Abstract
This chapter focuses on the ways Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, and the tourism industry supervise the implementation of applicable regulation for Antarctic shipborne tourism. Tourism regulation is adopted in the framework of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, as well as the external provisions from other international fora and by industry self-regulation. Based on a description of the existing regulation and provisions in place, this chapter discusses the way supervision of Antarctic tourist operations have been debated, conducted and reported by both Treaty Parties and the industry. The article concludes by discussing likely mechanisms to enhance supervision of the management of shipborne tourist activities in Antarctica, and proposing further lines of research on this issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
This recommendation set up a permitting system for groups of tourists visiting Antarctic stations.
- 3.
The expected date of entry into force of the Polar Code is 1 January 2017, and it will apply to new ships constructed after that date. Ships constructed before that date will be required to meet the relevant requirements of the Polar Code by the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after 1 January 2018 (http://www.imo.org).
- 4.
For instance, Measure 15 (2009) which establishes certain restrictions for the landing of persons from passenger vessels was based on a previous IAATO provision.
- 5.
These were Measure 4, 2004, “Insurance and Contingency Planning for Tourism and NGO activities in the AT Area” and Measure 15, 2009, “Landing of Persons from passenger Vessels in the AT Area”.
- 6.
For instance, the issue of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) had never been discussed at the ATCM until 2014, when it required attention as it was creating some problems, including for tourism. Subsequently IAATO developed regulations for this activity, preventing tourists in coastal areas to use this technology (but not inland, and not for some commercial activities under permit).
- 7.
Inter-company supervision is here excluded. In addition, IAATO can supervise individual members according to its own observer mechanisms.
- 8.
After Decision 4 (2012), it was also decided to give Parties, as applicable, the option to include the denial of authorisations to operators and identify activities cancelled by an operator after meeting Parties’ regulatory requirements.
- 9.
All Antarctic Treaty Parties, with the exception of Belarus, are also IMO Parties.
- 10.
In addition to pollution prevention requirements the PSC inspection will focus upon safety issues by verification that the vessel’s crew meet international standards, that it has a functional safety management system, that its charts are corrected and up-to-date, that it has undertaken passage planning for the duration of its time in Antarctic waters, that it has adequate lifesaving equipment and the means of making distress signals and that it has a search and rescue plan in place and lodged with a rescue co-ordination centre (New Zealand 2009a, b).
- 11.
The operation of expedition cruise ships exclusively takes place within the IAATO-framework, while during the time period from 1996 to 2013 merely 16 % of a total of over 200 yachts were IAATO-members during the time of their Antarctic voyage (Vöneky 2016).
- 12.
- 13.
This checklist supplemented other existing Checklists agreed at ATCMs by Resolution 5, 1995; Resolution 4, 2008; and Resolution 3, 2010, which cover operations of Antarctic stations, ships operating in Antarctic waters and protected areas, respectively.
- 14.
The technical distinction between inspections and observation schemes is just a procedural one, as the main differences between them lie in the formal procedure of observers’ designation set up in article VII of the Treaty and in the reporting procedures included in article 14 of the Madrid Protocol. Apart from these, same procedures should be applied by any inspection or observation team when dealing with obtaining information from appropriate sources.
- 15.
In the same period, over160 visits were carried out by inspection teams to Antarctic stations.
- 16.
For instance, this happened to GAP Expeditions after the loss of the MS Explorer (IAATO 2011).
- 17.
IAATO recruits observers on the basis of his/her related experience and understanding of field operations, and avoiding any conflict of interest. They are to perform the observer activities at their own costs, except for travel expenses, which are covered by the company being observed.
- 18.
Outside the formal structure of the ATS, the organization Oceanites, with the support of IAATO members, has been conducting site inventories at tourism landing sites, which focus primarily in flora and fauna, and apparent impacts, rather than on human activity itself. A somewhat similar activity has been carried out by the New Zealand Antarctic Program (New Zealand 2006, 2009b) in site assessments known as Visitor Site Assessment Scheme (VISTA). However, VISTA is focused on environmental impact assessment rather than the supervision of tourism per se.
- 19.
Notwithstanding, all of the currently known tourism operators are located in a State party to the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol on Environmental Protection (Vöneky 2016).
- 20.
Such Memoranda of Understanding on PSC include: Europe and the north Atlantic (ParisMoU); Asia and the Pacific (TokyoMoU); Latin America (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar); Caribbean (Caribbean MoU); West and Central Africa (AbujaMoU); the Black Sea region (Black Sea MoU); the Mediterranean (Mediterranean MoU); the Indian Ocean (Indian Ocean MoU); and the RiyadhMoU.
- 21.
The need for the agreement of an Antarctic Port State Control Memorandum of Understanding has been also proposed, though no consensus has yet been found on this idea, as some think the existing MoUs are sufficient to deal with Antarctic port state control.
- 22.
Similarly, Resolution 7 (2014) was adopted to remind Parties that Measure 4(2004) “Insurance and Contingency Planning for Tourism and NGO activities in the AT Area” should indeed be ratified after 10 years of having been agreed, without having entered into force yet.
- 23.
For the 2013/14 season, 75 Antarctic sites—out of 218—have received more than 1000 visitors.
References
Amelung, B., & Lamers, M. (2006). Scenario development for antarctic tourism: Exploring the uncertainties. Polarforschung, 75(2/3), 133–139.
Antarctic Treaty Secretariat. (2014). ATCM Multi-Year Strategic Work Plan: Summary of the ATCM discussions and decisions on land-based and adventure tourism, presented as Secretariat Paper 9 to ATCM XXXVII (Brasilia, 2014).
Argentina. (2010). Supervision of Antarctic tourism, presented as Working Paper 48 to ATCM XXXIII (Punta del Este, 2010).
Argentina. (2011). Report of the intersessional contact group on supervision of Antarctic tourism presented as working paper 48 to ATCM XXXIV (Buenos Aires, 2011).
Argentina. (2012). Final report of the intersessional contact group on supervision of Antarctic tourism presented as working paper 43 to ATCM XXXV (Hobart, 2012).
ASOC. (2002). Port state jurisdiction: An appropriate international law mechanism to regulate vessels engaged. In Antarctic tourism, presented as IP 063 to ATCM XXV (Warsaw, 2002).
ASOC. (2003). Port state control: An update on international law approaches to regulate vessels engaged. In Antarctic non-governmental activities, presented as IP 044 to ATCM XXVI (Madrid, 2003).
ASOC. (2010). Antarctic shipborne tourism and inspections under article VII of the Antarctic treaty and article 14 of the protocol on environmental protection. Presented as IP 82 to ATCM XXXIII (Punta del Este, 2010).
Bastmeijer, C., & Roura, R. (2004). Regulating Antarctic tourism and the precautionary principle. American Journal of International Law, 98(4), 763–781.
ATS. (2010). Final report of the thirty-third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Buenos Aires: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Retrieved from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM33/fr/ATCM33_fr001_e.pdf (Punta del Este, 2010).
ATS. (2013). Final report of the thirty-sixth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (Vol. 1). Buenos Aires: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Retrieved from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM36/fr/ATCM36_fr001_e.pdf (Brussels, 2013).
Bastmeijer, K. & Roura, R. M. (2008). Environmental impact assessment in Antarctica. In K. Bastmeijer & T. Koivurova (Eds.), Theory and practice of transboundary environmental impact assessment, monographs series on legal aspects of sustainable development (pp. 175–219). Leiden: Brill/Martinus Nijhof Publishers.
Cessford, G.R. & Dingwall, P.R. (1996). Tourist visitors and their experiences at New Zealand subantarctic islands (Vol. 1). Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation (Science & Research series, 0113–3713 ; no. 96).
Chile. (1996). Enforcement of international maritime conventions and domestic standards on the inspection of ships that operate in the Antarctic presented as WP 17 to XX ATCM (Utrecht, 1996).
Germany. (1997). Inspection of ships by port states presented as WP 16 to XXI ATCM (Christchurch, 1997).
Haase, D. (2008). Tourism in the Antarctic. Modi operandi and regulatory effectiveness. PhD thesis. Gateway Antarctica: University of Canterbury.
Hall, C. M. (1992). Tourism in Antarctica: Activities, Impacts, and Management. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 2–9. doi: 10.1177/004728759203000401
Hemmings, A. D., & Roura, R. M. (2003). A square peg in a round hole: Fitting impact assessment under the Antarctic environmental protocol to Antarctic tourism. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal., 21(1), 13–24.
IAATO. (2011). Towards An IAATO enhanced observer scheme, presented as IP 107 to ATCM XXXIV (Buenos Aires, 2011).
Jabour, J. (2011). Would you like ice with that? Antarctic tourism and climate change. In A. Jones & M. Phillips (Eds.), Disappearing destinations: Climate change and the future challenges for coastal tourism, pp. 177–190. UK: CABI.
Jabour, J. (2014). Strategic management and regulation of Antarctic tourism. In: T. Tin, D. Liggett, P. Maher & M. Lamers (Eds.), Antarctic Futures: Human Engagement with the Antarctic Environment (pp. 273–286). Springer.
Lamers, M., Haase, D., & Amelung, B. (2008). Facing the elements: Analysing trends in Antarctic tourism. Tourism Review, 63(1), 15–27. doi:10.1108/16605370810861017.
Lamers, M., Liggett, D., & Amelung, B. (2012). Strategic challenges of tourism development and governance in Antarctica: Taking stock and moving forward. Polar Research,. doi:10.3402/polar.v31i0.17219.
Liggett, D, McIntosh, A., Thompson, A., Gilbert, N., Storey, B. (2011). From frozen continent to tourism hotspot? Five decades of Antarctic tourism development and management, and a glimpse into the future. Tourism Management 32 (2011) 357e366. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.005
Molenaar, E. J. (2005). Sea-borne tourism in Antarctica: Avenues for further intergovernmental regulation. International Journal for Marine and Coastal Law, 20(2), 247–295.
New Zealand. (2006). An update on the antarctic visitor site assessment scheme: VISTA presented as 011 to XXIX ATCM (Edimburgh, 2006).
New Zealand. (2007). Tourist vessels flagged to non Parties; Implications for the effectiveness of the Antarctic treaty system presented as WP 14 to XXX ATCM (New Delhi, 2007).
New Zealand. (2008). Implications of tourist vessels flagged to non-Parties for the effectiveness of the Antarctic treaty system presented as WP 22 to XXXI ATCM (Kyiv, 2008).
New Zealand. (2009a). A proposal to enhance port state control for tourist vessels departing to Antarctica presented as WP 7 to ATME on Maritime Tourism (Wellington, 2009).
New Zealand. (2009b). Joint VISTA-oceanites antarctic project presented as IP037 to XXXII ATCM (Baltimore, 2009).
New Zealand. (2010). The enhancement of port state control for passenger ships departing to Antarctica presented as WP 37 to XXXIII ATCM (Punta del Este, 2010).
Orrego Vicuña, F. (2000). Port state jurisdiction in Antarctica: A new approach to inspection, control and enforcement. In: D. Vidas (Ed.), Implementing the Environmental Protection Regime for the Antarctic (pp. 45–49).
Plaza, F. (1999). The future for flag state implementation and port state control. In: M. H. Nordquistand & J. N. Moore (Eds.), Center for Oceans Law and Policy: Current Maritime Issues and the International Maritime Organization (p. 199, 201).
Sánchez, R. A. & Njaastad, B. (2014). Future challenges in environmental management of National Antarctic Programs. In: T. Tin, D. Liggett, P. Maher, & M. Lamers (Eds.), Antarctic Futures: Human Engagement with the Antarctic Environment. Springer.
Scott, S. (2001). How cautious is precautious? Antarctic tourism and the precautionary principle, International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Vol. 50, October, pp. 963–71).
The Netherlands. (1996). Inspection of ships in gateway ports to Antarctica, on the basis of Marpol 73/78, and in Antarctic ports under the Environmental Protocol (Annex IV) to the Antarctic Treaty presented asWP 9 to XX ATCM (Utrecht, 1996).
The Netherlands. (2014). Report of the informal contact group on the increasing diversity of tourism and other non-governmental activities in Antarctica presented as WP 47 to ATCM XXXVII (Brasilia, 2014).
United Kingdom. (1997). Enhancing compliance with the protocol: departure state jurisdiction presented asWP 22 to XXI ATCM (Christchurch, 1997).
United Kingdom, Argentina, Australia, Norway and United States. (2006). Policy Issues Arising from On-Site Review of Guidelines for Visitor Sites in the Antarctic Peninsula presented as WP 2 to ATCM XXXI (Edinburgh, 2006).
United Kingdom, Argentina, Australia and United States. (2013). Policy Issues Arising from the 2013 On-Site Review of Guidelines for Visitor Sites in the Antarctic Peninsulaas WP 15 to ATCM XXXI (Brussels, 2013).
Valenzuela, M. (1999). Enforcing rules against vessel-source degradation of the marine environment: Coastal, flag and portstate jurisdiction. In: D. Vidas & W. Østreng (Eds.), Order for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century (p. 485, 497).
Vöneky, S. (2016) Analysis and enhancement of the legal framework—The need for action in the light of current developments of Antarctic tourism. Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. On behalf of the German Environment Agency. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/analysis-enhancement-of-the-legal-framework-the. ISSN 1862-4804, Dessau-Roßlau.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Machiel Lamers, Máximo Gowland, Kim Crosbie and José María Acero, for their valuable comments on this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sánchez, R.A., Roura, R. (2016). Supervision of Antarctic Shipborne Tourism: A Pending Issue?. In: Tourism in Antarctica. SpringerBriefs in Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39914-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39914-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39912-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39914-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)