- Email: [email protected]
Antarctic tourism and environmental concerns
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 2 5 . 9 Printed in Great Britain
12, pp. 258 265. 1992.
0 0 2 5 - 3 2 6 X / 9 2 S5.110+(I.II0 © 1992 Pergamon Press ktd
Antarctic Tourism and Environmental Concerns DEBRA J. E N Z E N B A C H E R Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Carnbridge, LensfieM Road, Cambridge CB2 1ER, UK
Increasing numbers of tourists are visiting the Antarctic. Totals from the past three seasons (198990, 1990-91, 1991-92) were 2581, 4842, and 6495 respectively (Enzenbacher, 1992). Some environmental issues arising from Antarctic tourist activity include: wildlife tolerance, waste disposal, passenger education, tour operator management practices, personnel experience, frequency of visits and ship design. Current guidelines provide a practical approach to tourism, but do not address all issues arising from tourist activity. Antarctic Treaty Parties agreed to examine the question of a comprehensive regulation of tourist activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area and policies are under review. Some issues may prove difficult to resolve. Compliance with existing guidelines is to be encouraged, at least until more is known about the environmental effects of tourism. A management plan for tourism is needed along with more research on how tourism is conducted and the effects visits have on Antarctica's marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Cooperation between Treaty Parties and tour operators is important for the development of appropriate tourism regulations.
During the 1991-92 summer season approximately 6500 tourists visited the Antarctic Treaty Area (south of 60°S): of these more than 6180 arrived aboard ships, 134 on yachts and 178 aboard aircraft. This represents the largest recorded tourist presence in a single season to date, 34% higher than the previous seasoffs record of 4842 tourists (Enzenbacher, 1992). Antarctic Treaty Parties and tour operators have responded to the increase in tourist activity by developing guidelines for visits although a number of issues have yet to be addressed. This paper focuses on cruise ship visits, related environmental concerns and some of the important tourism issues that challenge Antarctic policy-makers. D e s c r i p t i o n and S i z e o f the Industry Tourist activity in the Antarctic Treaty Area has increased since the first known cruise brought tourists in January 1958 (Reich, 1980). Most tourists travel aboard cruise ships visiting the Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands (Fig. 1). The popularity of this area may be attributed to: 1. the proximity and abundance of 258
Fig. 1 Touristson guided tour of Palmer Station (US), Anvers Island, Antarctica. MS FrontierSpirit awaits passengers in the background. South American ports; 2. a milder summer climate than elsewhere in the Antarctic; 3. diverse and abundant wildlife offering photographic opportunities; 4. relative freedom from pack ice for landings compared with other parts of the Antarctic coast; and 5. the largest concentration of Antarctic research stations, visits to which are included in most tours (Enzenbacher, 1991). Tours are generally conducted from November to March, leaving from ports in Chile, Argentina, or Uruguay for the crossing of the Drake Passage. Ships may depart from New Zealand, Australia, or South Africa for the other side of the continent, but more time must be spent at sea before reaching Antarctic landing sites. Cruises vary in length, but many last 12-15 days, with 4 or 5 days actually spent landing at different sites using inflatable boats (Fig. 2). These boats have opened previously inaccessible areas to tourism. Cruise ships vary in size. Smaller vessels may accommodate 40 tourists, larger ones 400, but most carry between 100 and 250 passengers. Many tour operators hire personnel with previous Antarctic experience. Personnel include the captain, officers, expedition leader and/or cruise director and staff including naturalists/lecturers and boat drivers, and all other crew members. Most ships provide a programme of passenger briefings and lectures on such topics as Antarctic history, geology, wildlife, marine biology, politics, and scientific research, during the trip. The cost of a cruise depends upon factors such as the size of the ship, length of trip, itinerary, berthing choice, and tour operator overhead costs. Advertised prices for 10-30 day cruises during the 1992-93 season range
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12
TABLE 1 List of known ships and operators involved in Antarctic tourism during the 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 season with numbers of trips and passengers. No. of
Ship name
Operator
passengers
Ocean Princess
1 2 3
Ocean Cruise Lines
376 390 386
Fro,ltier,Spirit
1 2 3 4 5 6
Salen Lindblad Cruising
27 133 139 66 88 131
llliria
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Travel Dynamics, Inc.
119 80 101 82 109 88 90 85 79
l'roJessor Molchanov
1 2 1 2
Quark Expeditions
Daphne
1
Costa Cruise Lines
350
Socie O' Explorer
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Society Expeditions
97 89 106 97 89 95 98 97
Worht Discoverer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Society Expeditions
90 110 90 130 120 120 130 120 125
('olumbus Caravelle
1 2 3 4 5
International Cruise Center
135 250 125 115 145
Boris Petrov
1 2
International Polar Cruises
22 27
Vistamar
1 2
Plantours* Partner
l'iloto Pardo
I 2 3 4
Chilean Navy vessel
Abel J
1
BBC charter
Fig. 2 Tourists in a rubber inflatable raft watching whales off Cuverville Island, Antarctica.
from USS2850 to USS16 475 with a typical 12 day cruise costing between U S S 5 0 0 0 - 7 0 0 0 . Prices normally do not include transportation to the port city serving as the cruise departure point. A typical Antarctic cruise itinerary includes visits to penguin rookeries, scientific research stations, historic sites, cruises in inflatable boats to explore scenic areas or observe seals on ice floes, and may offer an opportunity to swim in the thermally heated waters of Pendulum Cove (Deception Island) (Fig. 3) or watch for whales and seabirds. Shipborne tourism is largely selfcontained and as such does not require the accompanying infrastructure that provides logistical (and in the case of research stations, science) support for landbased facilities. Shipborne tourists may make several landings each day for several hours at a time, but return to the ship for accommodation and meals. To date, few tourists have been based on land in Antarctic facilities. Between January 1958 and March 1992, a total of 296 cruises carried more than 43 000 tourists to the Antarctic (Enzenbacher, 1992). Only a few ships were involved each season prior to 1987 (Fig. 4). During the 1991-92 season 10 cruise ships, 1 military vessel, 1 chartered vessel, 17 yachts and various aircraft carried nearly 6500 tourists to the Antarctic. Table 1 provides a list of ships and operators involved in Antarctic tourism during the 1991-92 season with numbers of trips and passengers.
Trip no.
~ ~i~ ¸ 5
27 4(I 36* 36
Plancius
160 285 10* 10* 10" 1O* 18 Total
6183
* Denotes estimated number of tourists. Source: Data collected by the author during Antarctic field research and information provided by N. Kennedy, Division of Polar Programs, US National Science Foundation.
Fig,. 3 Tourists swim in the warm waters of Pendulum Cove, Deception Island, Antarctica.
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) estimated that during the 1992-93 season a total of 52 voyages, involving approximately 6500 tourists, will be made by at least 10 ships planning trips to the Antarctic Peninsula, Lesser Antarctica and McMurdo Sound (NSF, 1992a). Some tour operators now offer lower 259
M a r i n e Pollution Bulletin - 8000
t-
/
60
No. of shipborne tourists
/ /
/ I
No. of cruises 50 ..........
6000
/
No of sh"
4000
o" o ne,.
.m r¢B
I
o
40
• 2o00
6 Z
>,
o 30 tle LL
-0 20
I0-
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Year Fig. 4 N u m b e r s of ships used to carry tourists, total n u m b e r s of tourist cruises offered, and total n u m b e r s of s h i p b o r n e tourists each s u m m e r season in the Antarctic from 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 9 2 . Note the lack of data available on s h i p b o r n e tourism from 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 5 . The s u d d e n rise in the n u m b e r of s h i p b o r n e tourists during the 1 9 7 4 - 7 5 season is attributable to cruises offered by ships with capacities of 4 7 4 and 8011 respectively. Sources: E n z e n b a c h e r (1991), pp. 2 0 - 2 5 : E n z e n b a c h e r (1992), p. 18; Reich (1980), pp. 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 ; U S A P (1991), pp. 2 2 - 3 6 , 6 5 - 6 8 ; U S A R P (1981a), pp. X - l - X - 5 ; and U S A R P (1981 b), pp. X- l - X - 4 .
priced cruises, making an Antarctic trip affordable to greater numbers of people, but it is not known whether or when tourist numbers will increase, level off, or decline.
The Regulatory Framework for Antarctic Tourism Treaty recommendations backed by national legislation and guidelines, such as those for tourists and tour operators endorsed by members of the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), provide the current regulatory framework for Antarctic tourism. The recently agreed Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty with its Annexes described general principles and detailed provisions for environmental management applicable to all forms of human activity in the Antarctic (AJUS, 1991), but has yet to enter into force. To do so, the Protocol needs to be ratified by all of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and although this is expected in the near future, it is not known when this will happen• As Treaty Parties consider the form tourism regulations should take, a current debate centres around the proposed Protocol Annex on Tourism. One view holds that a separate annex is needed to address tourism issues that have yet to be resolved• Another view maintains that the Protocol already covers all human 260
activities in the Treaty Area, rendering a tourism annex redundant. While it is generally recognized that specific issues unique to tourist activity have arisen that are not covered by existing Treaty provisions, how the issue of the proposed Annex on Tourism will be resolved remains to be seen (Table 2). Treaty Parties are responding to tourism issues in a number of ways. An informal meeting on tourism was arranged to precede XVII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in Venice during November 1992 to address environmental and operational issues (Antarctic Treaty, 1992). Organizations such as IAATO, the World Tourism Organization, Antarclic and Southern Ocean Coalition, International Maritime Organization, and Pacific Asia Travel Association, among others, were invited to attend. The US National Science Foundation employs an observer programme to monitor tourism aboard cruise ships run by American tour operators in the Antarctic. These are developments that demonstrate commitment to tourism issues and concern for Antarctica's environment. Areas of Special Tourist Interest (ASTIs) were created in Recommendation VIII-9 (2(b)) and Annex B (which is open to review at Treaty Meetings) although to date, no such areas have been designated (Heap, 1990) and other options are under consideration. The ASTI category was designed to direct tours to certain locations so their effects could be contained and monitored. The Antarctic Treaty Handbook (Heap, 1990) provides a full account of Treaty provisions and
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12 TABLE 2
An Annex on Tourism has been proposed for the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Some key elements to differing views. Views put forth in defenee of a Protocol Annex on Tourism:
1. Some activities unique to tourist activity have not yet been addressed within the Antarctic Treaty System. A Protocol Annex on Tourism provides an opportunity to adopt a comprehensive set of regulations for tourism conducted in the Treaty Area. 2. A Protocol Annex on Tourism provides a means of addressing tourism issues in a consistent, coherent and legally binding manner. 3. If all the regulations applicable to tour operators and private expeditioners were placed in a Protocol Annex on Tourism the information could be more readily understood by and disseminated among those bound by its provisions. 4. Current provisions covering Antarctic tourism are not specific enough and may be exploited by commercial tour operators or private expeditioners. 5. It is better to err on the side of caution and regulate tourism in a Protocol Annex before irreversible environmental damage is caused. Regulations can be relaxed if proven to be too stringent. 6. An Annex on Tourism would allow all member states of the Protocol to be involved in regulating tourism activity.
Environmental Effects of Antarctic Tourism T h e m a n n e r in w h i c h t o u r s are c o n d u c t e d affects the n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f i m p a c t s m a d e in t h e A n t a r c t i c , yet little is k n o w n a b o u t t h e e f f e c t o f t o u r i s t a c t i v i t y o n the e n v i r o n m e n t ( T a b l e 3). T h e n o t a b l e i n c r e a s e in the number of ships operating during the 1991-92 season raises q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g e m i s s i o n s , w a s t e d i s p o s a l , a n d p e r s o n n e l e x p e r i e n c e . I s s u e s s u c h as v e s s e l s t a n d ards, n a v i g a t i o n a l aids, fuel c o n s u m p t i o n , a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r a c t i c e s b e t w e e n vessels a l s o n e e d to b e c o n s i d e r e d to m a n a g e t h e i n d u s t r y effectively. A s m o r e ships visit the s a m e sites in t h e T r e a t y A r e a , t o u r i s t a c t i v i t y m a y n e e d to b e c o o r d i n a t e d to p r e v e n t incid e n t s o r o v e r - v i s i t a t i o n . M a n y o f t h e s e issues are n o w g a i n i n g t h e a t t e n t i o n o f T r e a t y Parties. TABLE 3
Some environmental issues and questions that arise with respect to Antarctic tourism. Issues
Questions
Views put forth opposing a Protocol Annex on Tourism:
1. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty already covers all human activity in the Antarctic Treaty Area and renders an Annex on Tourism redundant. 2. Means already exist within the Antarctic Treaty System (including the Protocol itself) to address tourism issues. 3. A two-tiered system of rules or regulations is not appropriate for the Antarctic. State operators should be held to the same operational and behaviourat standards as commercial tour operators/visitors or privately funded expeditioners.
Wildlife tolerance
How are breeding, feeding and nesting habits affected by tourist visits? What distance should be maintained from wildlife?
Waste disposal
How do ships dispose of wastes in the Antarctic? Should more stringent waste disposal regulations apply in the Treaty Area'?
Passenger education
How are passengers briefed before, during and after a trip to the Antarctic'? Are materials available in languages understood by all passengers and crew aboard'? How does passenger education affect tourist awareness and behaviour ashore?
Tour operator management practices
How are tourists managed while ashore? Are knowledgeable guides provided at landing sites? Are tourists allowed to smoke, eat, or walk out of sight once ashore? What boat policies are in effect for the trip?
Personnel experience
Should previous Antarctic experience be required of ship personnel given the area's harsh environmental conditions, protected areas, remoteness and lack of emergency facilities'? Should expedition leaders, boat drivers and shore guides be subiect to a certification scheme'?
Frequency of visits
How many tourists are landing at each site and how long do they remain ashore'? Do tour operators know how often sites are being visited by other ships'? How much time elapses between visits to wildlife sites and research stations'? What are the environmental effects of repetitive visits?
Ship design
Are special vessel standards needed for ships operating in Antarctic waters? Should ships in the Treaty Area be required to (a) have an ice rating; and (b) carry liability insurance?
4. A Protocol Annex, as a legal instrument, would be more difficult to amend once it entered into force, than Treaty Recommendations. 5. Over-regulation of the commercial tourism industry might force operators to work outside of the Treaty System. 6. Antarctic tour operators should be encouraged to self-regulate.
useful i n f o r m a t i o n o n T r e a t y issues a n d o p e r a t i o n a l matters. A l t h o u g h m a j o r t o u r o p e r a t o r s r e p o r t t h e i r activities as r e q u i r e d by A n t a r c t i c T r e a t y R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s IV27, V I - 7 a n d V I I I - 9 , s o m e t o u r s h i p s a n d m o s t y a c h t s d o n o t r e p o r t t h e i r p l a n s to h o m e g o v e r n m e n t s . S o m e t o u r o p e r a t o r s d o n o t r e p o r t i n f o r m a t i o n in t h e f o r m s t i p u l a t e d in A n t a r c t i c T r e a t y R e c o m m e n d a t i o n V I I I - 9 . A r t i c l e V I I ( 5 ) o f t h e T r e a t y p r o v i d e s f o r the e x c h a n g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n b e t w e e n T r e a t y Parties, b u t the quality, nature and amount of material exchanged varies considerably. 1 A A T O was f o r m e d in A u g u s t 1991 by s e v e n c h a r t e r members. Membership has i n c r e a s e d to 13 a n d i n c l u d e s all t h e m a i n c r u i s e lines p l a n n i n g to o p e r a t e in the A n t a r c t i c d u r i n g t h e 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 s e a s o n ( I A A T O , 1 9 9 2 c ) . S i n c e t h e s e o p e r a t o r s a r e likely to b r i n g t h e m a j o r i t y o f t o u r i s t s to t h e T r e a t y A r e a n e x t s e a s o n , t h e i r i n f l u e n c e is c o n s i d e r a b l e . In p r a c t i c e , t h e i n d u s t r y is l a r g e l y s e l f - r e g u l a t e d . T o u r o p e r a t o r s m a i n t a i n that current guidelines (IAATO, 1992a,b), which provide a practical approach to minimizing environmental i m p a c t s , a r e a d e q u a t e , yet it is n o t c l e a r that selfr e g u l a t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t to a d d r e s s all issues a r i s i n g f r o m t o u r i s t activity.
Wildlife tolerance T h e effect o f v i s i t o r s at c l o s e r a n g e to A n t a r c t i c wildlife has yet to b e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d (Fig. 5). I A A T O g u i d e l i n e s call f o r v i s i t o r s to m a i n t a i n a d i s t a n c e o f at least 15 m f r o m fur seals a n d 4.5 m f r o m p e n g u i n s , n e s t i n g b i r d s a n d c r a w l i n g (or t r u e ) seals ( I A A T O , 1992b). In p r a c t i c e it is n o t a l w a y s p o s s i b l e to m a i n t a i n t h e s e d i s t a n c e s at sites d u e to t e r r a i n o r n a r r o w a c c e s s to f e a t u r e s o f interest. T h e s e d i s t a n c e s 261
Marine Pollution Bulletin
MS Frontier Spirit, with a passenger capacity of 164 and a gross tonnage of 6752 t, was built two years ago and is equipped to handle ship waste more effectively than cruise ships built in past decades (Fig. 1). The ship has a waste oil incinerator, garbage incinerator, garbage compactor, can compactor, bottle crasher, garbage store, food waste store, and employs methods to reduce and recycle wastes. Similar voluntary small scale initiatives may serve to improve current environmental practices in Antarctica.
Fig. 5 A tourist encounters a Gentoo penguin (Pygoscelispapua) at Yankee Harbor, Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica.
serve as guidelines since conclusive data are not available. Field experience in Antarctica during the 1991-92 season led the author to conclude that the majority of tourists travelling with conscientious tour operators observed current guidelines. In many cases, tourists reminded each other when wildlife was approached too closely, which occasionally happened when snow conditions or rocks made the animals difficult to see (Fig. 6).
Waste disposal Treaty instruments, such as the Code of Conduct annexed to Recommendation VIII-11 and subsequent recommendations, contain provisions for waste disposal practices. Annex III to the Protocol also covers waste management and Recommendation XV-3 addresses ship incinerator facilities, sewage and the dumping of waste at sea, although these have yet to enter into force.
Fig. 6 Tourists ashore at Half Moon Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Often snow conditions make it difficult to distinguish rocks from nests and wildlife.
262
Passenger education Most tour operators distribute reading material to passengers, but how much is read is unknown. During most cruises, information is provided in lectures, handouts, videos, briefings, and the ship library to increase awareness and guide tourist behaviour ashore. Various guidelines, such as those developed by the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) in 1990, IAATO's 1992/93 Guidelines of Conduct for Antarctic Visitors (IAATO, 1992b), and Oceanites (1990-91) Antarctic Traveler,s" Code for Visitors and Tour Companies, attempt to standardize tourist information, but are not yet available to all Antarctic visitors. Guidelines are aimed at all visitors to lhe Antarctic, including tourists, crew members, scientists and support personnel. IAATO distributes its guidelines in handout form and sets of slides are available for a nominal fee for use in briefing passengers at the start of each Antarctic cruise. IAATO guidelines, currently available in English, are now being translated into Spanish, Russian, French (the remaining official languages of the Antarctic Treaty), and other languages, such as German, have been proposed. Tour operator management practices The manner in which tourists are managed while ashore determines how sites are visited and affects how Antarctica's environment may be impacted. IAATO requires its members to abide by guidelines developed by industry experts (IAATO, 1992a). Field research funded by WWF and conducted by a research team from the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, on Half Moon Island, South Shetland Islands during the 1991-92 season (Stonehouse, 1992) revealed many differences among tour operator management practices. For example, some employ a no smoking policy while ashore, others do not. Some tour operators request no food be taken ashore in order to avoid potential disposal problems and the feeding of local wildlife. Most tour operators provide guides at visited sites and although tourists are supervised with varying degrees of scrutiny, they are generally free to explore nearby areas and may walk out of guides' sight. Tour operator boat policies also differ. Some tour operators optimize boat operations by making fewer landing site shuttle trips than other companies with similar numbers of tourists, which in turn saves fuel and results in fewer emissions from outboard motors and a decreased disturbance of local marine life.
Volume 2 5 / N u m b e r s 9 - 1 2
Personnel experience Ship personnel working in the Antarctic are not required to meet special standards although ship captains and officers may have experience in Antarctic waters and cruise staff members may have expeditionary experience in the Antarctic. Many tour operators attempt to hire personnel with previous Antarctic experience, but this is not always possible. This issue has been recognized by COMNAP, but has yet to be resolved. An expedition leader with no previous Antarctic experience was hired to lead six trips during the 1991-92 season. Although the guidelines developed by IAATO (1992a) apply to crew, growth in the tour industry may make it increasingly difficult to find crew ~ith suitable experience.
sites prove very popular with tourists and are included on most ship itineraries, but the effects of localized and repetitive visits have not been quantified.
Ship design Not all tour ships are ice-strengthened. COMNAP recommended that the setting of minimum standards for vessels to be used in the Antarctic be referred to the International Maritime Organization for consideration (COMNAP, 1991). This issue is of particular importance due to the increasing number of tour ships operating and the potential risks to life, property and the environment.
Discussion and Recommendations frequency of visits Data compiled by NSF revealed that tourists, carried by American tour operators who reported their visits in accordance with Antarctic Treaty Recommendation VIII-9, landed on 44 sites in the Treaty Area during the 1991-92 season (NSF, 1992b). The frequency of tourist landings ranged from single visits at 11 sites to more than 20 visits at five popular sites (Table 4). The site visited most often (28 times) during the 1991-92 season was Torgersen Island, across from Palmer Station (US) on Anvers Island. The site with the greatest number of passengers landed (2984) was Half Moon Island, South Shetland Islands, which served as the base for a tourism monitoring project conducted by the aforementioned research team from the Scott Polar Research Institute. Already a popular tourist destination, tour operators were requested to visit the island in order to participate in the study. Thirteen of the 44 sites visited were scientific research stations; Almirante Brown Station was visited most often (26 times). A total of 42 visits were made to seven of the eight stations operated on a year-round basis on King George Island, with some tourists having visited more than one station once landed. All American tour operators known to have offered cruises in the Antarctic during the 1991-92 season reported their activities to NSF. A number of landing TABLE 4 List of the five most popular tourist landing sites in the Antarctic during the 1991-92 season, as reported by American tour operators* to the US National Science Foundation. Site visited Torgersen Island Almirante Brown Station Half Moon Island Whaler's Bay (Deception Island) Cuverville Island
No. of visits
No. of passengers
28 26 25 23 21
2872 2889 2984 2899 2565
*These statistics are based on reports provided by five tour operators. During 39 Antarctic cruises, their six ships carried 5142 passengers (just over 83% of shipborne tourists during the 1991-92 season). Actual visitation levels and passenger numbers may be higher as these figures do not reflect all tourist visits made in the Antarctic Treaty Area during the season. Six other ships, carrying a total of 1041 passengers (approximately 17% of the 1991-92 season's total), made 14 cruises that have not been included in these figures because their operators are not required to report back to NSF. Source: NSF (1992b).
It may prove difficult for Treaty Parties to agree on how some tourism issues should be addressed. The challenge of finding a way forward faces Antarctic policy-makers and tour operators alike. Regulations need to consider current tourism practices and should be able to respond to future levels and forms of activity. Because further tourism regulations are under consideration by Treaty Parties and reliable data on the effects tourism has on the Antarctic environment may not be available before decisions are made, what follows is one option for a course of action that responds to identified concerns (Table 5). Although it is not appropriate to distinguish between types of activities when regulating for environmental protection, some activities that are unique to tourism may require special attention. Conclusive scientific evidence may be a long time in coming; in the meantime, steps can be taken to improve communication between all parties concerned and current knowledge of Antarctic tourist activity. Compliance with existing guidelines remains crucial to the protection of the environment, at least until more TABLE 5 Recommendations that address some of the environmental issues associated with Antarctic tourist activity and aim at minimizing real and potential impacts. •
Enhanced international cooperation and communication between Antarctic Treaty Parties and tour operators.
•
An annual meeting between Antarctic Treaty Parties and all tour operators suhject to Treaty provisions.
•
Standardized reporting forms and procedures for Antarctic tourist activity and consistent information exchanges between all parties concerned.
•
More research on the environmental effects of Antarctic tourism.
•
A tourism observer programme administered by Antarctic Treaty Parties covering all tour operations subject to Treaty provisions.
•
The creation of an Antarctic tourism management plan.
•
Consolidation of existing tourism guidelines.
•
Improvements in passenger education aimed at increasing visitor awareness of the area(s) being visited.
•
Training programmes for Antarctic tourism personnel and the introduction of mandatory contract provisions (IAATO could play an instrumental role here).
•
The uniform application of all legislation governing h u m a n activities in the Antarctic.
•
Consistent self-regulation by the tourism industry.
263
Marine Pollution Bulletin
is known about the effects of tourism. For example, it is unclear whether it is better to spread or concentrate tour visits. Entire areas may be preserved if landing sites are limited, yet fewer impacts will be made at any one site if visits are spread across many sites. This issue of cumulative impacts remains unaddressed. Some transgressions of tourism guidelines witnessed by the author during field work in the Antarctic during the 1991-92 season included: 1. a boat driver smoking while transporting passengers ashore; 2. a passenger attempting to feed a penguin; 3. a passenger touching a penguin; 4. a passenger tossing small stones at the foot of a penguin to improve a photographic opportunity; 5. a crew member throwing a lit cigarette within 10 m of nesting penguins; 6. shore guides having no previous Antarctic experience; 7. groups of more than 100 ashore at any given time; 8. passengers ashore in numbers exceeding the recommended 25:1 tourist to guide ratio; 9. plastic bags, matches and cigarettes left ashore by passengers; and 10. untreated food waste inadvertently discharged in an enclosed bay. Many environmental impacts can be prevented through education and increased awareness among passengers and ship personnel. Although many of these examples occurred on a very small scale with no apparent long term effects, and some are not exclusive to tourist activity, all serve to call attention to the need for an extensive examination of the environmental issues involved when tourists visit the Antarctic; as such they are presented to stimulate thought and discussion of the issues. The potential environmental effect of any ship meeting with incident in the Antarctic causes concern. The Argentine resupply vessel Bahia Paraiso was carrying 81 fare-paying passengers when it ran aground two miles from Palmer Station (Anvers Island) on 28 January 1989, This incident raised the issue of which types of vessels should be allowed to carry tourists in the Antarctic. Other issues involving ship practices arise. It is not known whether all ships comply with current waste disposal provisions. As enforcement is difficult in such a vast international area it is important that environmental awareness be reinforced. The practice of sorting waste aboard vessels for future recycling may serve this end. Awareness of the Antarctic environment is central to positive steps that may yet be taken. Given the remoteness, harsh environment, lack of emergency facilities, and the need for tour leaders and ship officers to know where protected areas are located in the Antarctic, previous experience can prove an important asset when conducting tours in the Treaty Area. To address the issue of personnel experience perhaps IAATO could develop training programmes designed specifically for Antarctic conditions. A certification programme could be developed to cover expedition leaders, boat drivers, and shore guides. Valuable information gained by experienced personnel could be passed on directly to new employees before entering the Treaty Area. The content and variety of lectures, videos, shipboard maps, reading materials, and briefings made before landings can be improved to increase environmental awareness 264
while in Antarctica. Educational materials made available in more languages would be useful. The cooperation of Treaty Parties and tour operators remains central to the development of appropriate tourism regulations for Antarctica. Reporting of activities by Antarctic tour operators varies markedly and should be standardized. The flow of reliable information between all parties concerned will provide a clearer picture of tourist activity in Antarctica. Treaty Parties could develop a tourism observer programme that involved all Treaty nations and covered all tour operators bound by Treaty provisions in the Antarctic. Provisions already exist within the Treaty System for shipborne inspections; these can be elaborated to accommodate tourist activity. Treaty Parties could host an annual meeting with all Antarctic tour operators bound by Treaty provisions so that all concerned parties take part in the dialogue. It is possible that a tour operator coming from outside the Treaty System, and therefore not bound by Treaty provisions, could one day conduct tours in the Antarctic. IAATO could be encouraged to approach (and recruit for membership) any operators outside of the Treaty System and share information accordingly. Mandatory provisions, that incorporate principles aimed at protecting the environment, could be built into the employment contracts of IAATO members. Many complex issues arise as a result of Antarctica's unique international status that demonstrate the difficulties Treaty Parties have in responding to some tourism and other concerns. Cooperation is essential if Antarctic tourism is to be regulated in a comprehensive and legally binding manner. The Treaty System provides a forum in which to address issues arising from tourist activity in the Antarctic. Treaty Parties and tour operators can cooperate further by developing a management plan that coordinates tourist traffic to various sites and recommends levels of visitation, Management plans for protected areas already adopted within the Treaty System and plans for Area Protection and Management being developed in Annex V of the Protocol provide examples for reference. The plan could be developed by Antarctic Treaty Parties in conjunction with a committee of scientists, policy experts, academics and members of the tourism industry, with the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) servin~ in an advisory capacity. The plan could be revised on a continual basis to reflect the latest data and information obtained from scientific research on tourism and remain flexible in order to respond to future levels and forms of tourism. More research is needed to understand how soils, vegetation, wildlife populations and the marine environment are affected by forms of tourist activity currently offered in the Antarctic: cruise ship visits, land-based adventure tourism (whether put in by ship or aircraft), overflights and yachting. Baseline data are lacking for many Antarctic tourist sites. The tourism monitoring project conducted on Half Moon Island during 199192 and future plans for the project (Stonehouse, 1992), studies on human interactions with penguins (Culik et
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12
at., 1990), and the NSF Antarctic tourism observer programme provide a start, but more research would assist the future development of tourism and environmental policies. Conclusions Impacts on the Antarctic environment will be made as long as human activity continues in the region. Some impacts associated with Antarctic tourist activity are avoidable and may be addressed through passenger and personnel education programmes that increase awareness of environmental issues. Current guidelines provide a practical approach to visits in Antarctica as they aim at minimizing impacts until more is known about the effect of tourist activity on the environment. Given the existing regulatory framework for Antarctic tourism, it is suggested the most effective protection of the Antarctic environment will result from: 1. consistent self-regulation by the tourism industry; 2. better education of tourists and tourism personnel; 3. improved communication, including standardized forms, reporting procedures and exchanges of information for all tourist activity; 4. the uniform application of all legislation governing human activities in Antarctica; and 5. continued research on the effect tourism has on the Antarctic environment. Antarctica needs a management plan for tourism; this requires a review of the existing regulatory framework for tourist activity. Treaty Parties and tour operators should cooperate to devise methods for gathering accurate data on the effects of tourism. Their cooperation remains crucial to the development of appropriate tourism regulations. I .',hank members of the Scott Polar Research Institute for their comments on this paper, especially Colin Harris. Comments from John Splettstoesser and Dr. Michael Champ also proved very helpful. The Cambridge Overseas Trust, American Friends of Cambridge University and Australian Federation of University Women have generously provided financial support for my studies, l thank WWF for field research funding during Project Antarctic Conservation 1991-92, and Ocean Cruise Lines, SalOn Lindblad Cruising and Travel Dynamics for providing passage to and from Antarctica during the 1991-92 season. Antarctic Journal of the United States (AJUS) (1991). Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Antarctic Journal ,~fthe United States 26(4), 5-11.
Antarctic Treaty (1992). Recommendation XVI- 13: 10urism and NonGovernmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. Recommendation adopted at the XVhh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, 7-18 October 199l, Bonn, Germany. In SCAR Bulletin No. 104, January 1992; Polar Record 28(164), 92. Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) (1990). Visitor,s Guide to the Antarctic. July 1990. NSF 90-147. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) (1991). Report to the XV1 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Bonn, October 1991. Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs, Washington, DC. Culik, B., Adelung, D. & Woakes, A. J. (1990). The effect of disturbance on the heart rate and behaviour of Adelie penguins (f'ygoscelis adeliae) during the breeding season. In Antarctic Ecosystems: Ecological ('hange and Conservation (K. R. Kerry & G. Hempel, eds), pp. 177 182. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Enzenbacher, D. J. (1991). A policy for Antarctic tourism: conflict or cooperation? Unpublished M.Phil. Thesis. Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge. Enzenbacher, D. J. (1992). Tourists in Antarctica: numbers and trends. Polar Record 28( 164), l 7-22. Heap, J. (1990). ttandbook oJ the Antarctic TreaO' ~ t e m , 7th edn, October 1990. Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) (1992a). Guidelines (~/ Conduct Jor Antarctica Tour Operators, 1992/ 93. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, Seattle. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) (1992b). Guidelines of Conduct for Antarctic Visitors, 1992/93. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, Seattle. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (1AATO) (1992c). Antarctic tour operators join forces to pledge environmentally-friendly cruises. Information release, 14 August 1992. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. Seattle. National Science Foundation (NSF) (1992a). Preliminary estimate of 1992-93 season tourist cruises (as of May 1992). Unpublished document from 8 July 1992 NSF/Antarctic Tour Operators Meeting. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.. National Science Foundation (NSF) (1992b). Sites visited 1991-92 season (25 June 1992). Unpublished document from 8 July 1992 NSF/Antarctic Tour Operators Meeting, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. Oceanites (1990-91). Antamfic Traveler~" ('ode ~or Visitors and 7bur Companies. Oceanites, Inc., Cooksville, MD. Reich, R. J. (1980). The development of Antarctic tourism. Polar Record 20(126), 2113-214, Stonehouse, B. (1992). Monitoring shipborne visitors in Antarctica: a preliminary field study. Polar Record 28(166), 213-218. United States Antarctic Program (USAP) (1991). United States Antarctic activities. Part A modifications of plans for 1990-91, 31 December 1991. Unpublished document. National Science Foundation. Washington, DC. United States Antarctic Research Program (USARP) (1981a). Modification of the United States Antarctic activities planned for the season 1980-81. 30 June 1981. Unpublished document. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. United States Antarctic Research Program (USARP) (1981b). Planned United States Antarctic activities for 1981-82. 20 August 1981. Unpublished document. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
265
12, pp. 258 265. 1992.
0 0 2 5 - 3 2 6 X / 9 2 S5.110+(I.II0 © 1992 Pergamon Press ktd
Antarctic Tourism and Environmental Concerns DEBRA J. E N Z E N B A C H E R Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Carnbridge, LensfieM Road, Cambridge CB2 1ER, UK
Increasing numbers of tourists are visiting the Antarctic. Totals from the past three seasons (198990, 1990-91, 1991-92) were 2581, 4842, and 6495 respectively (Enzenbacher, 1992). Some environmental issues arising from Antarctic tourist activity include: wildlife tolerance, waste disposal, passenger education, tour operator management practices, personnel experience, frequency of visits and ship design. Current guidelines provide a practical approach to tourism, but do not address all issues arising from tourist activity. Antarctic Treaty Parties agreed to examine the question of a comprehensive regulation of tourist activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area and policies are under review. Some issues may prove difficult to resolve. Compliance with existing guidelines is to be encouraged, at least until more is known about the environmental effects of tourism. A management plan for tourism is needed along with more research on how tourism is conducted and the effects visits have on Antarctica's marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Cooperation between Treaty Parties and tour operators is important for the development of appropriate tourism regulations.
During the 1991-92 summer season approximately 6500 tourists visited the Antarctic Treaty Area (south of 60°S): of these more than 6180 arrived aboard ships, 134 on yachts and 178 aboard aircraft. This represents the largest recorded tourist presence in a single season to date, 34% higher than the previous seasoffs record of 4842 tourists (Enzenbacher, 1992). Antarctic Treaty Parties and tour operators have responded to the increase in tourist activity by developing guidelines for visits although a number of issues have yet to be addressed. This paper focuses on cruise ship visits, related environmental concerns and some of the important tourism issues that challenge Antarctic policy-makers. D e s c r i p t i o n and S i z e o f the Industry Tourist activity in the Antarctic Treaty Area has increased since the first known cruise brought tourists in January 1958 (Reich, 1980). Most tourists travel aboard cruise ships visiting the Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands (Fig. 1). The popularity of this area may be attributed to: 1. the proximity and abundance of 258
Fig. 1 Touristson guided tour of Palmer Station (US), Anvers Island, Antarctica. MS FrontierSpirit awaits passengers in the background. South American ports; 2. a milder summer climate than elsewhere in the Antarctic; 3. diverse and abundant wildlife offering photographic opportunities; 4. relative freedom from pack ice for landings compared with other parts of the Antarctic coast; and 5. the largest concentration of Antarctic research stations, visits to which are included in most tours (Enzenbacher, 1991). Tours are generally conducted from November to March, leaving from ports in Chile, Argentina, or Uruguay for the crossing of the Drake Passage. Ships may depart from New Zealand, Australia, or South Africa for the other side of the continent, but more time must be spent at sea before reaching Antarctic landing sites. Cruises vary in length, but many last 12-15 days, with 4 or 5 days actually spent landing at different sites using inflatable boats (Fig. 2). These boats have opened previously inaccessible areas to tourism. Cruise ships vary in size. Smaller vessels may accommodate 40 tourists, larger ones 400, but most carry between 100 and 250 passengers. Many tour operators hire personnel with previous Antarctic experience. Personnel include the captain, officers, expedition leader and/or cruise director and staff including naturalists/lecturers and boat drivers, and all other crew members. Most ships provide a programme of passenger briefings and lectures on such topics as Antarctic history, geology, wildlife, marine biology, politics, and scientific research, during the trip. The cost of a cruise depends upon factors such as the size of the ship, length of trip, itinerary, berthing choice, and tour operator overhead costs. Advertised prices for 10-30 day cruises during the 1992-93 season range
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12
TABLE 1 List of known ships and operators involved in Antarctic tourism during the 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 season with numbers of trips and passengers. No. of
Ship name
Operator
passengers
Ocean Princess
1 2 3
Ocean Cruise Lines
376 390 386
Fro,ltier,Spirit
1 2 3 4 5 6
Salen Lindblad Cruising
27 133 139 66 88 131
llliria
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Travel Dynamics, Inc.
119 80 101 82 109 88 90 85 79
l'roJessor Molchanov
1 2 1 2
Quark Expeditions
Daphne
1
Costa Cruise Lines
350
Socie O' Explorer
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Society Expeditions
97 89 106 97 89 95 98 97
Worht Discoverer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Society Expeditions
90 110 90 130 120 120 130 120 125
('olumbus Caravelle
1 2 3 4 5
International Cruise Center
135 250 125 115 145
Boris Petrov
1 2
International Polar Cruises
22 27
Vistamar
1 2
Plantours* Partner
l'iloto Pardo
I 2 3 4
Chilean Navy vessel
Abel J
1
BBC charter
Fig. 2 Tourists in a rubber inflatable raft watching whales off Cuverville Island, Antarctica.
from USS2850 to USS16 475 with a typical 12 day cruise costing between U S S 5 0 0 0 - 7 0 0 0 . Prices normally do not include transportation to the port city serving as the cruise departure point. A typical Antarctic cruise itinerary includes visits to penguin rookeries, scientific research stations, historic sites, cruises in inflatable boats to explore scenic areas or observe seals on ice floes, and may offer an opportunity to swim in the thermally heated waters of Pendulum Cove (Deception Island) (Fig. 3) or watch for whales and seabirds. Shipborne tourism is largely selfcontained and as such does not require the accompanying infrastructure that provides logistical (and in the case of research stations, science) support for landbased facilities. Shipborne tourists may make several landings each day for several hours at a time, but return to the ship for accommodation and meals. To date, few tourists have been based on land in Antarctic facilities. Between January 1958 and March 1992, a total of 296 cruises carried more than 43 000 tourists to the Antarctic (Enzenbacher, 1992). Only a few ships were involved each season prior to 1987 (Fig. 4). During the 1991-92 season 10 cruise ships, 1 military vessel, 1 chartered vessel, 17 yachts and various aircraft carried nearly 6500 tourists to the Antarctic. Table 1 provides a list of ships and operators involved in Antarctic tourism during the 1991-92 season with numbers of trips and passengers.
Trip no.
~ ~i~ ¸ 5
27 4(I 36* 36
Plancius
160 285 10* 10* 10" 1O* 18 Total
6183
* Denotes estimated number of tourists. Source: Data collected by the author during Antarctic field research and information provided by N. Kennedy, Division of Polar Programs, US National Science Foundation.
Fig,. 3 Tourists swim in the warm waters of Pendulum Cove, Deception Island, Antarctica.
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) estimated that during the 1992-93 season a total of 52 voyages, involving approximately 6500 tourists, will be made by at least 10 ships planning trips to the Antarctic Peninsula, Lesser Antarctica and McMurdo Sound (NSF, 1992a). Some tour operators now offer lower 259
M a r i n e Pollution Bulletin - 8000
t-
/
60
No. of shipborne tourists
/ /
/ I
No. of cruises 50 ..........
6000
/
No of sh"
4000
o" o ne,.
.m r¢B
I
o
40
• 2o00
6 Z
>,
o 30 tle LL
-0 20
I0-
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Year Fig. 4 N u m b e r s of ships used to carry tourists, total n u m b e r s of tourist cruises offered, and total n u m b e r s of s h i p b o r n e tourists each s u m m e r season in the Antarctic from 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 9 2 . Note the lack of data available on s h i p b o r n e tourism from 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 5 . The s u d d e n rise in the n u m b e r of s h i p b o r n e tourists during the 1 9 7 4 - 7 5 season is attributable to cruises offered by ships with capacities of 4 7 4 and 8011 respectively. Sources: E n z e n b a c h e r (1991), pp. 2 0 - 2 5 : E n z e n b a c h e r (1992), p. 18; Reich (1980), pp. 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 ; U S A P (1991), pp. 2 2 - 3 6 , 6 5 - 6 8 ; U S A R P (1981a), pp. X - l - X - 5 ; and U S A R P (1981 b), pp. X- l - X - 4 .
priced cruises, making an Antarctic trip affordable to greater numbers of people, but it is not known whether or when tourist numbers will increase, level off, or decline.
The Regulatory Framework for Antarctic Tourism Treaty recommendations backed by national legislation and guidelines, such as those for tourists and tour operators endorsed by members of the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), provide the current regulatory framework for Antarctic tourism. The recently agreed Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty with its Annexes described general principles and detailed provisions for environmental management applicable to all forms of human activity in the Antarctic (AJUS, 1991), but has yet to enter into force. To do so, the Protocol needs to be ratified by all of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and although this is expected in the near future, it is not known when this will happen• As Treaty Parties consider the form tourism regulations should take, a current debate centres around the proposed Protocol Annex on Tourism. One view holds that a separate annex is needed to address tourism issues that have yet to be resolved• Another view maintains that the Protocol already covers all human 260
activities in the Treaty Area, rendering a tourism annex redundant. While it is generally recognized that specific issues unique to tourist activity have arisen that are not covered by existing Treaty provisions, how the issue of the proposed Annex on Tourism will be resolved remains to be seen (Table 2). Treaty Parties are responding to tourism issues in a number of ways. An informal meeting on tourism was arranged to precede XVII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in Venice during November 1992 to address environmental and operational issues (Antarctic Treaty, 1992). Organizations such as IAATO, the World Tourism Organization, Antarclic and Southern Ocean Coalition, International Maritime Organization, and Pacific Asia Travel Association, among others, were invited to attend. The US National Science Foundation employs an observer programme to monitor tourism aboard cruise ships run by American tour operators in the Antarctic. These are developments that demonstrate commitment to tourism issues and concern for Antarctica's environment. Areas of Special Tourist Interest (ASTIs) were created in Recommendation VIII-9 (2(b)) and Annex B (which is open to review at Treaty Meetings) although to date, no such areas have been designated (Heap, 1990) and other options are under consideration. The ASTI category was designed to direct tours to certain locations so their effects could be contained and monitored. The Antarctic Treaty Handbook (Heap, 1990) provides a full account of Treaty provisions and
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12 TABLE 2
An Annex on Tourism has been proposed for the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Some key elements to differing views. Views put forth in defenee of a Protocol Annex on Tourism:
1. Some activities unique to tourist activity have not yet been addressed within the Antarctic Treaty System. A Protocol Annex on Tourism provides an opportunity to adopt a comprehensive set of regulations for tourism conducted in the Treaty Area. 2. A Protocol Annex on Tourism provides a means of addressing tourism issues in a consistent, coherent and legally binding manner. 3. If all the regulations applicable to tour operators and private expeditioners were placed in a Protocol Annex on Tourism the information could be more readily understood by and disseminated among those bound by its provisions. 4. Current provisions covering Antarctic tourism are not specific enough and may be exploited by commercial tour operators or private expeditioners. 5. It is better to err on the side of caution and regulate tourism in a Protocol Annex before irreversible environmental damage is caused. Regulations can be relaxed if proven to be too stringent. 6. An Annex on Tourism would allow all member states of the Protocol to be involved in regulating tourism activity.
Environmental Effects of Antarctic Tourism T h e m a n n e r in w h i c h t o u r s are c o n d u c t e d affects the n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f i m p a c t s m a d e in t h e A n t a r c t i c , yet little is k n o w n a b o u t t h e e f f e c t o f t o u r i s t a c t i v i t y o n the e n v i r o n m e n t ( T a b l e 3). T h e n o t a b l e i n c r e a s e in the number of ships operating during the 1991-92 season raises q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g e m i s s i o n s , w a s t e d i s p o s a l , a n d p e r s o n n e l e x p e r i e n c e . I s s u e s s u c h as v e s s e l s t a n d ards, n a v i g a t i o n a l aids, fuel c o n s u m p t i o n , a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r a c t i c e s b e t w e e n vessels a l s o n e e d to b e c o n s i d e r e d to m a n a g e t h e i n d u s t r y effectively. A s m o r e ships visit the s a m e sites in t h e T r e a t y A r e a , t o u r i s t a c t i v i t y m a y n e e d to b e c o o r d i n a t e d to p r e v e n t incid e n t s o r o v e r - v i s i t a t i o n . M a n y o f t h e s e issues are n o w g a i n i n g t h e a t t e n t i o n o f T r e a t y Parties. TABLE 3
Some environmental issues and questions that arise with respect to Antarctic tourism. Issues
Questions
Views put forth opposing a Protocol Annex on Tourism:
1. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty already covers all human activity in the Antarctic Treaty Area and renders an Annex on Tourism redundant. 2. Means already exist within the Antarctic Treaty System (including the Protocol itself) to address tourism issues. 3. A two-tiered system of rules or regulations is not appropriate for the Antarctic. State operators should be held to the same operational and behaviourat standards as commercial tour operators/visitors or privately funded expeditioners.
Wildlife tolerance
How are breeding, feeding and nesting habits affected by tourist visits? What distance should be maintained from wildlife?
Waste disposal
How do ships dispose of wastes in the Antarctic? Should more stringent waste disposal regulations apply in the Treaty Area'?
Passenger education
How are passengers briefed before, during and after a trip to the Antarctic'? Are materials available in languages understood by all passengers and crew aboard'? How does passenger education affect tourist awareness and behaviour ashore?
Tour operator management practices
How are tourists managed while ashore? Are knowledgeable guides provided at landing sites? Are tourists allowed to smoke, eat, or walk out of sight once ashore? What boat policies are in effect for the trip?
Personnel experience
Should previous Antarctic experience be required of ship personnel given the area's harsh environmental conditions, protected areas, remoteness and lack of emergency facilities'? Should expedition leaders, boat drivers and shore guides be subiect to a certification scheme'?
Frequency of visits
How many tourists are landing at each site and how long do they remain ashore'? Do tour operators know how often sites are being visited by other ships'? How much time elapses between visits to wildlife sites and research stations'? What are the environmental effects of repetitive visits?
Ship design
Are special vessel standards needed for ships operating in Antarctic waters? Should ships in the Treaty Area be required to (a) have an ice rating; and (b) carry liability insurance?
4. A Protocol Annex, as a legal instrument, would be more difficult to amend once it entered into force, than Treaty Recommendations. 5. Over-regulation of the commercial tourism industry might force operators to work outside of the Treaty System. 6. Antarctic tour operators should be encouraged to self-regulate.
useful i n f o r m a t i o n o n T r e a t y issues a n d o p e r a t i o n a l matters. A l t h o u g h m a j o r t o u r o p e r a t o r s r e p o r t t h e i r activities as r e q u i r e d by A n t a r c t i c T r e a t y R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s IV27, V I - 7 a n d V I I I - 9 , s o m e t o u r s h i p s a n d m o s t y a c h t s d o n o t r e p o r t t h e i r p l a n s to h o m e g o v e r n m e n t s . S o m e t o u r o p e r a t o r s d o n o t r e p o r t i n f o r m a t i o n in t h e f o r m s t i p u l a t e d in A n t a r c t i c T r e a t y R e c o m m e n d a t i o n V I I I - 9 . A r t i c l e V I I ( 5 ) o f t h e T r e a t y p r o v i d e s f o r the e x c h a n g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n b e t w e e n T r e a t y Parties, b u t the quality, nature and amount of material exchanged varies considerably. 1 A A T O was f o r m e d in A u g u s t 1991 by s e v e n c h a r t e r members. Membership has i n c r e a s e d to 13 a n d i n c l u d e s all t h e m a i n c r u i s e lines p l a n n i n g to o p e r a t e in the A n t a r c t i c d u r i n g t h e 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 s e a s o n ( I A A T O , 1 9 9 2 c ) . S i n c e t h e s e o p e r a t o r s a r e likely to b r i n g t h e m a j o r i t y o f t o u r i s t s to t h e T r e a t y A r e a n e x t s e a s o n , t h e i r i n f l u e n c e is c o n s i d e r a b l e . In p r a c t i c e , t h e i n d u s t r y is l a r g e l y s e l f - r e g u l a t e d . T o u r o p e r a t o r s m a i n t a i n that current guidelines (IAATO, 1992a,b), which provide a practical approach to minimizing environmental i m p a c t s , a r e a d e q u a t e , yet it is n o t c l e a r that selfr e g u l a t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t to a d d r e s s all issues a r i s i n g f r o m t o u r i s t activity.
Wildlife tolerance T h e effect o f v i s i t o r s at c l o s e r a n g e to A n t a r c t i c wildlife has yet to b e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d (Fig. 5). I A A T O g u i d e l i n e s call f o r v i s i t o r s to m a i n t a i n a d i s t a n c e o f at least 15 m f r o m fur seals a n d 4.5 m f r o m p e n g u i n s , n e s t i n g b i r d s a n d c r a w l i n g (or t r u e ) seals ( I A A T O , 1992b). In p r a c t i c e it is n o t a l w a y s p o s s i b l e to m a i n t a i n t h e s e d i s t a n c e s at sites d u e to t e r r a i n o r n a r r o w a c c e s s to f e a t u r e s o f interest. T h e s e d i s t a n c e s 261
Marine Pollution Bulletin
MS Frontier Spirit, with a passenger capacity of 164 and a gross tonnage of 6752 t, was built two years ago and is equipped to handle ship waste more effectively than cruise ships built in past decades (Fig. 1). The ship has a waste oil incinerator, garbage incinerator, garbage compactor, can compactor, bottle crasher, garbage store, food waste store, and employs methods to reduce and recycle wastes. Similar voluntary small scale initiatives may serve to improve current environmental practices in Antarctica.
Fig. 5 A tourist encounters a Gentoo penguin (Pygoscelispapua) at Yankee Harbor, Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica.
serve as guidelines since conclusive data are not available. Field experience in Antarctica during the 1991-92 season led the author to conclude that the majority of tourists travelling with conscientious tour operators observed current guidelines. In many cases, tourists reminded each other when wildlife was approached too closely, which occasionally happened when snow conditions or rocks made the animals difficult to see (Fig. 6).
Waste disposal Treaty instruments, such as the Code of Conduct annexed to Recommendation VIII-11 and subsequent recommendations, contain provisions for waste disposal practices. Annex III to the Protocol also covers waste management and Recommendation XV-3 addresses ship incinerator facilities, sewage and the dumping of waste at sea, although these have yet to enter into force.
Fig. 6 Tourists ashore at Half Moon Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Often snow conditions make it difficult to distinguish rocks from nests and wildlife.
262
Passenger education Most tour operators distribute reading material to passengers, but how much is read is unknown. During most cruises, information is provided in lectures, handouts, videos, briefings, and the ship library to increase awareness and guide tourist behaviour ashore. Various guidelines, such as those developed by the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) in 1990, IAATO's 1992/93 Guidelines of Conduct for Antarctic Visitors (IAATO, 1992b), and Oceanites (1990-91) Antarctic Traveler,s" Code for Visitors and Tour Companies, attempt to standardize tourist information, but are not yet available to all Antarctic visitors. Guidelines are aimed at all visitors to lhe Antarctic, including tourists, crew members, scientists and support personnel. IAATO distributes its guidelines in handout form and sets of slides are available for a nominal fee for use in briefing passengers at the start of each Antarctic cruise. IAATO guidelines, currently available in English, are now being translated into Spanish, Russian, French (the remaining official languages of the Antarctic Treaty), and other languages, such as German, have been proposed. Tour operator management practices The manner in which tourists are managed while ashore determines how sites are visited and affects how Antarctica's environment may be impacted. IAATO requires its members to abide by guidelines developed by industry experts (IAATO, 1992a). Field research funded by WWF and conducted by a research team from the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, on Half Moon Island, South Shetland Islands during the 1991-92 season (Stonehouse, 1992) revealed many differences among tour operator management practices. For example, some employ a no smoking policy while ashore, others do not. Some tour operators request no food be taken ashore in order to avoid potential disposal problems and the feeding of local wildlife. Most tour operators provide guides at visited sites and although tourists are supervised with varying degrees of scrutiny, they are generally free to explore nearby areas and may walk out of guides' sight. Tour operator boat policies also differ. Some tour operators optimize boat operations by making fewer landing site shuttle trips than other companies with similar numbers of tourists, which in turn saves fuel and results in fewer emissions from outboard motors and a decreased disturbance of local marine life.
Volume 2 5 / N u m b e r s 9 - 1 2
Personnel experience Ship personnel working in the Antarctic are not required to meet special standards although ship captains and officers may have experience in Antarctic waters and cruise staff members may have expeditionary experience in the Antarctic. Many tour operators attempt to hire personnel with previous Antarctic experience, but this is not always possible. This issue has been recognized by COMNAP, but has yet to be resolved. An expedition leader with no previous Antarctic experience was hired to lead six trips during the 1991-92 season. Although the guidelines developed by IAATO (1992a) apply to crew, growth in the tour industry may make it increasingly difficult to find crew ~ith suitable experience.
sites prove very popular with tourists and are included on most ship itineraries, but the effects of localized and repetitive visits have not been quantified.
Ship design Not all tour ships are ice-strengthened. COMNAP recommended that the setting of minimum standards for vessels to be used in the Antarctic be referred to the International Maritime Organization for consideration (COMNAP, 1991). This issue is of particular importance due to the increasing number of tour ships operating and the potential risks to life, property and the environment.
Discussion and Recommendations frequency of visits Data compiled by NSF revealed that tourists, carried by American tour operators who reported their visits in accordance with Antarctic Treaty Recommendation VIII-9, landed on 44 sites in the Treaty Area during the 1991-92 season (NSF, 1992b). The frequency of tourist landings ranged from single visits at 11 sites to more than 20 visits at five popular sites (Table 4). The site visited most often (28 times) during the 1991-92 season was Torgersen Island, across from Palmer Station (US) on Anvers Island. The site with the greatest number of passengers landed (2984) was Half Moon Island, South Shetland Islands, which served as the base for a tourism monitoring project conducted by the aforementioned research team from the Scott Polar Research Institute. Already a popular tourist destination, tour operators were requested to visit the island in order to participate in the study. Thirteen of the 44 sites visited were scientific research stations; Almirante Brown Station was visited most often (26 times). A total of 42 visits were made to seven of the eight stations operated on a year-round basis on King George Island, with some tourists having visited more than one station once landed. All American tour operators known to have offered cruises in the Antarctic during the 1991-92 season reported their activities to NSF. A number of landing TABLE 4 List of the five most popular tourist landing sites in the Antarctic during the 1991-92 season, as reported by American tour operators* to the US National Science Foundation. Site visited Torgersen Island Almirante Brown Station Half Moon Island Whaler's Bay (Deception Island) Cuverville Island
No. of visits
No. of passengers
28 26 25 23 21
2872 2889 2984 2899 2565
*These statistics are based on reports provided by five tour operators. During 39 Antarctic cruises, their six ships carried 5142 passengers (just over 83% of shipborne tourists during the 1991-92 season). Actual visitation levels and passenger numbers may be higher as these figures do not reflect all tourist visits made in the Antarctic Treaty Area during the season. Six other ships, carrying a total of 1041 passengers (approximately 17% of the 1991-92 season's total), made 14 cruises that have not been included in these figures because their operators are not required to report back to NSF. Source: NSF (1992b).
It may prove difficult for Treaty Parties to agree on how some tourism issues should be addressed. The challenge of finding a way forward faces Antarctic policy-makers and tour operators alike. Regulations need to consider current tourism practices and should be able to respond to future levels and forms of activity. Because further tourism regulations are under consideration by Treaty Parties and reliable data on the effects tourism has on the Antarctic environment may not be available before decisions are made, what follows is one option for a course of action that responds to identified concerns (Table 5). Although it is not appropriate to distinguish between types of activities when regulating for environmental protection, some activities that are unique to tourism may require special attention. Conclusive scientific evidence may be a long time in coming; in the meantime, steps can be taken to improve communication between all parties concerned and current knowledge of Antarctic tourist activity. Compliance with existing guidelines remains crucial to the protection of the environment, at least until more TABLE 5 Recommendations that address some of the environmental issues associated with Antarctic tourist activity and aim at minimizing real and potential impacts. •
Enhanced international cooperation and communication between Antarctic Treaty Parties and tour operators.
•
An annual meeting between Antarctic Treaty Parties and all tour operators suhject to Treaty provisions.
•
Standardized reporting forms and procedures for Antarctic tourist activity and consistent information exchanges between all parties concerned.
•
More research on the environmental effects of Antarctic tourism.
•
A tourism observer programme administered by Antarctic Treaty Parties covering all tour operations subject to Treaty provisions.
•
The creation of an Antarctic tourism management plan.
•
Consolidation of existing tourism guidelines.
•
Improvements in passenger education aimed at increasing visitor awareness of the area(s) being visited.
•
Training programmes for Antarctic tourism personnel and the introduction of mandatory contract provisions (IAATO could play an instrumental role here).
•
The uniform application of all legislation governing h u m a n activities in the Antarctic.
•
Consistent self-regulation by the tourism industry.
263
Marine Pollution Bulletin
is known about the effects of tourism. For example, it is unclear whether it is better to spread or concentrate tour visits. Entire areas may be preserved if landing sites are limited, yet fewer impacts will be made at any one site if visits are spread across many sites. This issue of cumulative impacts remains unaddressed. Some transgressions of tourism guidelines witnessed by the author during field work in the Antarctic during the 1991-92 season included: 1. a boat driver smoking while transporting passengers ashore; 2. a passenger attempting to feed a penguin; 3. a passenger touching a penguin; 4. a passenger tossing small stones at the foot of a penguin to improve a photographic opportunity; 5. a crew member throwing a lit cigarette within 10 m of nesting penguins; 6. shore guides having no previous Antarctic experience; 7. groups of more than 100 ashore at any given time; 8. passengers ashore in numbers exceeding the recommended 25:1 tourist to guide ratio; 9. plastic bags, matches and cigarettes left ashore by passengers; and 10. untreated food waste inadvertently discharged in an enclosed bay. Many environmental impacts can be prevented through education and increased awareness among passengers and ship personnel. Although many of these examples occurred on a very small scale with no apparent long term effects, and some are not exclusive to tourist activity, all serve to call attention to the need for an extensive examination of the environmental issues involved when tourists visit the Antarctic; as such they are presented to stimulate thought and discussion of the issues. The potential environmental effect of any ship meeting with incident in the Antarctic causes concern. The Argentine resupply vessel Bahia Paraiso was carrying 81 fare-paying passengers when it ran aground two miles from Palmer Station (Anvers Island) on 28 January 1989, This incident raised the issue of which types of vessels should be allowed to carry tourists in the Antarctic. Other issues involving ship practices arise. It is not known whether all ships comply with current waste disposal provisions. As enforcement is difficult in such a vast international area it is important that environmental awareness be reinforced. The practice of sorting waste aboard vessels for future recycling may serve this end. Awareness of the Antarctic environment is central to positive steps that may yet be taken. Given the remoteness, harsh environment, lack of emergency facilities, and the need for tour leaders and ship officers to know where protected areas are located in the Antarctic, previous experience can prove an important asset when conducting tours in the Treaty Area. To address the issue of personnel experience perhaps IAATO could develop training programmes designed specifically for Antarctic conditions. A certification programme could be developed to cover expedition leaders, boat drivers, and shore guides. Valuable information gained by experienced personnel could be passed on directly to new employees before entering the Treaty Area. The content and variety of lectures, videos, shipboard maps, reading materials, and briefings made before landings can be improved to increase environmental awareness 264
while in Antarctica. Educational materials made available in more languages would be useful. The cooperation of Treaty Parties and tour operators remains central to the development of appropriate tourism regulations for Antarctica. Reporting of activities by Antarctic tour operators varies markedly and should be standardized. The flow of reliable information between all parties concerned will provide a clearer picture of tourist activity in Antarctica. Treaty Parties could develop a tourism observer programme that involved all Treaty nations and covered all tour operators bound by Treaty provisions in the Antarctic. Provisions already exist within the Treaty System for shipborne inspections; these can be elaborated to accommodate tourist activity. Treaty Parties could host an annual meeting with all Antarctic tour operators bound by Treaty provisions so that all concerned parties take part in the dialogue. It is possible that a tour operator coming from outside the Treaty System, and therefore not bound by Treaty provisions, could one day conduct tours in the Antarctic. IAATO could be encouraged to approach (and recruit for membership) any operators outside of the Treaty System and share information accordingly. Mandatory provisions, that incorporate principles aimed at protecting the environment, could be built into the employment contracts of IAATO members. Many complex issues arise as a result of Antarctica's unique international status that demonstrate the difficulties Treaty Parties have in responding to some tourism and other concerns. Cooperation is essential if Antarctic tourism is to be regulated in a comprehensive and legally binding manner. The Treaty System provides a forum in which to address issues arising from tourist activity in the Antarctic. Treaty Parties and tour operators can cooperate further by developing a management plan that coordinates tourist traffic to various sites and recommends levels of visitation, Management plans for protected areas already adopted within the Treaty System and plans for Area Protection and Management being developed in Annex V of the Protocol provide examples for reference. The plan could be developed by Antarctic Treaty Parties in conjunction with a committee of scientists, policy experts, academics and members of the tourism industry, with the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) servin~ in an advisory capacity. The plan could be revised on a continual basis to reflect the latest data and information obtained from scientific research on tourism and remain flexible in order to respond to future levels and forms of tourism. More research is needed to understand how soils, vegetation, wildlife populations and the marine environment are affected by forms of tourist activity currently offered in the Antarctic: cruise ship visits, land-based adventure tourism (whether put in by ship or aircraft), overflights and yachting. Baseline data are lacking for many Antarctic tourist sites. The tourism monitoring project conducted on Half Moon Island during 199192 and future plans for the project (Stonehouse, 1992), studies on human interactions with penguins (Culik et
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12
at., 1990), and the NSF Antarctic tourism observer programme provide a start, but more research would assist the future development of tourism and environmental policies. Conclusions Impacts on the Antarctic environment will be made as long as human activity continues in the region. Some impacts associated with Antarctic tourist activity are avoidable and may be addressed through passenger and personnel education programmes that increase awareness of environmental issues. Current guidelines provide a practical approach to visits in Antarctica as they aim at minimizing impacts until more is known about the effect of tourist activity on the environment. Given the existing regulatory framework for Antarctic tourism, it is suggested the most effective protection of the Antarctic environment will result from: 1. consistent self-regulation by the tourism industry; 2. better education of tourists and tourism personnel; 3. improved communication, including standardized forms, reporting procedures and exchanges of information for all tourist activity; 4. the uniform application of all legislation governing human activities in Antarctica; and 5. continued research on the effect tourism has on the Antarctic environment. Antarctica needs a management plan for tourism; this requires a review of the existing regulatory framework for tourist activity. Treaty Parties and tour operators should cooperate to devise methods for gathering accurate data on the effects of tourism. Their cooperation remains crucial to the development of appropriate tourism regulations. I .',hank members of the Scott Polar Research Institute for their comments on this paper, especially Colin Harris. Comments from John Splettstoesser and Dr. Michael Champ also proved very helpful. The Cambridge Overseas Trust, American Friends of Cambridge University and Australian Federation of University Women have generously provided financial support for my studies, l thank WWF for field research funding during Project Antarctic Conservation 1991-92, and Ocean Cruise Lines, SalOn Lindblad Cruising and Travel Dynamics for providing passage to and from Antarctica during the 1991-92 season. Antarctic Journal of the United States (AJUS) (1991). Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Antarctic Journal ,~fthe United States 26(4), 5-11.
Antarctic Treaty (1992). Recommendation XVI- 13: 10urism and NonGovernmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. Recommendation adopted at the XVhh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, 7-18 October 199l, Bonn, Germany. In SCAR Bulletin No. 104, January 1992; Polar Record 28(164), 92. Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) (1990). Visitor,s Guide to the Antarctic. July 1990. NSF 90-147. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) (1991). Report to the XV1 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Bonn, October 1991. Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs, Washington, DC. Culik, B., Adelung, D. & Woakes, A. J. (1990). The effect of disturbance on the heart rate and behaviour of Adelie penguins (f'ygoscelis adeliae) during the breeding season. In Antarctic Ecosystems: Ecological ('hange and Conservation (K. R. Kerry & G. Hempel, eds), pp. 177 182. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Enzenbacher, D. J. (1991). A policy for Antarctic tourism: conflict or cooperation? Unpublished M.Phil. Thesis. Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge. Enzenbacher, D. J. (1992). Tourists in Antarctica: numbers and trends. Polar Record 28( 164), l 7-22. Heap, J. (1990). ttandbook oJ the Antarctic TreaO' ~ t e m , 7th edn, October 1990. Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) (1992a). Guidelines (~/ Conduct Jor Antarctica Tour Operators, 1992/ 93. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, Seattle. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) (1992b). Guidelines of Conduct for Antarctic Visitors, 1992/93. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, Seattle. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (1AATO) (1992c). Antarctic tour operators join forces to pledge environmentally-friendly cruises. Information release, 14 August 1992. International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. Seattle. National Science Foundation (NSF) (1992a). Preliminary estimate of 1992-93 season tourist cruises (as of May 1992). Unpublished document from 8 July 1992 NSF/Antarctic Tour Operators Meeting. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.. National Science Foundation (NSF) (1992b). Sites visited 1991-92 season (25 June 1992). Unpublished document from 8 July 1992 NSF/Antarctic Tour Operators Meeting, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. Oceanites (1990-91). Antamfic Traveler~" ('ode ~or Visitors and 7bur Companies. Oceanites, Inc., Cooksville, MD. Reich, R. J. (1980). The development of Antarctic tourism. Polar Record 20(126), 2113-214, Stonehouse, B. (1992). Monitoring shipborne visitors in Antarctica: a preliminary field study. Polar Record 28(166), 213-218. United States Antarctic Program (USAP) (1991). United States Antarctic activities. Part A modifications of plans for 1990-91, 31 December 1991. Unpublished document. National Science Foundation. Washington, DC. United States Antarctic Research Program (USARP) (1981a). Modification of the United States Antarctic activities planned for the season 1980-81. 30 June 1981. Unpublished document. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. United States Antarctic Research Program (USARP) (1981b). Planned United States Antarctic activities for 1981-82. 20 August 1981. Unpublished document. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
265