1 Introduction
Tourism into Antarctica might seem a marginal activity but it has in fact had a remarkable growth in the last few decades, with a record of over 120,000 tourists in the 2023–2024 season.1 While this remains a very small number of tourists compared to major global tourism destinations, Antarctica is also an area of the world which is most distinctive, not only in its remoteness and relatively untouched nature, but also in the way in which it is governed. In an area that States designated as a “natural reserve, devoted to peace and science”,2 one can wonder how, and to what extent, the uncontrolled growth and expansion of tourism must be accepted.
The historical record of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs), the annual meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) that govern the Antarctic jointly, shows that States were aware of this commercial activity from early on and took some measures to address specific concerns.3 However, this record does not demonstrate a clear willingness of Parties to put an end, or strict limits, to the development of Antarctic tourism.4 While tourism has developed increasingly fast, particularly since the 1990s, responses by
The primary proposition of this chapter hence is that, although Antarctic tourism is subject to a body of regulation, existing non-use measures relevant to tourism remain rare and often very specific in their scope of application. At present, they are only used to minimise some discrete effects of tourism, particularly in certain locations, rather than to impose hard limits on tourism, its growth and/or diversification. This chapter explores the development, challenges to adoption, and content of non-use measures regulating Antarctic tourism. It focuses on the question of the factors, including decision-making procedures, that have influenced the adoption of non-use measures and analyses the existing measures’ actual impact on the future of tourism development. To do so, this chapter draws on an examination of the series of measures agreed by the ATCM that are relevant for tourism; the record of discussions about tourism and tourism measures, as reflected in publicly available ATS documents;11 and observations conducted through long-term
Based on the typology developed in chapter 2 by Guggisberg, tourism in Antarctica is envisaged as a primarily commercial activity that uses Antarctic space as resource.12 Hence, it is an additive use, where people, energy, and substances that are not originally present in that spatial context are added to the Antarctic, temporarily but recurrently. Such use has both potential and actual impacts on the marine and terrestrial domains of Antarctica, as will be outlined below. While not departing from the conceptual framework of this book, it is nonetheless worth noting that tourism is a complex activity and that its relation to space can be perceived as more than simply ‘additive’. Tourism can also be ‘reductive’, in that by adding people and activities to certain spaces it may reduce some of their original attractiveness or values, for instance through ‘wear and tear’ or crowding. Antarctic tourism may also diminish the sense of “remoteness and a relative absence of both people and indications of past and present human presence or activity” that characterises a wilderness.13 In addition, the contrast between the situation before and after the establishment of tourism in a certain area may be apparent to, and resented by, other users of the same area, such as scientists.14 Consequently, tourism might also be regarded as ‘intrusive’ in wilderness areas – or perhaps ‘incursive’.15
2 Antarctic Tourism
As it will be examined in section 2.1, the concept of Antarctic tourism is not without its controversies, but it remains clear that this industry has been in
2.1 The Nature of Antarctic Tourism
2.1.1 Definition
Tourism is both a business and an activity. A dictionary definition of tourism is “[o]rganised touring; operations of tours as business; provisions of things and services that attract tourists”, while a tourist is a “[p]erson who makes a tour, traveller, esp. for recreation”.16
In the Antarctic context, ambiguities about the concepts of tourism and tourist exist.17 Generally, ‘tourism’ and ‘tourist’ tend to be defined implicitly by exclusion from government activities, and almost always in connection with non-governmental activities, regardless of what these might be. In some perspectives “all forms of recreational activity in Antarctica, including commercial tourism activities as well as the recreational activities of national program personnel” are regarded as tourism.18 In contrast, some Parties prefer to keep a distinction between tourists and their national programmes’ staff. The term ‘visitor’ is sometimes used to refer to any human in Antarctica, but, as currently used in the ATS, it “does not include scientists conducting research within such sites, or individuals engaged in official governmental activities”.19 Both mainstream commercial tourism and other non-governmental activities are bound by tourism and other applicable regulation adopted by the ATCM.20
For the purpose of the current chapter, Antarctic tourism is defined as “all human activities either mainly pursuing recreational and/or educational purposes or unequivocally catering for those who engage in recreational and/or
2.1.2 Development and Potential Impacts
Tourism in the Antarctic region predates the adoption of the Antarctic Treaty and has been a matter of discussion at ATCMs since early on. Only a few tourism ships travelled to the Antarctic region in the late 1950s and through the 1960s, and for several decades only a few hundred tourists visited the region each season, bar a gap in the early 1960s. Over the subsequent decades, tourism in Antarctica has expanded considerably, particularly from the 1990s and, in parallel, has become a significant agenda item for the ATCM as well as a polarising issue.
People are drawn to visit Antarctica for many different reasons,22 which have often involved its aesthetics, its archetypical natural features (often referred to as ‘iconic’), its history and cultural heritage, and increasingly its wilderness. The Antarctica emptiness itself may indeed be regarded as a tourism attraction: preserving the “illusion of wilderness”23 is important for polar tourism as it invokes a sense of discovery and reinforces the notion that tourists are part of an expedition.24 Even the scientific value of Antarctica is of interest as a marketable attraction: visiting Antarctic research stations, listening to lectures about Antarctic science, science-themed expeditions, and hands-on participation in ‘citizen science’ projects are all often included in the tourism menu.25 Facing significant changes resulting from anthropogenic
The location and characteristics of Antarctica have shaped tourism developments. The Antarctic coastline is located 3,000 km or more from the closest continent, except in the case of the Antarctic Peninsula, where distances are significantly shorter.27 Antarctic tour operations also include visits to the Ross Sea region and limited visitation to East Antarctic destinations.28 While the earlier Antarctic expeditions tended to focus on visits to active stations, they have since expanded to include visits to historic sites and natural attractions.29 The traditional cruising model where tourists sleep on-board the vessel and make landings during the day still dominates in Antarctic tourism. However, the modalities of transport and tourism activities continue to evolve and increase, creating possibilities for new behaviours and new interactions with the environment.30 They currently include cruise-only itineraries without landings for large ships,31 fly-sail operations, yacht cruising, and adventure tourism – often linked to ‘deep field’ activities in the Antarctic interior, each with their own variations
Tourism has grown significantly since the early 1990s, rising ten-fold from about 7,500 tourists in the early 1990s to 75,000 in the 2019–2020 season.32 Tourism growth has also been periodically slowed down by events originating outside Antarctica, such as the 2008 financial crisis, a ban on the use and carriage of Heavy Fuel Oil from 2011 and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic, with almost no visitors in 2020–2021.33 Overall, continued tourism growth concentrated in some locations raised concerns about tourism impacts as well as potential ‘Antarctic overtourism’ – of course, not the kind of overtourism experienced in the most visited destinations of the world, but a form of overtourism applicable to the tourism modalities in parts of the Antarctic region.34 For a wide range of reasons rooted in the characteristics of the region and the governance regime applicable to the Southern Ocean and continent, what might be tolerable in other parts of the world in terms of impacts may not be acceptable in Antarctica. Tourism developments after the COVID-19 pandemic revealed strong growth, exceeding 100,000 Antarctic tourists in a season for the first time, and raising once again the possibility of ‘Antarctic overtourism’ at least in some locations. Indeed, during the 2022–2023 season, the industry association, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), reported 104,897 tourists travelling with their operators. Growth is only continuing, and the 2023–2024 season is reported to have reached a record of 122,072 tourists.35
In addition to a continuing growth in number, other factors contribute to the potential impacts of tourism in Antarctica, in particular concentration of tourism in some areas, expansion to new areas, and diversification of, for example, modes of travel and activities.36 Recreational visits to Antarctica are limited to the austral summer (late October to early April) and are geographically
The effects of (over)tourism in Antarctica are multifaceted38 and have concerned Parties to the Antarctic Treaty from early on. Worries have been expressed in relation to the (potential) impacts of tourism on scientific research and the environment, the implications for eventual search and rescue operations, jurisdictional disputes, political uses of tourism in territorial claims, and the establishment of private property in Antarctica.39 For example, when it comes to scientific research, tourism activities might overburden a science station that is visited and might, in the field, be disruptive of ongoing investigations.40 As to the actual cumulative impacts of tourism on the environment, studies have so far been largely inconclusive.41 However, with a fragile – and, until now, relatively protected – environment, there is no doubt that increased and repetitive human presence can contribute to imbalances or damage in several ways, including through ‘wear and tear’,42 impacts on
2.2 Regulation of Antarctic Tourism
Antarctica is jointly managed by States under an international legal system known as the Antarctic Treaty System and based on the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. The ATS is understood as the Antarctic Treaty, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protocol) which was signed in 1991 – as well as two other treaties related to marine living resources, which are not relevant to the present discussion – and the instruments in effect under these treaties. Governance and management decisions for tourism and other matters are made by the ATCM with the advice of its Working Groups and advisory bodies such as the Committee for Environmental Protection.
As of September 2024, there are 57 Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, of which 29 are ATCPs and hence have decision-making powers,45 and 42 to the Environmental Protocol.46 The ATCM is the annual gathering in which the ATCPs, non-ATCPs and others, such as IAATO, meet to exchange information and ATCPs can adopt additional regulatory instruments.47 These instruments, originally named Recommendations, were, in 1995, subdivided into Decisions, which are focused on internal organisational matters; Resolutions, which are hortatory; and Measures, which are intended to be legally binding once approved by all ATCPs.48 The adoption of any instrument at ATCMs must be based on consensus, usually understood as an absence of objection, and hence meaning that any State with decision-making power can block the adoption of regulations.49
Within the ATS, no treaty or dedicated section thereof exclusively focuses on tourism. However, tourism has periodically been the subject of an ATCM Working Group partly or fully dedicated to its discussion. Tourism is regulated in part by the Antarctic Treaty and the Environmental Protocol when their provisions are relevant, and in part by further instruments adopted by the ATCM.
There are also a series of instruments adopted by ATCPs during ATCMs that are relevant for the governance of Antarctic tourism. A search in the Antarctic Treaty Database for instruments related to ‘Tourism and Non-Governmental Activities’ yields a total of 55 instruments. Thirty-seven of these are current, while the others have been repealed.56 Apart from six Decisions, which are directed at internal ATCM matters, 31 other instruments remain (see Table 15.1). These include some legally binding Recommendations adopted as early as 1966, as well as several non-binding Resolutions adopted in recent decades. The two Measures that have been agreed upon in relation to tourism are still not in force, thus not yet legally binding. In addition to the instruments listed in the table, a certain number of instruments not focused on tourism are also relevant to the regulation of the activity, like Resolution 4 (2018) and its annexed guidelines on the operation of drones.57
Current ATCM Recommendations, Resolutions and Measures on tourism and non-governmental activities
| Instrument | Subject |
|---|---|
| Resolution 2 (2024) | General Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic |
| Resolution 4 (2023) | Urgent Measures to Be Taken with Respect to Certain Tourist and Non-governmental Activities |
| Resolution 2 (2022) | Site Guidelines for Visitors |
| Resolution 5 (2022) | Permanent Facilities for Tourism and Other Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica |
| Resolution 6 (2022) | Revised Standard Post Visit Report Form |
| Resolution 4 (2021) | General Guidelines and Site Guidelines Checklist for Visitors to the Antarctic |
| Resolution 9 (2021) | Voluntary On-board Observer Operational Framework for Vessel-based Tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area |
| Resolution 10 (2021) | Post Visit Site Report Form for Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica |
| Resolution 6 (2017) | Guidelines on Contingency Planning, Insurance and Other Matters for Tourist and Other Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area |
| Resolution 6 (2014) | Toward a Risk-based Assessment of Tourism and Non-governmental Activities |
| Resolution 7 (2014) | Entering into Force of Measure 4 (2004) |
| Resolution 5 (2012) | Barrientos Island – Aitcho Islands Visitor Site Guidelines |
| Resolution 9 (2012) | The Assessment of Land-based Expeditionary Activities |
| Resolution 10 (2012) | Yachting Guidelines |
| Measure 15 (2009) | Landing of Persons from Passenger Vessels |
| Resolution 7 (2009) | General Principles of Antarctic Tourism |
| Resolution 6 (2008) | Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres and Search and Rescue in the Antarctic Treaty Area |
| Resolution 4 (2007) | Ship-based Tourism |
| Resolution 5 (2007) | Long-term Effects of Tourism |
| Measure 4 (2004) | Tourism and Non-governmental Activities |
| Resolution 3 (2004) | Tourism and Non-governmental Activities |
| Resolution 6 (1999) | Non-consultative Parties and the Environmental Protocol |
| Resolution 3 (1997) | Tourism Reporting Form |
| Resolution 3 (1995) | Tourist Reporting |
| Recommendation XVIII-1 (1994) | Guidelines for Tourism |
| Recommendation X-8 (1979) | Tourist Regulation |
| Recommendation VIII-9 (1975) | Statement of Accepted Practices in Tourism |
| Recommendation VII-4 (1972) | Effects of Tourist Activity |
| Recommendation VI-7 (1970) | Regulation of Antarctic Tourism |
| Recommendation VI-11 (1970) | Special Protection for New Islands |
| Recommendation IV-27 (1966) | Regulation of Antarctic Tourism |
All these instruments are available at <https://www.ats.aq/index_e.html> accessed 20 September 2024
The internal regulations of the Antarctic tourism industry association are another important source of (informal) measures applicable to tourism. Established by tour operators in 1991, IAATO is an industry organisation that has developed many regulatory requirements for its members. These requirements include bylaws which provide a basic framework and set of principles for the conduct of tourism, and a broad range of complementary guidelines applicable to different aspects of tourism operations. IAATO has also set processes to manage the flow of tourism through a ‘scheduler’ in which operators can book in advance visits to a site. It should be noted that these measures apply only to tour operators that are members of IAATO. In general, IAATO membership constitutes the bulk of the Antarctic tourism industry, however this has not always been the case – and there is no guarantee that it will continue to be so in the future.
As rules adopted by a private organisation are only applicable to its members, IAATO measures are not considered for this analysis. However, the role of this association as a self-regulator of Antarctic tourism and the influence of its rules on instruments adopted at the ATCM must not be underestimated. Indeed, IAATO has participated at most ATCMs since the association was established in 1991. There, it has reported on the development of tourism and carefully advocated that its self-regulation achieved the objective of keeping impacts of tourism minor and transitory. Several IAATO rules have been fully or partly codified into instruments adopted by the ATCM.58
As noted earlier, tourism is both a business and an activity; in the present context, use and non-use measures focus on regulating the tourism activity, primarily in Antarctica, rather than on regulating the business itself. Activity regulation involves some type of control on the basic elements that enable Antarctic tourism to exist as an industry, for example the means of transport of tourists, the activities offered to passengers and conducted by them, environmental regulation requirements, and in particular the selection of spaces where tourism requires additional regulations or cannot take place.
As used here in the context of Antarctic tourism, non-use measures refer to multi-scalar measures adopted by the ATCM and aimed to prevent – or limit if there are exceptions to a prohibition – interactions between tour operators/tourists and the sites or features that serve as potential tourism attractions, and which could be damaged or diminished through that interaction. This is achieved through the adoption of binding or non-binding instruments establishing conditions, restrictions or prohibitions on access, activity or behaviour. Non-use measures relevant to Antarctic tourism fall generally into two main categories: measures concerning access to certain spaces (3.1), and measures that address specific activities, behaviours, or ways of undertaking tourism (3.2). In both categories, the existing non-use measures are presented, before turning to alternative regulatory paths that have not been (fully) followed, at least so far. While not exhaustively examining each measure which could qualify as a non-use measure, this analysis intends to provide a comprehensive and representative overview of trends.
3.1 Spatial Management
3.1.1 Existing Measures
A range of spatial measures focus on restricting entry into certain areas, with some explicitly addressing tourism while others are more general in their scope of application. Most of these spatial management tools include non-use measures, in that some areas are off limit. The basic set of spatial management tools is provided for under Annex V of the Environmental Protocol on Area Protection and Management: they are Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMAs), and Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs) – some of which are the descendants of earlier spatial management tools.59 These binding spatial management tools are complemented by
The spatial management tools envisioned in the Environmental Protocol, in particular ASPAs and ASMAs, are established by means of binding Measures which include Management Plans for each of the areas. These areas are chosen, respectively based on “outstanding environmental, scientific, historic,
Basic Antarctic spatial protection and management tools
| Category | Purpose and characteristics | Application to tourism |
|---|---|---|
| Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA s) |
|
|
| Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMA s) |
|
|
| Historic Sites and Monuments (HSM s) |
|
|
| Visitor Site Guidelines (VSG s) |
|
|
ATCM, “Final Report of the Forty-fourth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” (2022), paras 88–89; Resolution 2 (2022) (n 60)
There are currently 78 ASPAs in place. Entry into ASPA s is prohibited, except if the competent national authority grants a permit.65 Generally, tourism is not explicitly mentioned in ASPA management plans as an activity for which permits can be issued – such activities rather include compelling scientific research and essential management. However, the situation is different for ASPAs that include historic sites also protected by HSMs, such as the ‘Heroic Era’ huts in the Ross Sea region. In those instances, ASPAs have been established around pre-existing HSMs to provide additional protection to the immediate surroundings of the historic features and to the features themselves. For instance, the Management Plan for ASPA 155, where Scott’s Terra Nova hut is located, explicitly provides that tourism is one of the activities on the basis of which a permit can be issued, provided that it does not conflict with the ASPA’s objectives.66 As to HSM s themselves, they do not qualify as non-use measures, as they can generally be visited, although they should not be “damaged, removed or destroyed”.67 When located within an ASPA, some HSMs (essentially some of the historic huts) have management plans that condition how visits should be carried out, including some restrictions on, for example, total numbers of visitors annually or at any given time in the area and inside the hut, and what behaviour is allowed or not in and around them.
An analysis of pre-Environmental Protocol protected areas suggests that some of those areas were partly designated in response to frequent tourism to some research stations, and concerns that visitation by tourists could extend to nearby sensitive areas or interfere with long term scientific research.68 More recently, some ASPAs might have been established, in part, to prevent or limit future tourism access to some areas. For instance, ASPA 177 Léonie Islands, Ryder Bay, and south-east Adelaide Island, a multi-site ASPA designated in 2021, is located near two year-round research stations but has not been visited much in the past. Several of the sites “are included within ASPA No. 177 to ensure conservation of the environmental values contained therein and therefore should
is designated in order to manage visits by tourists or non-governmental expeditions to the Area within a defined area where the exceptional aesthetic and wilderness values of the McMurdo Dry Valleys can be appreciated at the same time as ensuring that potential impacts by tourist visits on other values present within the Area, particularly scientific and environmental values, are minimized.71
Another type of spatial management tool, this time specific to tourism and other recreational visits, are VSGs. Established by way of listing in a
Other non-entry zones include a prohibition of landing for tourists on new islands formed by geological processes in the Antarctic Treaty Area,73 the prohibition to enter Antarctic research stations without permission,74 as well as the requirement that a specific area in Mt. Erebus on Ross Island, which has been designated a tomb following a major aviation accident in 1979, be “left in peace”.75 These ad hoc areas were established by the ATCM early on, even though tourism was not yet a major Antarctic activity.
3.1.2 Non-implemented Measures
tourism was one of the legitimate uses of Antarctica and that the relevant regulations should tend to harmonize this use with other peaceful activities in Antarctica, in particular the scientific activities and that they should also tend to assure the compatibility of touristic activities with the need to protect the environment of Antarctica.79
The idea of ASTI s was promoted anew by France in 2005 and 200680 – and rejected again. According to France’s proposal in 2006, these areas could serve to avoid usage conflicts as tourism can impact scientific research, to limit the impact of this activity on the environment, as well as to enable the study of cumulative environmental impacts of tourism on Antarctica.81 Several delegations, however, expressed concerns about this approach: some did not think that additional rules were needed, considering even that “the development of specialist tourist sites could be regarded as exploitation rather than preservation” and another delegation worried that ASTIs could lead to permanent land-based infrastructure.82
The implementation of ASTIs, instead of stopping certain kinds of operations, would have restricted access to all regions of Antarctica except those contained in the list of designated areas. In a way, it would have reversed the approach currently in place under Annex V of the Environmental Protocol,
Recently, the Netherlands and other co-sponsors presented a working paper entitled “Urgent measures to be taken with respect to certain tourist and non-governmental activities”.85 One of the four proposed measures was that governments require operators not to “land […] in sites that are not covered by ATCM or IAATO site-specific guidelines and/or ATCM management plans and/or visits to sites that have never been visited by tourists or other non-governmental activities”. While this measure was not adopted, it would have functioned in a comparable way to ASTIs. Indeed, landing would only have been allowed in sites that are positively identified as previously visited and therefore as ‘open for visits’.
3.2 Activities or Action-Focused
3.2.1 Existing Measures
Other non-use measures of relevance here prohibit certain courses of action or activities, often regardless of their location in the Antarctic Treaty Area. While a few of them are focused on tourism, especially in the form of VSGs or general tourism guidelines (a predecessor of VSGs, with rules that are not site specific) preceded by the “Do not use […]” or “Do not […]” instructions,86 many are general and only partially or tangentially apply to tourism activities. Overall, these measures can be categorised according to what they aim to protect, in particular the environment, historic sites and monuments, science, wilderness, and human life or health and safety.
A second group of non-use measures focuses on historic sites and monuments. Historic huts and structures shall generally not be used, except, in some instances, for touristic, recreational and educational purposes95 – hence making tourism an exception to the non-use measures. However, visitors shall not damage, remove, destroy or change a historic site, monument, or artefact. Items of potential historical value shall not be touched or disturbed.96 Some VSGs include specific prohibitions as to how historic sites and monuments can
A third group of non-use measures aims at ensuring that science is not negatively affected by visitation, including tourism. It is prohibited that visitors interfere with or remove scientific equipment or markers, or disturb experimental study sites, field camps, or stored supplies.99 Visitors are also to avoid sites of special scientific interest – initially one of several early spatial management tools, now subsumed into ASPAs.100 Finally, certain VSGs prohibit disembarkation during certain times, when staff of National Antarctic Programs (NAPs) are at work in the area.101
A final group of non-use measures can be characterised as contributing to the continued wilderness value of Antarctica – but is also related to environmental protection. Landings are not allowed from vessels with more than 500 passengers on board,102 as are any off-ship activities,103 such as inflatable boat excursions or kayaking. It is also prohibited to paint, engrave names or make other graffiti on any surface in Antarctica, and one is not allowed to take souvenirs of any kind.104 Finally, since 2022, it is not permitted to build any permanent structure or facility exclusively for tourism, such as a hotel.105
Although the ATCM has agreed on measures directly related to human health and safety that apply to the conduct of tourism (eg Measure 4 (2005) on insurance and contingency plans, which is not yet effective), most of their provisions are more requirements that should be met – for instance provisions for insurance and contingency plans – than non-use measures. However, some of the non-use measures discussed above include a health and safety component. For instance, the requirement not to land passengers from ships carrying
3.2.2 Insufficient and/or Unadopted Measures
Some of the above-mentioned measures appear to be compromise solutions – or, perhaps, first steps towards stricter measures – which leave the potential issues caused by Antarctic tourism partially unaddressed. A stark illustration of this is related to the regulation of tourism (semi-)permanent infrastructure, such as hotel accommodation or airline terminals.
included environmental impacts, protection of wilderness values and consistency with Antarctica’s designation as a ‘natural reserve devoted to peace and science’, possible jurisdictional issues, the assertion of private property rights, and the possible assertion of rights of usufructuary benefits through regular permitting.106
Parties shall not authorise the development of any new permanent or semi-permanent infrastructure for the conduct or support of tourism or other non-government activities in Antarctica.
Further, if tourism or other non-government activities are conducted in a way which is inconsistent with principles of the Protocol, then those activities shall be modified, suspended or cancelled.107
When Australia’s working paper was presented to the ATCM, it was acknowledged “that tourism was not a prohibited activity in Antarctica, but that the issue of land-based tourism involving permanent infrastructure in the Antarctic needed to be addressed”.108 However, some countries were opposed to the adoption of new regulation and some favoured the option of controlling those
Land-based tourism did not disappear from the agenda. In 2007, Resolution 5 (2007) Long-term effects of tourism was adopted. This Resolution expresses concerns about the effects of land-based tourism facilities developments, even if somewhat obliquely without naming them.111 Some new semi-permanent tourism camps had by then been established in Antarctica, with the implicit or explicit approval of national competent authorities.112
Recommend that their Governments make every effort to prevent, and not authorise, permit or approve, the construction and/or exploitation of any structure or facility exclusively for tourism and other non-governmental activities to be operated in Antarctica over multiple seasons, where its construction, operations or removal is expected to have more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems, or the intrinsic natural wilderness and historical values of Antarctica. Examples include, but are not restricted to, buildings, wharves and jetties, and graded runways on exposed ground.114
While this measure was a major step forward, and work on the issue continues, it also quickly became evident that confining the prohibition to structures
Another group of measures that would have contributed to protecting the wilderness value of Antarctica – as well as the environment – was proposed by France and the Netherlands in 2023, partly unsuccessfully. Indeed, they brought forward four ‘no regret’ measures that would have called Parties to discourage:
- –overnight camping in the top-20 most visited sites;
- –any off-ship activities in Antarctica from vessels carrying more than 500 passengers (additionally to the landing prohibition of Measure 15 (2009)), to ensure these activities are real ‘cruise only’ activities;
- –helicopter or any other motorized land vehicle use for tourism and other non-governmental activities, except in case of emergencies and for the purpose of enhancing human safety;
- –site visits that are not covered by ATCM or IAATO site-specific guidelines and/or ATCM management plans and/or visits to sites that have never been visited by tourists or other non-governmental activities.119
While the second measure was adopted with different wording but an equivalent level of restriction and the third was watered down to a prohibition applicable in areas with concentrations of wildlife,120 the other two were simply put aside.
3.3.1 Limited Non-use Measures Specifically for Tourism
Measures applicable to tourism are either specifically aimed at that activity or have a larger scope of applicability and are partially or tangentially relevant to tourism. The first category includes many of the measures that limit specific activities or actions, as these rules regulate how tourism is supposed to take place – and reversely which tourism behaviours are off-limit in Antarctica. The VSGs are also tourism-focused. While the ‘Do/Do not measures’ might be said to be among the more restrictive measures in place in terms of preventing certain kinds of visitor interactions (including tourists), VSGs are still, to a large extent, a ‘user guide’ for certain Antarctic sites showcasing both what to visit and how to minimise impacts during the visit. As part of this, VSGs may contain some limited elements of non-use measures, which vary from site to site.
Recommend to their Governments that:
They circulate widely and as quickly as possible the Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic, and the Guidance for Those Organising and Conducting Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in the Antarctic annexed to this Recommendation.
They urge those intending to visit or organise and conduct tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic to act in accordance with the attached guidance consistent with the relevant provisions of their applicable national law.123
The second category, regulations that are not specific to tourism but applicable nonetheless to these activities, covers spatial management tools such as ASPAs and ASMAs. These include major non-use components as they create some
Overall, the non-use measures in place act more as basic management measures to restrict certain negative interactions between tourists and Antarctica than as measures aiming to comprehensively limit tourism, its growth and/or diversification. Generally speaking, non-use measures directly targeting tourism on a more regional scale, such as ASTIs or the early 2000s proposal relative to infrastructure, have not succeeded. What has sometimes been achieved are compromise solutions, often related to (perceived) acute problems. This issue is not limited to non-use measures but applies to the regulation of Antarctic tourism in general: of the outstanding questions related to growth and diversification already identified in 2011–2012, many have indeed not been addressed by any instruments, whether they include non-use measures or not.125
3.3.2 Reasons for this State of Play
The minimal regulation of Antarctic tourism at the ATS level, whether through restricted-use or non-use measures, is due to a range of factors. Underlying them, though, is the polarisation of ATCPs, between those that support tourism and prefer to delegate tourism management to the industry, and those that would support tourism regulation and more oversight from Parties. These
In all, two broad narratives about Antarctic tourism have commonly been at play at ATCMs and beyond. For some Parties, tourism is sustainable, whilst other Parties have regarded it as a resource activity and as an intrusive force in wilderness areas. The following exchange from the Final Report of ATCM 32 (2009) illustrates this point: during a tourism discussion, some Parties stated that, “when properly managed, tourism in Antarctica should be welcomed”, while also noting the need for tourism to meet some conditions such as minimise environmental impact, maximise the safety of operations and avoid interfering with science.126 Some other Parties, responding to that statement, retorted that “the absolute priority of the Treaty is Antarctic scientific research and environmental protection and that tourism should not be encouraged but rather strictly regulated”.127 While the acceptability of tourism in Antarctica is not presently much questioned, this basic positioning underlies Parties’ views on tourism policy, ie whether existing tourism regulation itself is sufficient to manage the current levels and types of tourism, and whether Parties should support soft measures such as guidelines/user guides or hard restrictive regulations.
According to the procedural rules in place at ATCMs, any proposal for a regulatory instrument needs consensus to be adopted. This means that, if any ATCP objects to a proposal, it fails. The existing degree of polarisation about tourism and the type of solution that might be required makes it very difficult to reach this high bar. So, while tourism developments in Antarctica trigger the inclusion of many tourism-related issues in the ATCM agenda, only a fraction of those issues emerge as actual instrument. Beyond the polarisation of views regarding tourism’s place in Antarctica, the reasons for lack of consensus have been said to also include concerns about how to fit new requirements into domestic implementing legislation, issues related to sovereignty claims, or other international relations tensions that weigh on the traditional spirit of cooperation in Antarctica.128
Another related factor in the arguably under-regulated state of Antarctic tourism at the intergovernmental level is the role of IAATO. Although not directly involved in decision-making, the tourism industry has become an influential
The nature of Antarctic tourism is arguably an additional factor. The ATCM regards tourism as a non-governmental activity, distinct from those of NAPs. This is evidenced in the traditional use of ‘tourism and non-governmental activities’ in agenda items, tourism instruments, and working groups. However, there is a degree of cross-pollination both ways, for instance with respect to air-supported tourism, which relies on NAP infrastructure,130 logistic support to NAP activities by the tourism industry, and a reported increase in scientific activities on board tourist vessels.131 Coupled to the factors listed above, these complex interactions might create further obstacles to the regulation of tourism.
4 Conclusion
The various measures applicable to Antarctic tourism fall somewhere in a continuum between limited forms of restricted-use and non-use – with an emphasis on the former. Indeed, most tourism activities are allowed almost everywhere in Antarctica, under some conditions, with a discrete number of
While there has been, over time, an accumulation of instruments establishing conditions to tourism use that could potentially result in a certain ‘bite’ on tourism operations, the regime in place is not yet the comprehensive and consistent framework for Antarctic tourism that was already called for in Resolution 7 (2009) General Principles of Antarctic Tourism. However, the tide may be turning. Resolution 4 (2023) Urgent measures to be taken with respect to certain tourist and non-governmental activities requires operators to discontinue activities that had previously been permitted, approved, or at least accepted/tolerated, ie any off-ship activities in Antarctica from vessels carrying more than 500 passengers to clarify the purpose of Measure 15 (2009); and the use of helicopters for recreational purposes in areas with concentrations of wildlife. Of note, however, is that the two other measures of the original proposal rolling back some further tourism activities, arguably the stricter ones – visits to ‘new’ tourist sites, and overnight camping at some locations – were unable to secure consensus. The Resolution then recommends Parties to engage in further discussions on these and other specific actions in the context of future discussions regarding tourism.
In Decision 6 (2023), the ATCM agreed to start a “Dedicated process for the development of a comprehensive and consistent framework for Antarctic tourism and other non-governmental activities”, and did so the following year. Considering the significant growth of tourism numbers in the recent years and the risks caused by the introduction or spreading of pathogens such as the avian flu, one can hope that the ATCM will, at long last, provide a much-needed intergovernmental framework to limit the negative impacts of tourism on Antarctica. At ATCM 46 in 2024, about a third of ATCPs (11 out of 29) submitted working
Discussions during ATCM 46 (2024) led to the adoption of a Decision in which Parties agree to initiate a dedicated process for the regulation of Antarctic tourism.132 Although non-binding, the Decision is a step further than the 2023 Resolution: rather than encouraging future consideration of this issue, it outlines a way forward. The Annex to the Decision covers six different thematic areas for consideration by Parties in the coming years: (1) managing growth, (2) managing diversification, (3) monitoring, (4) compliance and enforcement, (5) governance, and (6) general topics. Each of these themes includes several items for discussion, adding up to 46 ‘bullet points’ for the consideration of Parties. Non-use measures along the lines of the categories discussed in this chapter – namely area- or activity-focused – could be used to address some of these topics, particularly with respect to the growth or diversification of tourism. However, many of the same topics have been discussed in previous ATCMs, so it remains to be seen whether discussions will be circular and repetitive, as they have been in the past, or result in concrete regulatory action. The main difference is that, this time, there is a clearly stated intent by Parties to develop a dedicated framework for the regulation of tourism, and each of the points for discussion fits in that broader context rather than simply being an isolated agenda item.
As a final consideration, it is also useful to recall that Antarctica and climate change are closely interlinked. The discussions on a dedicated framework will take place at a time in which climate change permeates many other discussions in the ATS and elsewhere. While it is unlikely to be a deciding factor, the scrutiny of tourism under a climate change perspective, globally but also including in Antarctica, is likely to increase in the future – even though it is not at the time of writing listed as a topic of discussion in the 46 bullet points of the dedicated framework.
IAATO, IAATO Overview of Antarctic Vessel Tourism: The 2023–2024 Season, and Preliminary Estimates for 2024–25, ATCM 46 (2024), IP102 rev1.
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protocol) (adopted 4 October 1991, in force 14 January 1998) 2941 UNTS 5878, art 2.
ATCM, “Regulation of Antarctic Tourism” (1966) Recommendation IV–27; ATCM, “Regulation of Antarctic Tourism” (1970) Recommendation VI–7; ATCM, “Special protection for new islands” (1970) Recommendation VI–11.
The literature on Antarctic tourism is expansive, and many articles summarise the history of this activity and its regulation, see eg C. J. Bastmeijer and N. Gilbert, Proactive Management of Antarctic Tourism: Time for a Fresh Approach, ATCM 42 (2019), IP26; C. J. Bastmeijer et al, “Regulating Antarctic Tourism: The Challenge of Consensus-Based Decision-Making” (2023) 117(4) American Journal of International Law 651–676; D. Cajiao et al, “Tourists’ Motivations, Learning, and Trip Satisfaction Facilitate Pro-environmental Outcomes of the Antarctic Tourist Experience” (2022) 37 Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 100454; D. Liggett and E. Stewart, “Sailing in Icy Waters: Antarctic Cruise Tourism Development, Regulation and Management”, in C. Weeden and R. Dowling (eds), Cruise Ship Tourism (CABI 2017), 484–504.
C. J. Bastmeijer and R. M. Roura, “Regulating Antarctic Tourism and the Precautionary Principle” (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 763–781; Cajiao et al (n 4); Liggett and Stewart (n 4).
ATCM, “Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora” (1964) Recommendation III–VIII. See also the Environmental Protocol.
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (adopted 11 February 1972, entered into force 11 March 1978) 1080 UNTS 175.
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (adopted 1 August 1980, entered into force 7 April 1982) 1329 UNTS 47.
Environmental Protocol, art 7.
Bastmeijer and Roura (n 5) 777.
These include in particular discussion documents submitted to ATCMs, final reports of these meetings, and relevant legal instruments adopted by the ATCMs, see ATS, “Antarctic Treaty database”, available at <https://www.ats.aq/devAS/ToolsAndResources/AntarcticTreatyDatabase?lang=e> accessed 20 September 2024; and ATS, “Meeting Documents Archive”, available at <https://www.ats.aq/devAS/Meetings/DocDatabase?lang=e>, accessed 20 September 2024.
See the discussion by Guggisberg in chapter 2 of this volume.
T. Tin, A. D. Hemmings and R. M. Roura, “Pressures on the Wilderness Values of the Antarctic Continent” (2008) 14(3) International Journal of Wilderness 7–12.
This sentiment is reflected in some of the earlier concerns Antarctic Treaty Parties had about tourism operations. See eg Recommendation IV–27 (1966) (n 3) and Recommendation VI–11 (1970) (n 3).
Each tourism visit could be described as an ‘incursion’ to the visited space – a temporary action but repeated multiple times by single or multiple operators.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (6th ed, OUP 1976).
C. M. Hall and M. E. Johnson (eds), Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic & Antarctic Regions (Wiley & Sons 1995); C. M. Hall and J. Saarinen, “Polar Tourism: Definitions and Dimensions” (2010) 10 Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 448–467, 453; E. J. Stewart, D. Draper and M. E. Johnston, “A Review of Tourism Research in the Polar Regions” (2005) 58 Arctic 383–394. Different Parties and stakeholders hold different views on concepts such as ‘tourism’, ‘tourist’ and ‘visitor’. Nuances relate to, for example, the type of activity conducted; whether the focus of the activity is leisure or work; the commercial or private/non-commercial nature of the operations; and the non-governmental or governmental affiliation of the organisers.
United Kingdom, Strategic Vision of Antarctic Tourism for the Next Decade, ATCM 32 (2009), WP10.
ATCM, “Site Guidelines for Visitors” (2009) Resolution 4.
C. Murray and J. Jabour, “Independent Expeditions and Antarctic Tourism Policy” (2004) 40 Polar Record 309–317.
D. Haase, Tourism in the Antarctic: Modi Operandi and Regulatory Effectiveness, Doctoral Thesis (University of Canterbury 2008), at 47–48.
For instance, Cajiao et al (n 4) clustered survey responses by Antarctic tourists into four motivation types: experience and learning, adventure into Antarctica, social bonding, and trip of a lifetime, with different groups of tourists prioritising one of these motivations.
K. de Korte, “A Tourist in the Arctic”, in N. Boschman, L. Hacquebord and J. W. Veluwenkamp (eds), Het Topje van de Ijsberg. 35 Jaar Arctisch Centrum (1970–2005) (Barkhuis 2005), 79–82.
M. Nuttall, “Narratives of History, Environment and Global Change. Expeditioner-tourists in Antarctica”, in C. M. Hall and J. Saarinen (eds), Tourism and Change in the Polar Regions: Climate, Environment and Experiences (Routledge 2010), 204–214.
Visits to research stations have been part of the tourism experience from the earlier days (see eg R. K. Headland, “Historical Development of Antarctic Tourism” (1994) 21(2) Annals of Tourism Research 269–280). Citizen science is a more recent addition and is sometimes used to improve the image of tourism as an Antarctic activity (see eg S. Blacker, A. H. Kimura and A. Kinchy, “When Citizen Science is Public Relations” (2021) 51(5) Social Studies of Science 780–796).
A. Varnajot et al, “Toward Antarctification? Tourism and Place-making in Antarctica” (2024) 47(1) Polar Geography 49–70.
R. M. Roura, The Footprint of Polar Tourism: Tourist Behaviour at Cultural Heritage Sites in Antarctica and Svalbard (Barkhuis 2011).
J. Jabour, “Strategic Management and Regulation of Antarctic Tourism”, in T. Tin et al (eds), Antarctic Futures (Springer 2014), 273–286.
R. Naveen et al, “Zodiac Landings by Tourist Ships in the Antarctic Peninsula Region, 1989–99” (2001) 37 Polar Record 121–132; J. Splettstoesser, D. Landau and R. K. Headland, “Tourism in the Forbidden Lands: The Antarctica Experience”, in T. V. Singh (ed), New Horizons in Tourism. Strange Experiences and Stranger Practices (CABI 2004), 27–36.
Y. Makanse, “Contextualising Antarctic Tourism Diversification: Tourism Management Implications from Multinational Policy Debates” (2024) 14 The Polar Journal 1–44, presented in SCAR, ATCM 46 (2024), IP172 rev1.
The largest ship to cruise Antarctic waters within the northern limit of pack ice was once reported to be the MS Golden Princess in January 2007, carrying 2,425 passengers and about 1,000 crew (see eg E. Bertram, C. Gunn, and B. Stonehouse, “The Cruise of MS Golden Princess in Antarctic Waters, January 2007” (2008) 44(2) Polar Record 177–180). The IMO ban on the use and carriage of Heavy Fuel Oil in the Antarctic Treaty area, which came into effect in 2011, impacted on the use of vessels carrying more than 500 passengers (IAATO, IAATO Overview of Antarctic Tourism: 2011–12 Season and Preliminary Estimates for 2012–13 Season, ATCM 35 (2012), IP39). However, large ships are far from having disappeared from Antarctic tourism operations: 18 out of 94 IAATO Member vessels operating in 2024 carry more than 500 passengers, nine of those carry more than 1,000 passengers, including three which exceed the MS Golden Princess with 3,000 or more passengers.
IUCN, “Impacts of Tourism in Antarctica” (2023) IUCN Issues Briefs, available at <https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/iucn-issues-brief_impacts-of-tourism-in-antarctica_3.pdf> accessed 20 September 2024.
D. Liggett et al, “The Future of Sustainable Polar Ship-based Tourism” (2023) e21 Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures 1–12.
Indicators of Antarctic overtourism may include eg “frequent encounters with other tourist groups or cruise ships, cumulative effects at landing sites, and a degraded wilderness experience by visitors” (R. M. Roura, “Antarctic Tourism and Overtourism” (2019) 6 Antarctic Affairs 7–18, 15).
ATCM 46, IP102 rev1 (n 1). This figure, however, does not include tourists potentially travelling with non-IAATO member operators or in private/non-commercial expeditions. It is also exclusive of the staff involved in the expeditions.
See eg Bastmeijer and Gilbert (n 4) and references therein.
Makanse (n 30).
See eg D. Liggett et al, “From Frozen Continent to Tourism Hotspot? Five Decades of Antarctic Tourism Development and Management, and a Glimpse into the Future” (2011) 12(2) Tourism Management 357–366.
Bastmeijer and Roura (n 5); Liggett et al (n 38).
France, Establishment of “Areas of Special Tourist Interest”, ATCM 29 (2006), WP18.
Stewart, Draper and Johnston, (n 17) 386, found that there is minimal conclusive empirical evidence of negative impacts. However, there is no comprehensive and systematic assessment framework of human impact on Antarctica, hence there is no baseline or monitoring to evaluate impacts (on this, see also R. Hofman and J. Jatko, “Assessment of the Possible Cumulative Environmental Impacts of Commercial Ship-Based Tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula Area” Proceedings of a Workshop held in La Jolla, California, 7–9 June 2000 (National Science Foundation); P. Tejedo et al, “What Are the Real Environmental Impacts of Antarctic Tourism? Unveiling their Importance Through a Comprehensive Meta-analysis” (2022) 308 Journal of Environmental Management 114634).
VSG 2 Barrientos Island (Aitcho Islands), adopted in 2005, was modified in response of reports that repeated tourism visitation had caused track development ca. 500 m long in moss beds in the central part of the island (ATCM, “Barrientos Island – Aitcho Islands visitor Site Guidelines” (2012) Resolution 5).
C. M. Flynn et al, “Penguins in the Anthropause: COVID-19 Closures Drive Gentoo Penguin Movement Among Breeding Colonies” (2023) 286 Biological Conservation 110318.
SCAR et al, Update on High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza in Antarctica, ATCM 46 (2024), WP47 rev1.
Antarctic Treaty (adopted 1 December 1959, entered into force 23 June 1961) 402 UNTS 71, art IX(2).
ATS, “Parties”, available at <https://www.ats.aq/devAS/Parties?lang=e> accessed 20 September 2024.
Antarctic Treaty, art IX(1).
ATCM, “Recommendations Divided into Measures, Decisions and Resolutions” (1995) Decision 1.
Antarctic Treaty, art IX(4); on this see eg Bastmeijer et al (n 4); C. C. Joyner, “Recommended Measures Under the Antarctic Treaty: Hardening Compliance with Soft International Law” (1998) 19 Michigan Journal of International Law 401–443.
Environmental Protocol, art 2.
ibid Annex I.
ibid Annex II.
ibid Annex III.
ibid Annex IV.
ibid Annex V.
All can be found in the Antarctic Treaty database (n 11).
ATCM, “Environmental Guidelines for Operation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) in Antarctica” (2018) Resolution 4. This overview of Antarctic tourism regulation, including Table 15.1, is grounded in the authors’ prior scholarship and writing. Roura’s contribution includes presentations delivered at non-use measures workshops convened in 2023 and 2024 from which this chapter derives, which were informed on his research, including Bastmeijer and Roura (n 5). Guggisberg’s contribution includes a recent publication on the governance of Antarctic tourism, which served as a textual basis for this section (E.-L. Alvarez Ortega and S. Guggisberg, “Governance of Antarctic Tourism: From Private Actors to the Antarctic Treaty System, and Back”, in D. Ioannides, A. Varnajot and M. Vereda (eds), Polar Tourism and Communities: Experiences, Knowledge Building, Challenges and Opportunities (CABI 2025), 43–59).
On this see also eg Alvarez Ortega and Guggisberg (n 57).
For an overview of these spatial management tools see R. M. Roura, “Spatial Protection Tools as Indicators of the ‘Health’ of the Antarctic Treaty System” (2023) 89 The Geographical Journal 25–39. Spatial management tools predating the adoption of Annex V included Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) and Special Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSIs). These were renamed ASPAs once Annex V entered into force in 2002. Following ATCM 46 (2024) there are 78 ASPAs (numbered 101–182), 6 ASMAs (numbered 1–7), and 91 HSMs (numbered 1–96).
At the closing of ATCM 46 (2024), there were 44 VSGs numbered 1–45 which had been previously adopted (ATCM, “Site Guidelines for Visitors” (2022) Resolution 2). The latest versions of the VSGs can be found on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website, available at <https://www.ats.aq/devAS/Ats/VisitorSiteGuidelines?lang=e> accessed 20 September 2024.
Although HSMs and VSGs are identified only as a point in the map, obviously visits to those locations occur in a discrete area around those coordinates.
Roura (n 59).
Environmental Protocol, Annex V, art 3(1).
ibid Annex V, art 4(1).
ibid Annex V, art 3(4).
ATCM, “Antarctic Specially Protected Area No 155 (Cape Evans, Ross Island): Revised Management Plan” (2021) Measure 13, 7(I).
Environmental Protocol, Annex V, art 8(4).
ATCM 29 (2006), WP18 (n 40).
ATCM, “Antarctic Specially Protected Area No 177 (Léonie Islands and South-East Adelaide Island, Antarctic Peninsula): Management Plan” (2021) Measure 20.
A list of Most Visited Sites can be found on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website, “Most visited sites”, available at <https://eies.ats.aq/Report/ShipBasedByMostVisitedSitesRpt?yearF=2022&yearT=2023&period=2&filter=1&title=Most%20Visited%20Sites> accessed 20 September 2024.
ATCM, “Antarctic Specially Managed Area No 2 (McMurdo Dry Valleys, Southern Victoria Land): Revised Management Plan” (2015) Measure 18.
First adopted in ATCM, “Site Guidelines for Visitors” (2005) Resolution 5, and revised at most ATCM s since. Resolution 2 (2022) (n 60) is the latest version of the list. Updated versions of each VSG can be found online (n 60).
Recommendation VI–11 (1970) (n 3).
ATCM, “Statement of Accepted Practices in Tourism” (1975) Recommendation VIII–9.
ATCM, “Mount Erebus Declared a Tomb” (1981) Recommendation XI–3. Most of the 257 victims were tourists in a no-landing sightseeing overflight.
See ATCM, “Report of the Ninth Consultative Meeting” (1977), para 12. At ATCM 10 (1979), Recommendation X–8, entitled “Tourist Regulation” and which includes a “Statement of Accepted Practices and the Relevant Provisions of the Antarctic Treaty” to be inserted in Annex A of Recommendation VIII–9, was adopted, but nothing happened in relation to Annex B.
Argentina, Areas of special tourist interest, ATCM 11 (1981), WP27.
ATCM, “Report of the Eleventh Consultative Meeting” (1981), para 16.
ATCM, “Final Report of the Thirteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” (1985), para 70.
See France, Consolidation of Regulations on Tourism and Non-Governmental Activities in Antarctica, ATCM 28 (2005), IP12; ATCM 29 (2006), WP18 (n 40).
ATCM 29 (2006), WP18 (n 40).
ATCM, “Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” (2006), para 174.
As of July 2024, the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat listed 486 sites that have been visited in the past five years by sea, including 44 sites for which there are site guidelines. The list includes some relatively large areas used for cruising (eg the Lemaire Channel) as well as discrete sites where landings take place. At least 40 locations in the Antarctic interior have been visited in the past five years.
Most of Antarctica is naturally inaccessible or exceedingly remote, at present, for regular, non-specialised tourism. However, these factors are not insurmountable barriers for individuals and entities with suitable skills or resources. In this sense, most of Antarctica is theoretically open for visitation.
France and Netherlands, Urgent Measures to Be Taken with Respect to Certain Tourist and Non-governmental Activities, ATCM 45 (2023), WP19.
See eg ATCM, “General Guidelines and Site Guidelines Checklist for Visitors to the Antarctic” (2021) Resolution 4, or its gender-neutral update ATCM, “General Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic” (2024) Resolution 2; and earlier versions in ATCM, “Guidelines for Tourism” (1994) Recommendation XVIII–1, and Recommendation X–8 (1979) (n 76).
Environmental Protocol, Annex III, art 7.
ibid Annex IV, arts 3–4.
ibid Annex IV, art 5.
See in particular Resolution 4 (2021) (n 86) Annex 1; Recommendation XVIII–1 (1994) (n 86) Attachment.
Resolution 4 (2021) (n 86) Annex 1; Recommendation XVIII–1 (1994) (n 86) Attachment; see also Recommendation X–8 (1979) (n 76) Attachment.
See eg Resolution 5 (2012) (n 42) and VSG 13 Brown Bluff (first adopted in ATCM, “Site Guidelines for Visitors” (2007) Resolution 1, with updated version online (n 60)).
ATCM, “Urgent Measures to Be Taken with Respect to Certain Tourist and Non-governmental Activities” (2023) Resolution 4; Resolution 4 (2021) (n 86) Annex 1; Resolution 4 (2018) (n 57).
Resolution 4 (2023) (n 93).
Resolution 4 (2021) (n 86) Annex 1.
Recommendation XVIII–1 (1994) (n 86) Attachment.
VSG 24 Horseshoe Island (first adopted in ATCM, “Site Guidelines for Visitors” (2009) Resolution 4, with updated version online (n 60)).
ATCM, “Guidelines for handling pre-1958 historic remains” (2001) Resolution 5.
Resolution 4 (2021) (n 86) Annex 1; Recommendation XVIII–1 (1994) (n 86) Attachment.
Recommendation X–8 (1979) (n 76) Attachment.
See eg VSG 14 Snow Hill Hut (first adopted in ATCM, “Site Guidelines for Visitors” (2007) Resolution 1, with updated version online (n 60)).
Resolution 4 (2021) (n 86) Annex 1; ATCM, “Landing of Persons from Passenger Vessels” (2009) Measure 15 (not yet in force); ATCM, “Ship-based Tourism” (2007) Resolution 4.
Resolution 4 (2023) (n 93).
Resolution 4 (2021) (n 86) Annex 1; Recommendation XVIII–1 (1994) (n 86) Attachment.
ATCM, “Permanent Facilities for Tourism and Other Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica” (2022) Resolution 5.
ATCM, “Final Report of the Twenty-Seventh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” (2004), para 195; see also New Zealand, ‘Land-Based’ Tourism in Antarctica, ATCM 28 (2005), WP12.
Australia, Protection of Antarctica’s Intrinsic Values: Policy on Non-governmental Activities, ATCM 28 (2005), WP38.
ATCM, “Final Report of the Twenty-Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” (2005), para 169; see also ATCM 28 (2005), WP38 (n 107).
Final Report ATCM (2005) (n 108) paras 170–171.
ATCM, “Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” (2006), paras 161–172. Non-governmental environmental organizations present at the ATCM 29 suggested that the US had blocked agreement (ECO, “US blocks tourism agreement” (2006), available at <https://www.asoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ATCM-Volume-XXIX-Number-5.pdf> accessed 20 September 2024.
ATCM, “Long-term Effects of Tourism” (2007) Resolution 5.
The documentary record suggests that some semi-permanent camps have been in operation since 2006, reportedly permitted by a relevant national competent authority. However, the earliest EIA available for these operations appears to have been submitted in 2013 (White Desert LTD, “White Desert Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) Update Report 2020” (2020), in ATS, “EIA Database”, available at <https://www.ats.aq/devAS/EP/EIAList?lang=e> accessed 20 September 2024.
Netherlands, Report of the Intersessional Contact Group on Permanent Facilities for Tourism and Other Non-Governmental Activities in Antarctica, ATCM 44 (2022), WP36.
Resolution 5 (2022) (n 105).
Netherlands, Infrastructure Supporting Tourism and Other Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica, ATCM 45 (2023), WP4.
ibid.
ibid.
See eg ASOC, Tourism and the Growth of Air-cruising in the Antarctic Peninsula, ATCM 46 (2024), IP150, highlighting different ways in which the use of a landing strip managed by a NAP is interconnected with an expanding fly-sail operation in the Antarctic Peninsula.
ATCM 45 (2023), WP19 (n 85).
Resolution 4 (2023) (n 93).
Bastmeijer et al (n 4) 657.
Resolution 5 (2022) (n 105).
Recommendation XVIII–1 (1994) (n 86) (emphasis added).
ASOC, Developing a Systematic Approach to Addressing the Footprint of Tourism, ATCM 46 (2024), IP152. A preliminary study, based on the methodology of L. R. Pertierra et al (“High Resolution Spatial Mapping of Human Footprint across Antarctica and Its Implications for the Strategic Conservation of Avifauna” (2017) 12 PLOS ONE), suggests that the area of ‘moderate’ tourism influence in the Antarctic Peninsula (4,083 km2) is more than three times larger than the area protected within ASPAs in that region (1,266 km2). Beyond tourism, “Antarctic biodiversity is poorly protected by reserves, and those reserves are threatened” (J. D. Shaw et al, “Antarctica’s Protected Areas Are Inadequate, Unrepresentative, and at Risk” (2014) 12(6) PLOS Biology e1001888).
See Bastmeijer et al (n 4); Netherlands, Report of the Intersessional Contact Group ‘Outstanding Questions’ on Antarctic Tourism, ATCM 35 (2012), WP27 rev1.
ATCM, “Final Report of the Thirty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” (2009), para 182, as quoted in Roura (n 27) 11.
Final Report ATCM (2009) (n 126) para 183.
ibid para 223.
United Kingdom, Antarctica Tour Operators Form Association, ATCM 16 (1991), IP20.
See eg ASOC, Implementing the Madrid Protocol: A Case Study of Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, ATCM 30 (2007), IP136; ASOC, Tourism and the Growth of Air-cruising in the Antarctic Peninsula, ATCM 46 (2024), IP150 (air-cruise tourism); Norway, The 2009 Norwegian Antarctic Inspection Under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty, ATCM 33 (2010), WP57; and Russian Federation, Activity of the International Air Program DROMLAN and its Interaction with Non-governmental Activity in the Antarctic, ATCM 35 (2012), IP72 (air-supported land-based non-governmental activity).
Spain, Scientific Activities On-board Tourist Vessels, ATCM 46 (2024), WP33.
ATCM, “Development of a Framework for the Regulation of Tourism and Other Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica” (2024) Decision 5.