The growth of tourism in Antarctica is not without concern for the Treaty’s Consultative Parties. In a press release issued at the end of the Kochi meetings, its Secretariat announced its intention to provide a better framework for this activity. But views still differ widely.
Could Antarctic tourism one day be regulated? This is one of the big questions that revolves around Antarctica, without really finding a suitable place to land. At the 46th meeting in Kochi, India, last month, the 29 so-called Consultative Parties (with voting rights) agreed on “the development of an ambitious, comprehensive, flexible and dynamic framework to regulate tourism”, as stated on the treaty secretariat’s page since May 30. “This agreement allows the discussion to take place, it was a big piece. The subject wasn’t discussed in depth, but it has made it possible to plan the next exchanges,” comments Claire Christian, Executive Director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC). The NGO defends the Antarctic environment, participates in negotiations and advocates a framework for tourism.
By plane, by cruise… the 100,000 visitor mark was passed last year for the first time. For Anne Choquet, a law professor and researcher, “it’s not really the numbers that are the trigger. Tourism is diversifying, and global warming is opening up new areas, increasing environmental and safety risks. Today, governments are ready to take better account of the problem.” In 2002, France was one of the first countries to propose the creation of a new annex to the Madrid Protocol (on environmental protection) to regulate tourism. “The appendix would have made it possible to group together all the legal elements in the same place,” explains Anne Choquet, who is keen to ensure that operators have this kind of visibility. “But instead, we’ve been taking small steps, from measure to decision.”
There are elements that regulate tourism, but the framework is soft. “It’s nothing like what you’d find in a national park,” explains Claire Christian. For example, the ban on the use of heavy fuel oil restricts areas to suitable boats, but exploration of new sites requires no authorization. For an operator to be able to work in the region, he must obtain the approval of his country. In France, the Prefect Administrator of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (Terres australes et antarctiques françaises) reviews requests, after consulting the Polar Environment Committee. It must ensure that companies have a limited environmental impact. “I think this ‘case-by-case’ approach is problematic, and so are some of the Parties,” explains Claire Christian. “There’s no big picture, and no supervision of numbers. There’s no formal planning or monitoring of visitors and their impact.”
Although not binding, a federation of operators is working on these issues. The International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO), founded in the 1990s, brings together a number of companies. IAATO lists sites and formulates rules for landings. Its member vessels coordinate with each other to ensure that they are not in the same place at the same time. IAATO promotes respectful tourism, yet these are only guidelines imposed on IAATO members. “It’s useful for the industry to have a system in place that discourages behavior that people, NGOs and governments don’t want, that respects Antarctic values and shows that the place is unique,” says Claire Christian, while deploring other types of tourism flourishing on the continent.
Today, Antarctica can be reached by plane for skiing, parachuting, climbing and hotel stays on the ice. “People shouldn’t be able to go there just to say ‘I did it there’, that’s not very respectful. It’s a little-known place and still not well understood,” she adds. To avoid damaging the environment, and to respect the precautionary principle at the heart of Antarctica’s legal framework, shouldn’t tourism be stopped? “Although the Madrid Protocol gives priority to science, it does not have exclusive rights,” explains Anne Choquet. “To ban tourism in Antarctica would be to acknowledge our inability to manage other peaceful uses of the continent. To avoid this failure, it is essential to strengthen regulations.”
Some countries believe that tourism should be managed on a site-by-site basis. There are around 200 on the Antarctic Peninsula. Should visits be capped? A common rule or a case-by-case approach? Consensus on opening new sites? All these questions remain open? ASOC prefers to think regionally. “The sites are very small, just a few square kilometers, which is a long way from the living space of whales, seals and penguins,” notes Claire Christian. In the end, positions will have to converge for a framework to be adopted.
What ASOC fears is that countries will be overwhelmed. “We have to deal with this issue now, because the companies are moving faster than the negotiations between 29 countries,” says Claire Christian. “Discussions should be planned over five years, so that countries can consult their legal experts and prepare to find a consensus.”
Camille Lin, Polar Journal AG
More on the subject