Antarctic tourism management and regulation: the need for change

Abstract

Antarctic tourism has experienced a boom period over the last thirty years. Beginning in the 1980s, the number of tourists who visited the continent annually began to rise sharply, and within the space of twenty years the numbers had increased by more than six hundred percent. Despite a global recession and downturn in visitor numbers over the last two austral seasons, the expectation is that Antarctic tourist numbers will trend upward again as the world tourism market recovers and the demand for Antarctic visits increases. In a continent renowned both as the last great global wilderness and as a place dedicated to scientific research in the interests of humankind, tourism on this scale presents a formidable range of issues for the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) to contend with. This article suggests that the rapid growth in Antarctic tourism, and the impacts of that tourism coupled with the lack of a comprehensive regulatory and management framework for tourism now pose a considerable challenge to both the Consultative Parties and to the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) itself. The obligations and duties of the ATCPs under the Antarctic Treaty and other ATS instruments require a robust, strategic response by them to the issues and concerns generated by the growth of tourism. What is needed, it is argued, is for the parties to initiate a more interventionist pro-active policy approach to create a holistic, binding tourism framework so that they may fulfill more effectively their stewardship and governance roles in Antarctica, prevent degradation of Antarctica's environment, and reduce risks to tourists themselves.

South Africa, Antarctica, and the ATS: An Unrealized Foreign Policy Leadership Opportunity

“…Notwithstanding this, the Treaty has also been criticised for shortcomings of exclusivity in membership, limited and unrepresentative governance arrangements, its neo-colonial character, institutional stasis, and laggardly responses to urgent policy issues (Dodds 2006;Hemmings 2007;Elzinga 2013;Verbitsky 2013). The criticisms made by developing states in the UN in the 1980s about the Antarctic Treaty as a club for privileged, western states have also been reiterated in this century, a clear signal that global south states still perceive themselves as having a lesser status and voice in Antarctic governance arrangements compared to those of the global north (Brady 2012, pp.451-452).…”

Turismo Antártico: Naturaleza y Ciencia en los confines del turismo contemporáneo

“…En los trabajos publicados en los últimos años se interpreta a este turismo como un tipo muy complejo de turismo por las características extremas del entorno en el que se desenvuelve y la aplicación de estrictas medidas de control ambiental (Splettstoesser, 2000;Verbitsky, 2013). Falta en casi todos los casos una mayor concreción sobre algunos parámetros que, recogidos de forma genérica en el sistema del Tratado Antártico, único en el mundo por convertir al continente en un gran espacio de paz, son fundamentales para la correcta gestión del turismo; es el caso de los tipos posibles de actividad, los modos de transporte, los volúmenes de turistas entendidos como _____________ carga crítica y los puntos principales de visitas (Grenier, 2009;Lamers, Liggett y Amelung, 2012).…”

“…Esto profundiza en la idea, señalada por algunos autores, de adoptar de manera explícita una visión global del turismo antártico que garantice el mantenimiento de los acuerdos internacionales adoptados y el compromiso de los Estados (Scully, 2008;Verbitsky, 2013).…”

Just transitions and a contested space: Antarctica and the Global South

“…Effectively, there has been institutional stasis since 1991 when the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEPAT) was created. (Hemmings 2007, p.185) There is only a skeletal regulatory framework for Antarctic tourism, despite the evident need for more careful monitoring and regulation of the industry and tourism practices in and around the continent (Verbitsky, 2012). Criticism has also focused on the harmful effects of human interaction with the Antarctic environment and, in that context, the Environmental Impact Assessment procedures built into PEPAT have been found wanting by commentators.…”