Stakeholder Perspectives on Regulatory Aspects of Antarctic Tourism

Abstract

Over the last decade, Antarctic tourism has experienced an exponential growth in tourist numbers and a diversification of tourist activities resulting in questions that challenge the effectiveness and adequacy of the current regulatory regime. Three categories of key Antarctic tourism stakeholders—regulators, organizers, and monitors—were interviewed and provided their perspective on some of the main aspects of Antarctic tourism regulation. The current and anticipated future state of Antarctic tourism, tourism practice and ethos, the success of regulatory mechanisms through the Antarctic Treaty System and International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), and the cooperation between the stakeholder groups are explored to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the regulatory regime. The study confirms that currently Antarctic tourism can be adequately regulated through existing mechanisms, but that growing numbers of tourists and vessels may require more stringent tools to be adopted. Site-specific guidelines are identified as effective tools for a targeted and flexible regulation of primarily ship-borne tourism.

Towards a tipping point? Exploring the capacity to self-regulate Antarctic tourism using agent-based modelling

“…Moreover, by visiting biodiverse sites, tourists can increase the risk of alien species being introduced (Chown et al, 2012;Frenot et al, 2005). Scientists and policy-makers are increasingly aware of these impacts and Antarctica's growing environmental vulnerability related to tourism development (Bastmeijer & Roura, 2004;Haase, Storey, McIntosh, Carr, & Gilbert, 2007;Lamers, Liggett, & Amelung, 2012;Splettstoesser, 2000). Antarctic tourism operators are also concerned about increased environmental pressures and degradation (Liggett et al, 2011).…”

“…The most important tool ATCPs have achieved for regulating Antarctic tourism is the 1991 Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection, which was ratified in 1998 (Bastmeijer & Lamers, 2013). However, ATCPs disagree on how tourism should be addressed (Bastmeijer & Lamers, 2013;Enzenbacher, 2007) and the ATS follows, rather than leads on tourism issues (Bastmeijer & Roura, 2004;Haase et al, 2007). Some of the ATS's limitations in regulating tourism stem from Antarctica's unique international status (Enzenbacher, 1995), the need for consensus among ATCPs that slows decision-making and implementation (Bastmeijer & Roura, 2004;Lamers et al, 2012;Liggett et al, 2010), and lack of knowledge on Antarctic tourism issues (Enzenbacher, 2007).…”

“…A group of seven operators established IAATO and the Antarctica Tour Operators Guidelines for environmentally acceptable practices in 1991 (Landau & Splettstoesser, 2007b). Currently, most operators are IAATO members (IAATO, 2015a), which allows IAATO to act as a single and clear contact point for tourism issues (Haase et al, 2007). IAATO has performed well in the past, is proactive, and fosters participatory collective decision-making (Haase et al, 2007(Haase et al, , 2009.…”

“…Real concerns persist on whether such a precious resource can be entrusted to an industry that profits from sharing it with more people (Liggett et al, 2010). IAATO recognises the need to adapt and change operations to deal with continued growth in Antarctic tourism (Lambert, 2007) and is concerned about how non-member operators affect IAATO's ability to self-regulate (Haase et al, 2007). Industry and government decision-makers have the responsibility to ponder what Antarctica's future should look like (Bastmeijer, 2011).…”

“…Currently, most operators are IAATO members (IAATO, 2015a), which allows IAATO to act as a single and clear contact point for tourism issues (Haase et al, 2007). IAATO has performed well in the past, is proactive, and fosters participatory collective decision-making (Haase et al, 2007(Haase et al, , 2009. Tour operators collaborate because they share a common goal of catering to tourists' expectations of visiting a pristine environment by avoiding crowding and environmental damage (Splettstoesser, 2000).…”