Not being residentially inhabited by human populations and instead being a place where largely scientific research is the mainstay, one would expect Antarctic biodiversity to be more protected than biodiversity in other, more populated regions of the world. However, this may not be the case for Antarctic biodiversity.
The Status of Antarctic Biodiversity
A study published in 2017 in the journal PLOS Biology by a team led by Steven L. Chown and scientists from Monash University, Australia has brought Antarctic biodiversity into question, largely thought by many to be a safe zone. The study undertook to make a comparison of the conditions of Antarctic biodiversity and how it has been managed with that of other places globally using the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi’s targets as standard. The Aichi targets are included under the CBD’s 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity to assess global biodiversity loss. However, they had never been assessed for Antarctic biodiversity and that of the Southern Ocean.
In the study’s assessment, it was found that the difference in the status of biodiversity between Antarctic biodiversity and biodiversity in the other regions elsewhere in the world were similar. Although Antarctic biodiversity was doing well in certain areas such as the management of invasive species, in some other areas such as in bio-prospecting regulations and the management of protected areas Antarctic biodiversity was not doing as well as some other areas around the world. The overall results for Antarctic biodiversity were largely similar to other areas in the world assessed in terms of Aichi targets (PLOS, 2017).
The study also noted that although Antarctica is doing well in terms of the management of invasive species, rising concerns include increasing numbers of tourists going to Antarctica and overfishing. However, even greater threats can be said to be looming on the horizon, such as climate change, with warmer oceans and melting ice and also transnational pollution. Peter Stoett, professor of political science in Concordia University, Canada has reportedly said that we must go beyond the Antarctic Treaty System that looks to further scientific research in Antarctica, and establish a governance system for protecting biodiversity in the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean.
Climate Change and Antarctic Biodiversity
With anthropogenic effects on Antarctic biodiversity likely to be a prominent issue in the future, anthropogenic influences such as climate change and pollution can be important issues that portend Antarctica’s future. Antarctic biodiversity in terms of climate change can be greatly influenced by the patterns of the spatial structures of the environment.
A study by Convey et al. (2014) could be useful in this regard, as it synthesized contemporary epistemology on variability of environmental patterns across Antarctic biomes, be it terrestrial, freshwater or marine biomes. Out of these biotic patterns were observed, which led to the inference that the most important concomitant of the distribution of biodiversity in Antarctic terrestrial communities is the presence of liquid water, which was vastly determined by the intensity of solar irradiance. The distribution of biodiversity was also found to be significantly influenced by the historical antecedence of the development of an area, and also by natural barriers imposed by the geography of an area.
Convey et al. consider Antarctic biodiversity in terms of both the terrestrial Antarctic environment and also the marine environment comprising the Southern Ocean, which is comprised of the southern parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian Oceans. Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems can include polar deserts, including Antarctica’s ice sheet, and also grasslands, eutrophic ponds, and freshwater and hypersaline lakes. Antarctic marine ecosystems include the shallow coastal region as well the ocean depths where some habitats can be incredibly diverse and some can be quite featureless. Not much however, is known of Antarctic deep ocean biodiversity.
Terrestrial ecosystems are dominated by ice cover, and about 0.34 per cent of Antarctica is ice-free, although these regions tend to be isolated from each other by a few meters to hundreds of kilometers. Life in the ice in Antarctica develops mainly in the summer, in the form of organisms such as algae. Other than penguins, many sub-glacial communities of microorganisms also exist in Antarctica, although the polar deserts are dominated with moss-habitat communities.
Assessing past climate change in Antarctica is difficult, and there is a limited account of past fossil history in Antarctica. The discontinuity of ice-free ground makes the presence of biological features characterized by continuous gradients of environmental features such as water or temperature limited. The variations are much lesser for the marine Antarctic environment, but can show greater variation dependant on other variations such as precipitation, making better examinations of Antarctic biodiversity in terms of wider spatial variables possible in Antarctic marine environments.
In terrestrial ecosystems in Antarctica, although they are isolated in distribution, assessments can be made of certain abiotic factors such as soil structure and chemistry and also the availability of water, which can have inter-specific effects. Thus an analysis of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems in terms of the spatial factors of climate change is possible in terms of abiotic environmental variations.
Abiotic factors that can influence Antarctic biodiversity can include solar irradiance, temperature, availability of water, presence of ice and snow, soil characteristics and soil chemistry in terms of nutrients, productivity, etc. A decreasing trend of Antarctic biodiversity can be observed in the transition from sub- to in-land regions of the Antarctic continent, which in turn can present numerous smaller-scale spatial variations. Broad spatial patterns however, cannot completely account for the geographical history and bio-geographic isolation of individual ecological niches of terrestrial regions in Antarctica. However, observations point towards the fact that Antarctic biodiversity decreases along with the increase in the extremity of the abiotic environment.
Climate change thus can be explored as a set of possibilities resulting from a warming planet. It is likely that with a warming planet, habitats for Antarctic species that are adapted for more temperate climates can shift somewhat towards the poles. Climate change could also lead to an increase in the habitat ranges of indigenous species. However, compounding efforts towards mitigation of climate change is the fact that human activities and their effects are most at the ice-free regions of terrestrial Antarctica. This can for example, severely effect soil compaction and also have impacts on the ecosystems of contained Antarctic biodiversity. There is also the concomitant problem of pollution, which although much lower in Antarctica than elsewhere, it can have significant local impacts in isolated Antarctic ecosystems.
A number of site-specific studies are thus necessary to understand Antarctic biodiversity, given the incredible amount of endemism characteristic of terrestrial Antarctic biodiversity. With the coming of climate change, strong environmental factors are set to combine with great heterogeneity in habitats, especially terrestrial Antarctic habitats. In this special care is required in the management of Antarctic biodiversity and ecosystems, which requires a cohesive and site-specific approach.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance

The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.



Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.



The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.



The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)