Antarctic terrestrial biodiversity faces multiple threats, from invasive species to climate change. Yet no large-scale assessments of threat management strategies exist. Applying a structured participatory approach, we demonstrate that existing conservation efforts are insufficient in a changing world, estimating that 65% (at best 37%, at worst 97%) of native terrestrial taxa and land-associated seabirds are likely to decline by 2100 under current trajectories. Emperor penguins are identified as the most vulnerable taxon, followed by other seabirds and dry soil nematodes. We find that implementing 10 key threat management strategies in parallel, at an estimated present-day equivalent annual cost of US$23 million, could benefit up to 84% of Antarctic taxa. Climate change is identified as the most pervasive threat to Antarctic biodiversity and influencing global policy to effectively limit climate change is the most beneficial conservation strategy. However, minimising impacts of human activities and improved planning and management of new infrastructure projects are cost-effective and will help to minimise regional threats. Simultaneous global and regional efforts are critical to secure Antarctic biodiversity for future generations.

Protected Areas are established to protect significant ecosystems and historical artefacts. However, many are subject to little structured monitoring to assess whether the attributes for which they have been protected are being maintained or degraded. Monitoring sensitive areas using ground surveys risks causing damage to the values for which they are being protected, are usually based on limited sampling, and often convey insufficient detail for understanding ecosystem change. Therefore, there is a need to undertake quick and accurate vegetation surveys that are low impact, cost effective and repeatable with high precision. Here we use drone technology to map protected areas in Antarctica to ultra-high resolution and provide baseline data for future monitoring. Our methods can measure micro-scale changes, are less expensive than ground-based sampling and can be applied to any protected area where fine scale monitoring is desirable. Drone-based surveys should therefore become standard practice for protected areas in remote fragile environments.

Multilateral environmental governance regimes like the Antarctic Treaty System are pivotal in addressing today's wicked transboundary socio‐ecological problems and central to their success is the facilitation of constructive knowledge exchange (KE) between research and policymaking communities. Consequently, the literature is now ripe with studies that aim to uncover the elements that enable or hinder KE successes across diverse environmental governance settings. Yet, in the Antarctic context, the KE practices that comprise Antarctic science‐policy interfaces remain empirically under examined. Here we contribute by exploring the perspectives of 31 Antarctic practitioners to develop our understandings of successful KE practices in the policy contexts of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and the Committee for Environmental Protection. By adopting a reflexive thematic analysis, we identify 11 enablers and 9 barriers to KE success that are overlapping, interconnected and complex. According to practitioners, in the face of pervasive barriers, such as the often overshadowing effect of politics, a deficiency of KE incentives and large‐scale wicked policy problems, certain Antarctic institutions and practitioners portray strong boundary spanning expertise, which despite the many challenges identified, serves to facilitate KE in support of evidence‐informed decision‐making. However, the extent to which boundary spanners are influential in their leadership varies, and while acknowledging that influential leadership is an important enabler for success, we raise several questions regarding the potentially unexplored assumptions that underpin current KE practices. As Antarctic practitioners share a desire to foster inclusive, iterative and multidirectional science‐policy dialogues among other identified improvements, we suggest that harnessing reflexivity and humility within these processes will be critically important for ensuring that existing asymmetries or inequities are not reinforced under the guise of improved ways of working.