International Single Species Action Plans for Black Harrier (Circus maurus), Steppe Eagle (Aquila nipalensis), Beaudouin’s Snake Eagle (Circaetus beaudouini), Pallas’s Fish Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoryphus), Steller’s Sea Eagle (H. pelagicus) and Tawny Eagle (A. rapax) is considered a priority.

The “ACCOBAMS Survey Initiative” (ASI) is a pilot programme aimed at establishing an integrated and coordinated monitoring system for cetaceans across the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic (hereafter “ACCOBAMS”) area. Conducted in coordination with Mediterranean coastal countries, it supports the implementation of European and regional policies, in particular the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Ecosystem Approach process. In summer 2018, a synoptic survey was conducted across the Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area, combining visual monitoring from aircrafts with visual and passive acoustic monitoring from vessels. Species density and abundance were estimated through design-based approach in a line-transect sampling framework. Based on data arising from the aerial survey only, uncorrected design-based abundance was obtained for striped (N=426,744, CV=0.13), common (N=65,359, CV=0.4), bottlenose (N=63,333, CV=0.17), and Risso´s dolphins (N=26,006, CV=0.3), Cuvier’s beaked whales (N=2,929, CV=0.4) and long-finned pilot whales (N=5,540 CV=0.4). A merged category of either striped or common dolphins resulted in 212,483 individuals (CV=0.26). Fin whales abundance of 1,749 animals (CV=0.3) was corrected for both availability and perception biases and resulted in 3,282 (CV=0.31). The ASI survey offers an overall picture of the distribution and abundance of cetaceans throughout the Mediterranean basin, providing robust estimates to be considered as a baseline for future regional systematic monitoring programmes. The ASI survey is the first step towards establishing a long-term monitoring program across the entire ACCOBAMS area, and, as such, it sets the basis for further future basin-wide monitoring efforts using systematic, shared, coordinated and comparable methods. The information gathered will further enhance knowledge on cetacean status, facilitating the development of informed conservation and mitigation measures, as well as supporting the implementation of international obligations. Furthermore, the outcomes of this survey will support both place- and threat-based conservation efforts in the ACCOBAMS area, through the identification of Important Marine Mammal Areas and Cetacean Critical Habitats. Here the results of the ASI survey are presented and discussed alongside proposed management and conservation actions aimed at ensuring the persistence of cetacean populations in the region.

Loggerhead turtles are a globally vulnerable species of marine turtle. Broad-scale patterns of distribution and abundance can provide regional managers a tool to effectively conserve and manage this species at basin and sub-basin scales. In this study, combined aerial and shipboard line transect survey data collected between 2003 and 2018 were used to estimate distribution and abundance throughout the Mediterranean Sea. Approximately 230,000 linear kilometers of survey effort, from seven different surveying organizations were incorporated into a generalized additive model to relate loggerhead density on survey segments to environmental conditions. Two spatial density models estimating loggerhead density, abundance, and distribution were generated – one a long-term annual average covering 2003-2018 and another covering the summer of 2018, when a basin-wide aerial survey, the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area Survey Initiative, was performed. Both models were adjusted for availability bias using dive data from loggerhead turtles tagged with time depth recorders. Mean abundance for the long-term average model was estimated as 1,201,845 (CV=0.22). The summer 2018 abundance estimate was 789,244 turtles and covered a smaller area than the long-term average. These estimates represent the first basin-wide estimates of abundance for loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean not based on demographic models. Both models predicted similar distributions, with higher abundance predicted in the northern Adriatic Sea, central Mediterranean basin, Tyrrhenian Sea, and south of the Balearic Islands. Lower densities were predicted in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Aegean Sea. The highest density areas generally did not coincide with previously established adult loggerhead turtle foraging areas, which are typically neritic, indicating the models are predominantly predicting oceanic distributions, where most of the survey effort occurred. Juvenile loggerhead turtles are predominantly oceanic and comprise most of the population, but care must be taken when using these models as they may not accurately predict distribution of neritic foraging areas, where subadult and adult loggerheads can often be found. Despite this limitation, these models represent a major step forward for conservation planning and understanding basin-wide distribution and abundance patterns of this species.

The conservation of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) appears to be failing in Europe. There are particular concerns about this species in the Baltic Proper, Black, and Mediterranean Seas, as well as in the Northeast Atlantic, including the Iberian population, off the Spanish and Portuguese coasts. The Baltic Proper porpoise is “critically endangered,” with a population only in the low hundreds, and the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission has repeatedly called for action to ensure its survival. In 2020, the Committee issued a series of recommendations relating to it and the Iberian population. Similarly, the Black Sea harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena ssp. relicta, is classified by the IUCN as endangered. Another population which may be genetically distinct is the West Greenland harbor porpoise, which is hunted without quotas or close seasons. European cetaceans and their habitats are covered by a number of international and regional conventions and agreements and, under European Union law, are “highly protected.” In practice, however, these legal protections have failed to generate effective conservation. For example, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are required for them and, although sites have been designated in some marine areas/countries, in the absence of appropriate management plans, SACs cannot be expected to help improve the harbor porpoise's conservation status. Compared to many other species, porpoises are relatively long-lived with low reproductive capacity and only poor public recognition. Conservation and management efforts are caught up in a complicated nexus of interactions involving a web of commitments under international conventions and agreements, European environmental laws, and European fisheries policy. However, public disinterest, lack of political will to implement conservation measures, and complicated fishing-related issues hinder any real progress. More positively, recent advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) provides a new scientific foundation for conservation action to address fisheries bycatch in the Baltic Proper harbor porpoise population. Populations of other porpoise species (family Phocoenidae) are also threatened, most notably the global population of the critically endangered vaquita, or Gulf of California porpoise (Phocoena sinus). The common threats and factors affecting porpoise populations are discussed and recommendations offered.

AbstractThe availability of reliable information on the abundance and distribution of threatened species is fundamental to evaluating their conservation status and taking the necessary measures to implement effective management. The seasonal abundance and distribution of cetaceans in the Sinop region, one of the essential fishing areas of the Black Sea, were estimated with line‐transect data. Dedicated boat‐based visual observations were conducted in four seasons between May 2019 and March 2020. Average estimates of abundance in the region over all seasons were 1,058 individuals for Black Sea harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena relicta; CV = 19.25%, 95% CI[725, 1,542]), 188 individuals for Black Sea bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus ponticus; CV = 21.67%, 95% CI[123, 289]), and 311 individuals for Black Sea common dolphin (Delphinus delphis ponticus; CV = 16.77%, 95% CI[123, 427]). The highest estimates for all three species were obtained in the spring. Harbor porpoises and bottlenose dolphins were present in the study area throughout the year, while common dolphins left the region in winter. These findings offer valuable insights that can guide and inform future conservation strategies, aligning with national and international frameworks for the protection of these cetacean species.

The eastern part of Bulgaria entirely borders the Black Sea, which defines it as a maritime country. The Bulgarian coast is an important fishing region for local people and has a high potential for interactions between fisheries and cetaceans. Depredation caused by cetaceans and damage to fishing gears can potentially lead to substantial economic loss for fishermen, while cetacean bycatch raises conservation concerns. Over the period 2016 - 2019, we conducted face-to-face interviews with fishermen in local fishing areas to better understand the fisheries – cetacean interactions in the Bulgarian part of the Black Sea. The research objectives were to identify the current fishermen’s attitudes toward cetaceans, understand the damage caused by local marine mammals to the different types of fishing gear, and gather fishermen’s proposals to resolve the problems. To record all of this, a specially designed structured survey was conducted. The results showed that fishermen’s attitude towards cetaceans was mostly positive and was not influenced by the type of fishing gear used. We found that fisheries - cetacean interactions are frequent, especially with dalyans gear and set gillnets. Cetacean bycatch mortality was reported to be highest for set gillnets, and the most vulnerable species was the Phocoena phocoena. Although interview data may be biased due to differences in perceptions and experience of the interviewees, and therefore should be interpreted with caution, this method allowed us to cover multiple types of interactions between cetaceans and Bulgarian fisheries.

IntroductionPopulation abundance is amongst the most basic and crucial parameters for the assessment of conservation status of any species. Three species of odontocetes, all represented by local subspecies, inhabit the Black Sea: the Black Sea common dolphin Delphinus delphis ponticus, the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus ponticus, and the Black Sea harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena relicta. Their populations are threatened by multiple factors, including overfishing of their prey, bycatch, pollution and epizootics. Despite this, there are no basinwide estimates for any cetacean species in the Black Sea.MethodsIn 2019, a systematic study was carried out under the EU CeNoBS project. Six strata were designed in the waters of Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Türkiye and Ukraine, covering most of territorial and offshore waters, which were surveyed between June 19 and July 4. A line transect distance sampling approach was used, following predefined transects within each stratum, achieving a 5% coverage of the surveyed area. A total of 7,344 kilometres of transects were surveyed recording a total of 1,744 cetacean sightings. Design-based abundance estimates were obtained using a Multiple Covariate Distance Sampling (MCDS) approach. Model-based abundance estimates were also derived using a Generalized Additive Models (GAM) approach, linking species sightings with a number of environmental covariates (e.g., bathymetric features, sea surface temperature, chlorophyll-a) over a grid of 10x10 km.Results and discussionThe uncorrected (for perception and availability bias) estimates obtained through the model-based analysis were 108,283 (CV=0.07) common dolphins, 22,720 (CV=0.15) bottlenose dolphins and 93,808 (CV=0.06) harbour porpoises. These aerial surveys yielded the first insights on overall abundance, density and distribution, providing current regional baseline values and density maps for all three cetacean species of the Black Sea during the summer months, to be used for the elaboration of effective conservation measures and to address national and international requirements.

AbstractMarine protected areas (MPAs) are a critical tool for safeguarding marine species and habitats for the future, though the effects of projected climate change raise concerns about their long-term success. Assessing the degree to which MPAs may be exposed to future novel climatic conditions is, therefore, crucial for informing conservation and management actions aimed at ensuring a resilient and thriving ocean in the years to come. Here, we evaluate the future exposure of 398 threatened and commercially important species to novel and extremely novel climatic conditions within European MPAs. We estimated climate novelty through multivariate analyses considering biologically meaningful distribution drivers of temperature, oxygen, pH, and primary productivity from present-day to the end of the 21st-century conditions under contrasting shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP) scenarios—low emission scenario (SSP1–1.9) and high emission scenario (SSP5–8.5). Our findings suggest that, under SSP1–1.9, ~6.5% of species and 0.5% of European MPAs will be at risk due to future novel conditions. In contrast, under SSP5–8.5, 87% of MPAs and 80% of species are projected to be at risk. Notably, up to 100% of species currently located in the MPAs of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas like the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea are projected to be exposed to novel or even extremely novel conditions. Virtually all species in most of those regions will be at risk, suggesting that even new MPAs might not be able to adequately protect them. Comparatively, the Norwegian Sea, North-East Atlantic, and western parts of the Mediterranean and North Seas are expected to be less impacted even under the high emission scenario. Overall, our study advances the understanding of the potential impacts of future climate change scenarios on threatened and commercially important marine species in European MPAs and reinforces the urgent need to meet the Paris Agreement. Our results suggest that existing approaches to marine governance in Europe may be insufficient for ensuring the success of MPAs in light of future impacts and that novel anticipatory forms of governance are needed.

IntroductionTasmania hangs from the map of Australia like a drop in freefall from the substance of the mainland. Often the whole state is mislaid from Australian maps and logos (Reddit). Tasmania has, at least since federation, been considered peripheral—a region seen as isolated, a ‘problem’ economically, politically, and culturally. However, Tasmania not only cleaves to the ‘north island’ of Australia but is also subject to the gravitational pull of an even greater land mass—Antarctica. In this article, we upturn the political conventions of map-making that place both Antarctica and Tasmania in obscure positions at the base of the globe. We show how a changing global climate re-frames Antarctica and the Southern Ocean as key drivers of worldwide environmental shifts. The liquid and solid water between Tasmania and Antarctica is revealed not as a homogenous barrier, but as a dynamic and relational medium linking the Tasmanian archipelago with Antarctica. When Antarctica becomes the focus, the script is flipped: Tasmania is no longer on the edge, but core to a network of gateways into the southern land. The state’s capital of Hobart can from this perspective be understood as an “Antarctic city”, central to the geopolitics, economy, and culture of the frozen continent (Salazar et al.). Viewed from the south, we argue, Tasmania is not a problem, but an opportunity for a form of ecological, cultural, economic, and political sustainability that opens up the southern continent to science, discovery, and imagination.A Centre at the End of the Earth? Tasmania as ParadoxThe islands of Tasmania owe their existence to climate change: a period of warming at the end of the last ice age melted the vast sheets of ice covering the polar regions, causing sea levels to rise by more than one hundred metres (Tasmanian Climate Change Office 8). Eleven thousand years ago, Aboriginal people would have witnessed the rise of what is now called Bass Strait, turning what had been a peninsula into an archipelago, with the large island of Tasmania at its heart. The heterogeneous practices and narratives of Tasmanian regional identity have been shaped by the geography of these islands, and their connection to the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. Regions, understood as “centres of collective consciousness and sociospatial identities” (Paasi 241) are constantly reproduced and reimagined through place-based social practices and communications over time. As we will show, diverse and contradictory narratives of Tasmanian regionality often co-exist, interacting in complex and sometimes complementary ways. Ecocritical literary scholar C.A. Cranston considers duality to be embedded in the textual construction of Tasmania, writing “it was hell, it was heaven, it was penal, it was paradise” (29). Tasmania is multiply polarised: it is both isolated and connected; close and far away; rich in resources and poor in capital; the socially conservative birthplace of radical green politics (Hay 60). The weather, as if sensing the fine balance of these paradoxes, blows hot and cold at a moment’s notice.Tasmania has wielded extraordinary political influence at times in its history—notably during the settlement of Melbourne in 1835 (Boyce), and during protests against damming the Franklin River in the early 1980s (Mercer). However, twentieth-century historical and political narratives of Tasmania portray the Bass Strait as a barrier, isolating Tasmanians from the mainland (Harwood 61). Sir Bede Callaghan, who headed one of a long line of federal government inquiries into “the Tasmanian problem” (Harwood 106), was clear that Tasmania was a victim of its own geography:the major disability facing the people of Tasmania (although some residents may consider it an advantage) is that Tasmania is an island. Separation from the mainland adversely affects the economy of the State and the general welfare of the people in many ways. (Callaghan 3)This perspective may stem from the fact that Tasmania has maintained the lowest Gross Domestic Product per capita of all states since federation (Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics 9). Socially, economically, and culturally, Tasmania consistently ranks among the worst regions of Australia. Statistical comparisons with other parts of Australia reveal the population’s high unemployment, low wages, poor educational outcomes, and bad health (West 31). The state’s remoteness and isolation from the mainland states and its reliance on federal income have contributed to the whole of Tasmania, including Hobart, being classified as ‘regional’ by the Australian government, in an attempt to promote immigration and economic growth (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development 1). Tasmania is indeed both regional and remote. However, in this article we argue that, while regionality may be cast as a disadvantage, the island’s remote location is also an asset, particularly when viewed from a far southern perspective (Image 1).Image 1: Antarctica (Orthographic Projection). Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Modified Shading of Tasmania and Addition of Captions by H. Nielsen.Connecting Oceans/Collapsing DistanceTasmania and Antarctica have been closely linked in the past—the future archipelago formed a land bridge between Antarctica and northern land masses until the opening of the Tasman Seaway some 32 million years ago (Barker et al.). The far south was tangible to the Indigenous people of the island in the weather blowing in from the Southern Ocean, while the southern lights, or “nuyina”, formed a visible connection (Australia’s new icebreaker vessel is named RSV Nuyina in recognition of these links). In the contemporary Australian imagination, Tasmania tends to be defined by its marine boundaries, the sea around the islands represented as flat, empty space against which to highlight the topography of its landscape and the isolation of its position (Davies et al.). A more relational geographic perspective illuminates the “power of cross-currents and connections” (Stratford et al. 273) across these seascapes. The sea country of Tasmania is multiple and heterogeneous: the rough, shallow waters of the island-scattered Bass Strait flow into the Tasman Sea, where the continental shelf descends toward an abyssal plain studded with volcanic seamounts. To the south, the Southern Ocean provides nutrient-rich upwellings that attract fish and cetacean populations. Tasmania’s coast is a dynamic, liminal space, moving and changing in response to the global currents that are driven by the shifting, calving and melting ice shelves and sheets in Antarctica.Oceans have long been a medium of connection between Tasmania and Antarctica. In the early colonial period, when the seas were the major thoroughfares of the world and inland travel was treacherous and slow, Tasmania’s connection with the Southern Ocean made it a valuable hub for exploration and exploitation of the south. Between 1642 and 1900, early European explorers were followed by British penal colonists, convicts, sealers, and whalers (Kriwoken and Williamson 93). Tasmania was well known to polar explorers, with expeditions led by Jules Dumont d’Urville, James Clark Ross, Roald Amundsen, and Douglas Mawson all transiting through the port of Hobart. Now that the city is no longer a whaling hub, growing populations of cetaceans continue to migrate past the islands on their annual journeys from the tropics, across the Sub-Antarctic Front and Antarctic circumpolar current, and into the south polar region, while southern species such as leopard seals are occasionally seen around Tasmania (Tasmania Parks and Wildlife). Although the water surrounding Tasmania and Antarctica is at times homogenised as a ‘barrier’, rendering these places isolated, the bodies of water that surround both are in fact permeable, and regularly crossed by both humans and marine species. The waters are diverse in their physical characteristics, underlying topography, sea life, and relationships, and serve to connect many different ocean regions, ecosystems, and weather patterns.Views from the Far SouthWhen considered in terms of its relative proximity to Antarctic, rather than its distance from Australia’s political and economic centres, Tasmania’s identity undergoes a significant shift. A sign at Cockle Creek, in the state’s far south, reminds visitors that they are closer to Antarctica than to Cairns, invoking a discourse of connectedness that collapses the standard ten-day ship voyage to Australia’s closest Antarctic station into a unit comparable with the routinely scheduled 5.5 hour flight to North Queensland. Hobart is the logistical hub for the Australian Antarctic Division and the French Institut Polaire Francais (IPEV), and has hosted Antarctic vessels belonging to the USA, South Korea, and Japan in recent years. From a far southern perspective, Hobart is not a regional Australian capital but a global polar hub. This alters the city’s geographic imaginary not only in a latitudinal sense—from “top down” to “bottom up”—but also a longitudinal one. Via its southward connection to Antarctica, Hobart is also connected east and west to four other recognized gateways: Cape Town in South Africa, Christchurch in New Zealand; Punta Arenas in Chile; and Ushuaia in Argentina (Image 2). The latter cities are considered small by international standards, but play an outsized role in relation to Antarctica.Image 2: H. Nielsen with a Sign Announcing Distances between Antarctic ‘Gateway’ Cities and Antarctica, Ushuaia, Argentina, 2018. Image Credit: Nicki D'Souza.These five cities form what might be called—to adapt geographer Klaus Dodds’ term—a ‘Southern Rim’ around the South Polar region (Dodds Geopolitics). They exist in ambiguous relationship to each other. Although the five cities signed a Statement of Intent in 2009 committing them to collaboration, they continue to compete vigorously for northern hemisphere traffic and the brand identity of the most prominent global gateway. A state government brochure spruiks Hobart, for example, as the “perfect Antarctic Gateway” emphasising its uniqueness and “natural advantages” in this regard (Tasmanian Government, 2016). In practice, the cities are automatically differentiated by their geographic position with respect to Antarctica. Although the ‘ice continent’ is often conceived as one entity, it too has regions, in both scientific and geographical senses (Terauds and Lee; Antonello). Hobart provides access to parts of East Antarctica, where the Australian, French, Japanese, and Chinese programs (among others) have bases; Cape Town is a useful access point for Europeans going to Dronning Maud Land; Christchurch is closest to the Ross Sea region, site of the largest US base; and Punta Arenas and Ushuaia neighbour the Antarctic Peninsula, home to numerous bases as well as a thriving tourist industry.The Antarctic sector is important to the Tasmanian economy, contributing $186 million (AUD) in 2017/18 (Wells; Gutwein; Tasmanian Polar Network). Unsurprisingly, Tasmania’s gateway brand has been actively promoted, with the 2016 Australian Antarctic Strategy and 20 Year Action Plan foregrounding the need to “Build Tasmania’s status as the premier East Antarctic Gateway for science and operations” and the state government releasing a “Tasmanian Antarctic Gateway Strategy” in 2017. The Chinese Antarctic program has been a particular focus: a Memorandum of Understanding focussed on Australia and China’s Antarctic relations includes a “commitment to utilise Australia, including Tasmania, as an Antarctic ‘gateway’.” (Australian Antarctic Division). These efforts towards a closer relationship with China have more recently come under attack as part of a questioning of China’s interests in the region (without, it should be noted, a concomitant questioning of Australia’s own considerable interests) (Baker 9). In these exchanges, a global power and a state of Australia generally classed as regional and peripheral are brought into direct contact via the even more remote Antarctic region. This connection was particularly visible when Chinese President Xi Jinping travelled to Hobart in 2014, in a visit described as both “strategic” and “incongruous” (Burden). There can be differences in how this relationship is narrated to domestic and international audiences, with issues of sovereignty and international cooperation variously foregrounded, laying the ground for what Dodds terms “awkward Antarctic nationalism” (1).Territory and ConnectionsThe awkwardness comes to a head in Tasmania, where domestic and international views of connections with the far south collide. Australia claims sovereignty over almost 6 million km2 of the Antarctic continent—a claim that in area is “roughly the size of mainland Australia minus Queensland” (Bergin). This geopolitical context elevates the importance of a regional part of Australia: the claims to Antarctic territory (which are recognised only by four other claimant nations) are performed not only in Antarctic localities, where they are made visible “with paraphernalia such as maps, flags, and plaques” (Salazar 55), but also in Tasmania, particularly in Hobart and surrounds. A replica of Mawson’s Huts in central Hobart makes Australia’s historic territorial interests in Antarctica visible an urban setting, foregrounding the figure of Douglas Mawson, the well-known Australian scientist and explorer who led the expeditions that proclaimed Australia’s sovereignty in the region of the continent roughly to its south (Leane et al.). Tasmania is caught in a balancing act, as it fosters international Antarctic connections (such hosting vessels from other national programs), while also playing a key role in administering what is domestically referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory. The rhetoric of protection can offer common ground: island studies scholar Godfrey Baldacchino notes that as island narratives have moved “away from the perspective of the ‘explorer-discoverer-colonist’” they have been replaced by “the perspective of the ‘custodian-steward-environmentalist’” (49), but reminds readers that a colonising disposition still lurks beneath the surface. It must be remembered that terms such as “stewardship” and “leadership” can undertake sovereignty labour (Dodds “Awkward”), and that Tasmania’s Antarctic connections can be mobilised for a range of purposes. When Environment Minister Greg Hunt proclaimed at a press conference that: “Hobart is the gateway to the Antarctic for the future” (26 Apr. 2016), the remark had meaning within discourses of both sovereignty and economics. Tasmania’s capital was leveraged as a way to position Australia as a leader in the Antarctic arena.From ‘Gateway’ to ‘Antarctic City’While discussion of Antarctic ‘Gateway’ Cities often focuses on the economic and logistical benefit of their Antarctic connections, Hobart’s “gateway” identity, like those of its counterparts, stretches well beyond this, encompassing geological, climatic, historical, political, cultural and scientific links. Even the southerly wind, according to cartoonist Jon Kudelka, “has penguins in it” (Image 3). Hobart residents feel a high level of connection to Antarctica. In 2018, a survey of 300 randomly selected residents of Greater Hobart was conducted under the umbrella of the “Antarctic Cities” Australian Research Council Linkage Project led by Assoc. Prof. Juan Francisco Salazar (and involving all three present authors). Fourteen percent of respondents reported having been involved in an economic activity related to Antarctica, and 36% had attended a cultural event about Antarctica. Connections between the southern continent and Hobart were recognised as important: 71.9% agreed that “people in my city can influence the cultural meanings that shape our relationship to Antarctica”, while 90% agreed or strongly agreed that Hobart should play a significant role as a custodian of Antarctica’s future, and 88.4% agreed or strongly agreed that: “How we treat Antarctica is a test of our approach to ecological sustainability.” Image 3: “The Southerly” Demonstrates How Weather Connects Hobart and Antarctica. Image Credit: Jon Kudelka, Reproduced with Permission.Hobart, like the other gateways, activates these connections in its conscious place-branding. The city is particularly strong as a centre of Antarctic research: signs at the cruise-ship terminal on the waterfront claim that “There are more Antarctic scientists based in Hobart […] than at any other one place on earth, making Hobart a globally significant contributor to our understanding of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.” Researchers are based at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD), with several working between institutions. Many Antarctic researchers located elsewhere in the world also have a connection with the place through affiliations and collaborations, leading journalist Jo Chandler to assert that “the breadth and depth of Hobart’s knowledge of ice, water, and the life forms they nurture […] is arguably unrivalled anywhere in the world” (86).Hobart also plays a significant role in Antarctica’s governance, as the site of the secretariats for the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), and as host of the Antarctic Consultative Treaty Meetings on more than one occasion (1986, 2012). The cultural domain is active, with Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) featuring a permanent exhibit, “Islands to Ice”, emphasising the ocean as connecting the two places; the Mawson’s Huts Replica Museum aiming (among other things) to “highlight Hobart as the gateway to the Antarctic continent for the Asia Pacific region”; and a biennial Australian Antarctic Festival drawing over twenty thousand visitors, about a sixth of them from interstate or overseas (Hingley). Antarctic links are evident in the city’s natural and built environment: the dolerite columns of Mt Wellington, the statue of the Tasmanian Antarctic explorer Louis Bernacchi on the waterfront, and the wharfs that regularly accommodate icebreakers such as the Aurora Australis and the Astrolabe. Antarctica is figured as a southern neighbour; as historian Tom Griffiths puts it, Tasmanians “grow up with Antarctica breathing down their necks” (5). As an Antarctic City, Hobart mediates access to Antarctica both physically and in the cultural imaginary.Perhaps in recognition of the diverse ways in which a region or a city might be connected to Antarctica, researchers have recently been suggesting critical approaches to the ‘gateway’ label. C. Michael Hall points to a fuzziness in the way the term is applied, noting that it has drifted from its initial definition (drawn from economic geography) as denoting an access and supply point to a hinterland that produces a certain level of economic benefits. While Hall looks to keep the term robustly defined to avoid empty “local boosterism” (272–73), Gabriela Roldan aims to move the concept “beyond its function as an entry and exit door”, arguing that, among other things, the local community should be actively engaged in the Antarctic region (57). Leane, examining the representation of Hobart as a gateway in historical travel texts, concurs that “ingress and egress” are insufficient descriptors of Tasmania’s relationship with Antarctica, suggesting that at least discursively the island is positioned as “part of an Antarctic rim, itself sharing qualities of the polar region” (45). The ARC Linkage Project described above, supported by the Hobart City Council, the State Government and the University of Tasmania, as well as other national and international partners, aims to foster the idea of the Hobart and its counterparts as ‘Antarctic cities’ whose citizens act as custodians for the South Polar region, with a genuine concern for and investment in its future.Near and Far: Local Perspectives A changing climate may once again herald a shift in the identity of the Tasmanian islands. Recognition of the central role of Antarctica in regulating the global climate has generated scientific and political re-evaluation of the region. Antarctica is not only the planet’s largest heat sink but is the engine of global water currents and wind patterns that drive weather patterns and biodiversity across the world (Convey et al. 543). For example, Tas van Ommen’s research into Antarctic glaciology shows the tangible connection between increased snowfall in coastal East Antarctica and patterns of drought southwest Western Australia (van Ommen and Morgan). Hobart has become a global centre of marine and Antarctic science, bringing investment and development to the city. As the global climate heats up, Tasmania—thanks to its low latitude and southerly weather patterns—is one of the few regions in Australia likely to remain temperate. This is already leading to migration from the mainland that is impacting house prices and rental availability (Johnston; Landers 1). The region’s future is therefore closely entangled with its proximity to the far south. Salazar writes that “we cannot continue to think of Antarctica as the end of the Earth” (67). Shifting Antarctica into focus also brings Tasmania in from the margins. As an Antarctic city, Hobart assumes a privileged positioned on the global stage. This allows the city to present itself as central to international research efforts—in contrast to domestic views of the place as a small regional capital. The city inhabits dual identities; it is both on the periphery of Australian concerns and at the centre of Antarctic activity. Tasmania, then, is not in freefall, but rather at the forefront of a push to recognise Antarctica as entangled with its neighbours to the north.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the Australian Research Council under LP160100210.ReferencesAntonello, Alessandro. “Finding Place in Antarctica.” Antarctica and the Humanities. Eds. Peder Roberts, Lize-Marie van der Watt, and Adrian Howkins. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. 181–204.Australian Government. Australian Antarctic Strategy and 20 Year Action Plan. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2016. 15 Apr. 2019. <http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/180827/20YearStrategy_final.pdf>.Australian Antarctic Division. “Australia-China Collaboration Strengthens.” Australian Antarctic Magazine 27 Dec. 2014. 15 Apr. 2019. <http://www.antarctica.gov.au/magazine/2011-2015/issue-27-december-2014/in-brief/australia-china-collaboration-strengthens>.Baker, Emily. “Worry at Premier’s Defence of China.” The Mercury 15 Sep. 2018: 9.Baldacchino, G. “Studying Islands: On Whose Terms?” Island Studies Journal 3.1 (2008): 37–56.Barker, Peter F., Gabriel M. Filippelli, Fabio Florindo, Ellen E. Martin, and Howard D. Schere. “Onset and Role of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 54.21–22 (2007): 2388–98.Bergin, Anthony. “Australia Needs to Strengthen Its Strategic Interests in Antarctica.” Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 29 Apr. 2016. 21 Feb. 2019 <https://www.aspi.org.au/index.php/opinion/australia-needs-strengthen-its-strategic-interests-antarctica>.Boyce, James. 1835: The Founding of Melbourne and the Conquest of Australia. Melbourne: Black Inc., 2011.Burden, Hilary. “Xi Jinping's Tasmania Visit May Seem Trivial, But Is Full of Strategy.” The Guardian 18 Nov. 2014. 19 May 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/xi-jinpings-tasmania-visit-lacking-congruity-full-of-strategy>.Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE). A Regional Economy: A Case Study of Tasmania. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2008. 14 May 2019 <http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/86/Files/report116.pdf>.Chandler, Jo. “The Science Laboratory: From Little Things, Big Things Grow.” Griffith Review: Tasmania: The Tipping Point? 29 (2013) 83–101.Christchurch City Council. Statement of Intent between the Southern Rim Gateway Cities to the Antarctic: Ushuaia, Punta Arenas, Christchurch, Hobart and Cape Town. 25 Sep. 2009. 11 Apr. 2019 <http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/proceedings/2009/September/CnclCover24th/Clause8Attachment.pdf>.Convey, P., R. Bindschadler, G. di Prisco, E. Fahrbach, J. Gutt, D.A. Hodgson, P.A. Mayewski, C.P. Summerhayes, J. Turner, and ACCE Consortium. “Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment.” Antarctic Science 21.6 (2009): 541–63.Cranston, C. “Rambling in Overdrive: Travelling through Tasmanian Literature.” Tasmanian Historical Studies 8.2 (2003): 28–39.Davies, Lynn, Margaret Davies, and Warren Boyles. Mapping Van Diemen’s Land and the Great Beyond: Rare and Beautiful Maps from the Royal Society of Tasmania. Hobart: The Royal Society of Tasmania, 2018.Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. Guidelines for Analysing Regional Australia Impacts and Developing a Regional Australia Impact Statement. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2017. 11 Apr. 2019 <https://regional.gov.au/regional/information/rais/>.Dodds, Klaus. “Awkward Antarctic Nationalism: Bodies, Ice Cores and Gateways in and beyond Australian Antarctic Territory/East Antarctica.” Polar Record 53.1 (2016): 16–30.———. Geopolitics in Antarctica: Views from the Southern Oceanic Rim. Chichester: John Wiley, 1997.Griffiths, Tom. “The Breath of Antarctica.” Tasmanian Historical Studies 11 (2006): 4–14.Gutwein, Peter. “Antarctic Gateway Worth $186 Million to Tasmanian Economy.” Hobart: Tasmanian Government, 20 Feb. 2019. 21 Feb. 2019 <http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/antarctic_gateway_worth_$186_million_to_tasmanian_economy>.Hall, C. Michael. “Polar Gateways: Approaches, Issues and Review.” The Polar Journal 5.2 (2015): 257–77. Harwood Andrew. “The Political Constitution of Islandness: The ‘Tasmanian Problem’ and Ten Days on the Island.” PhD Thesis. U of Tasmania, 2011. <http://eprints.utas.edu.au/11855/%5Cninternal-pdf://5288/11855.html>.Hay, Peter. “Destabilising Tasmanian Politics: The Key Role of the Greens.” Bulletin of the Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies 3.2 (1991): 60–70.Hingley, Rebecca. Personal Communication, 28 Nov. 2018.Johnston, P. “Is the First Wave of Climate Migrants Landing in Hobart?” The Fifth Estate 11 Sep. 2018. 15 Mar. 2019 <https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/climate-change-news/climate-migrants-landing-hobart>.Kriwoken, L., and J. Williamson. “Hobart, Tasmania: Antarctic and Southern Ocean Connections.” Polar Record 29.169 (1993): 93–102.Kudelka, John. “The Southerly.” Kudelka Cartoons. 27 Jun. 2014. 21 Feb. 2019 <https://www.kudelka.com.au/2014/06/the-southerly/>.Leane, E., T. Winter, and J.F. Salazar. “Caught between Nationalism and Internationalism: Replicating Histories of Antarctica in Hobart.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 22.3 (2016): 214–27. Leane, Elizabeth. “Tasmania from Below: Antarctic Travellers’ Accounts of a Southern ‘Gateway’.” Studies in Travel Writing 20.1 (2016): 34-48.Mawson’s Huts Replica Museum. “Mission Statement.” 15 Apr. 2019 <http://www.mawsons-huts-replica.org.au/>.Mercer, David. "Australia's Constitution, Federalism and the ‘Tasmanian Dam Case’." Political Geography Quarterly 4.2 (1985): 91–110.Paasi, A. “Deconstructing Regions: Notes on the Scales of Spatial Life.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 23.2 (1991) 239–56.Reddit. “Maps without Tasmania.” 15 Apr. 2019 <https://www.reddit.com/r/MapsWithoutTasmania/>.Roldan, Gabriela. “'A Door to the Ice?: The Significance of the Antarctic Gateway Cities Today.” Journal of Antarctic Affairs 2 (2015): 57–70.Salazar, Juan Francisco. “Geographies of Place-Making in Antarctica: An Ethnographic Epproach.” The Polar Journal 3.1 (2013): 53–71.———, Elizabeth Leane, Liam Magee, and Paul James. “Five Cities That Could Change the Future of Antarctica.” The Conversation 5 Oct. 2016. 19 May 2019 <https://theconversation.com/five-cities-that-could-change-the-future-of-antarctica-66259>.Stratford, Elaine, Godfrey Baldacchino, Elizabeth McMahon, Carol Farbotko, and Andrew Harwood. “Envisioning the Archipelago.” Island Studies Journal 6.2 (2011): 113–30.Tasmanian Climate Change Office. Derivation of the Tasmanian Sea Level Rise Planning Allowances. Aug. 2012. 17 Apr. 2019 <http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/176331/Tasmanian_SeaLevelRisePlanningAllowance_TechPaper_Aug2012.pdf>.Tasmanian Government Department of State Growth. “Tasmanian Antarctic Gateway Strategy.” Hobart: Tasmanian Government, 12 Dec. 2017. 21 Feb. 2019 <https://www.antarctic.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/164749/Tasmanian_Antarctic_Gateway_Strategy_12_Dec_2017.pdf>.———. “Tasmania Delivers…” Apr. 2016. 15 Apr. 2019 <https://www.antarctic.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/66461/Tasmania_Delivers_Antarctic_Southern_Ocean_web.pdf>.———. “Antarctic Tasmania.” 17 Feb. 2019. 15 Apr. 2019 <https://www.antarctic.tas.gov.au/about/hobarts_antarctic_attractions>.Tasmanian Polar Network. “Welcome to the Tasmanian Polar Network.” 28 Feb. 2019 <https://www.tasmanianpolarnetwork.com.au/>.Terauds, Aleks, and Jasmine Lee. “Antarctic Biogeography Revisited: Updating the Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions.” Diversity and Distributions 22 (2016): 836–40.Van Ommen, Tas, and Vin Morgan. “Snowfall Increase in Coastal East Antarctica Linked with Southwest Western Australian Drought.” Nature Geoscience 3 (2010): 267–72.Wells Economic Analysis. The Contribution of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Sector to the Tasmanian Economy 2017. 18 Nov. 2018. 15 Apr. 2019 <https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/185671/Wells_Report_on_the_Value_of_the_Antarctic_Sector_2017_18.pdf>.West, J. “Obstacles to Progress: What’s Wrong with Tasmania, Really?” Griffith Review: Tasmania: The Tipping Point? 39 (2013): 31–53.