7.1 Tourism Development and the Antarctic Environment

Antarctica has been a destination for adventurers since its discovery in the eighteenth century. After the peak of commercial interests like whaling in the Southern Ocean, humans started to explore the white desert for fame and glory. Since the mid-twentieth century, tourists visiting the sixth continent have been fascinated by the special fauna and landscape. However, concern over melting glaciers and the appearance of nonnative species on the continent has been raised (IPCC 2007; Turner et al. 2009). Thus, the Antarctic continent seems to be threatened by man-made changes which are not yet assessed on the whole (Turner et al. 2009; Aronson et al. 2011).

In December 1966, the first journey to the Antarctic was organized by Lindblad for 58 passengers using the Argentine marine ship “Lapataiain” (Headland 1994). In 1971, a specially constructed cruise ship, the “Explorer,” was brought into service by Lindblad to let more people discover the great nature of the Antarctic Peninsula. This was the start of organized tourism inviting several hundreds of people per season to Antarctica. In the last decade, up to 40 international cruise ships carrying more than 40,000 tourists visited the white continent yearly from November to March (IAATO’s yearly tourism statistics, also in, e.g., Cessford 1997). The availability of Russian ice breakers in the 1990s, previously used in scientific surveys, probably enhanced that development (IAATO Tourism statistics 2000–2001). In these times, half of the Antarctic cruise vessels bore Russian names (9 out of 18 ships). Most Antarctic tour operators are organized in the “International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators” (IAATO) founded in 1991, and the majority of people come by cruise ships which have strong interest to keep Antarctica as a pristine tourist destination as stated in the IAATO objectives (IAATO 2011).

Yachts are less well recorded in appearance and movement than cruise ships. Private yachts may cause impairment of the environment because some of them visit Antarctic waters without appropriate knowledge of the rules of best practice and without any permit. Small boats navigated by sailors inadequately prepared for polar challenges may display a risk to themselves but also to the rescue teams (e.g., resulting in sinking of BERSERK, described by New Zealand et al. (2011)). Thus, the initiative of IAATO to elucidate risks of Antarctic cruising for private sailors (IAATO information for yachts 2011) was highly welcomed.

Until the crash of a New Zealand plane in 1979, touristic flights over the Antarctic Treaty area made up a small part to the tourism industry (IAATO Tourism statistics). For several years, no attempts were started to revive the overflight business again. Compared to ship cruises, there is still only low interest in such flights. But combined touristic offers of flight and cruise packages (“air-cruise program”) started to increase in the last years (IAATO Tourism statistics). Land-based tourism, mainly private expeditions to interior of the white continent, has been enhanced by support of Adventure Network International since 1984 (Splettstoesser and Folks 1994).

7.2 Antarctic Tourism and International Legal Regulations

Although tourism in the Antarctic Treaty area is under discussion at “Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings” (ATCM) for years, the sinking of the MV “Explorer” in 2007 pushed forward recent debates on binding regulations. After several voluntary regulations, the discussion on legally binding rules for construction, equipment, and operational improvements came into focus within the relevant bodies like ATCM and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Although ATCM Measure 4 (2004) early pointed out the importance of contingency planning and insurance issues, it is not implemented in all consultative parties’ national law and is thus not yet in effect. The regulation of tourism impacts on landing sites was considered in Measure 15 (2009) and is based on existing IAATO requirements for cruise ships. Locally restricted visitor site guidelines have been regularly implemented as resolutions since 2005 to protect Antarctic environments frequently visited by tourists.

Regulations of ship-based tourism mainly concern security aspects but also consider the protection of sea and coast of that “special area” (cf. IMO’s International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 73/78, Annexes I (oil), II (noxious liquid substances), and V (ship-generated garbage)). An important step toward the protection of polar waters may be IMO’s resolution within MARPOL on the ban of heavy fuel onboard ships cruising in the Antarctic Treaty area (Chapter 9, Annex I of MARPOL). This regulation was supported by ATCM Resolution 7 (2010) and became effective in August 2011. Recommendatory “Guidelines for Ships operating in Arctic and Antarctic ice-covered waters” were considered by ATCM Decision 4 (2004) and by IMO through Resolution A.1024(26) in 2010. Ship safety and prevention of environmental pollution are under review and will be gathered in the mandatory Code of Safety for Ships operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) developed by IMO and supported by the Antarctic Treaty Parties (ATCM Resolutions 3 (1998) and 8 (2009)). The recent introduction of IAATO’s self-regulation of vessel tracking with hourly reporting for all IAATO SOLAS passenger vessels (since season 2010/2011) will enhance search and rescue operations (IAATO 2009). The ban of open lifeboats by October 2010 and their substitution represents an important step toward human safeguard. The tightening of safety-related requirements for lifeboats for polar waters is also under discussion within IMO and supported by ATCM (cf. Resolution 8 (2009)).

Although mentioned in ATCM Resolution 1 (2003), private yacht cruises are the kind of tourism in Antarctic waters that is least paid regard to. After the sinking of the Norwegian “Berserk” in season 2010/2011, henceforth the focus is on improving information of private sailors and the regulation of technical requirements and training (United Kingdom 2011; Germany et al. 2011; IAATO information for yachts 2011). The fact that this vessel had no authorization to visit the Antarctic Treaty area, like the French yacht the year before, entails the question on control and penalty feasibility (cp. France 2011; Norway 2011). Nevertheless, the implementation of ATCM regulations in national law of such rules may vary and span differently long periods. The differing interpretation of the Environmental Protocol leads to varying practice of permitting processes, e.g., for yacht cruises, even within consultative parties of the Antarctic Treaty. The regulation of technical requirements and training demands may become a hot topic the next years in the face of climate change and melting ice, thus generating new attractive sailing sites. Furthermore, it could be useful to apply, to a large extent, the above mentioned polar regulation system to those vessels which do not sail under the flag of any of the Antarctic Treaty Parties. This approach could possibly prevent an increase of unregulated visits.

7.3 Authorization Procedure for Tourism Activities in Germany

Pursuant to the Act Implementing the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (AIEP 1998), any activity whether related to scientific research, tourism, or journalism that is organized in Germany or begins on German territory is subject to authorization. As the national competent authority, the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA) assesses the impact of the planned activity on the Antarctic environment and the ecosystems that are associated with or depend on it. UBA was already founded in 1974 with the goal to support the government on scientific level, to enforce the environmental law, and to inform the public on topics regarding environmental protection. Work topics include in general a high variety of environmental aspects. Besides planning of landscape usage and sustainable strategies, health care and ecosystem protection, sustainable techniques, chemical security, and the regulation of emission trading are in the responsibility of UBA.

According to the AIEP, individuals as well as commercial tour operators have to submit to UBA an application for their planned activity. To get all information necessary for the assessment of this activity, specially designed questionnaires are easily available on UBA’s website (Fig. 7.1). Before taking a decision to issue a permit, UBA asks the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie, BSH) on possible marine hazards arising from the planned activity. BSH evaluates constructional and technical data of the ship and checks the validity of ship certificates. In addition, this agency looks at the planned itinerary to estimate potential impacts to the marine environment arising from the navigation through ice-covered waters of the Antarctic. Thus, e.g., the ice class of a ship may lead to restrictions of regional destinations for landings of tourists in Antarctica. Planned landings and detailed descriptions of activities onshore are crucial for UBA’s environmental impact assessment. On the basis of an appropriate study demanded from the operators of cruise ships, UBA carries out an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) for each ship and each season. The strict compliance with the German Guidelines for Visitors according to the Kyoto Resolution XVIII-I (1994) as well as with locally valid Visitor Site Guidelines is a condition for obtaining a permit.

Fig. 7.1
figure 1

German Internet platform for people intending to travel to the Antarctic Treaty area including several links to the legal background

Full size image

Tourist activities are only permitted if the activity gives no cause to suspect impacts on the assets to be protected (article 3, paragraph 4 AIEP), if the conservation of animals and plants is granted (article 17 AIEP), and if waste management is compliant with relevant rules (article 21 to 24 AIEP). If it is not possible to assess real impacts but only potential ones, the precautionary principle is considered. Permits are valid for one season only and have to be renewed yearly. In addition, each change in the planned activity has to be announced to UBA to allow for reevaluating possible changes in conditions. After the visit, each applicant has to submit a report to show that the activity was carried out in accordance with the given rules and requirements and to record potential extraordinary incidents. In addition, these reports provide the basis to gather information of the different activities as background of future assessments and potential consideration of cumulative impacts.

7.4 Review of German Tourism over the Last Decade

Germans account for more than 10% of all tourists to Antarctica (IAATO Tourism statistics). Together with the American and the British travelers, they are among the top 3 of nations visiting the Antarctic (IAATO Tourism statistics). As Table 7.1 illustrates, a high number of German tourists were recorded visiting Antarctica from the period of 2006 to 2009. A noted decline of visitation occurred in 2010 (Table 7.1). However, numbers of German tourists traveling to Antarctica including journeys on other nation’s ships tell a slightly different story which is more similar to the international trend recorded by IAATO (Fig. 7.2). IAATO’s data collection complements the post-visit reports submitted to UBA and makes it possible to profile German activities in the Antarctic.

Table 7.1 German statistics on authorized cruise ships per season
Full size table
Fig. 7.2
figure 2

Number of German tourists in relation to tourists in total on IAATO ships (Data source: IAATO Tourism statistics). The bars for 2010 and 2011 were estimated by IAATO

Full size image

Tour operators’ interest to show intact nature and endemic fauna has grown and concentrates on the Antarctic Peninsula. Between 2004 and 2008, German tourist mainly visited the northern tip and the western part of the Antarctic Peninsula (Fig. 7.3). Most of German ships headed for islands with extraordinary fauna and landscape. However, the landings on these islands decreased only a little despite the increasing demand for touristic visits (Fig. 7.3).

Fig. 7.3
figure 3

Preferred landing sites of German cruise tours over a 4-year period (Data were extracted from post-visit reports to the German Federal Environment Agency)

Full size image

7.5 Conclusion on Chances for an Environmentally Sound Use of the Antarctic Treaty Area

The interest in individual exploration of the white continent is rising. Thus, it is not surprising that new branches of Antarctic tourism develop. Along with the changing number of tourists, the interest and expectations of tourists altered over the years. Thus, there is a change from observing trips aboard cruise ships to intensified experience and adventure tourism including kayaking and camping which needs more consideration (IAATO 2003; United Kingdom 2004; Russian Federation 2008). Offers of extreme sport events, adventure trips, and stays overnight are growing as well as yacht tourism and air-cruise voyages. Here, the German Federal Environment Agency aims to inspire research off the cruise ship tracks. The influence of private expeditions on Antarctic pristine regions and the interference with scientific surveys are to be estimated to add that information to the needed whole ecosystem assessment.

Various possible developments of land-based tourism on the Antarctic continent, and especially on the Antarctic Peninsula, are under discussion at ATCMs with regard to the potential consequences within the frame of environmental protection and progressing climate change. But also cruise tourism will face the changes in polar areas, e.g., by increased access due to sea ice retreat or adopted itineraries due to attractive species’ local shifts (Lamers and Amelung 2010). The development and consequent implementation of site guidelines are strengthened for areas of high attraction for tourists, and a generic guideline applicable to any landing site was created (ATCM Resolution 3 (2011)). The idea is to prevent overuse and destruction of the corresponding site. One example of such a successful management is Hannah Point where a complete closing of the landing site helped the penguin colony to recover from strong losses due to tourist visits. Today, only restricted access is possible to that area (ATCM site guidelines).

The regulation of cruise ships was and will be influenced by the decision of international bodies, like IMO which currently develops the Polar Code. In future seasons, the composition of the Antarctic tourism fleet will be affected by IMO’s resolution on the ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil (MEPC 189 (60)) which came into effect in August 2011. However, a big change in the Antarctic tourism sector is not expected since expedition cruises are supposed to represent the major part in future, too. According to IAATO data, cruise ship tourism seems to have reached its maximum in 2007/2008 and will probably stabilize at about 20,000 guests per season visiting the Antarctic continent or islands nearby.

Considering the idea of protection of the Antarctic, it is discussed how cruise ships as well as individual activities can be framed to follow a concept of sustainable tourism (cp. Johnson 2002, Lamers 2009). These questions may be answered by a visionary concept that should be developed by all parties involved. To date, there is an obvious scarcity of data on the common motivation of tourists to visit Antarctica and on the suspected trend that nature becomes less attractive than sport events. In addition, it would be useful to have better estimates regarding the ability of different landing sites to cope with strains from tourist visits. In this connection, the changes of landscape and responses of biota to climatic variations have to be kept in mind. Therefore, the development of a special kind of doomsday tourism should be prevented.

In general, the German Federal Environment Agency worries about a change from well-regulated cruise tourism to less-manageable individual activities. So far, it is difficult to track the ways of individual adventurers and to encourage their environmentally sound behavior. Moreover, consequences of extreme sport, like marathon events, climbing challenges, or rock jumpers, are difficult to assess since those activities strongly depend on the area chosen and on its accessibility as well as the number of participants and supporting crew. Here, UBA prefers the restriction or avoidance of land-based adventure tourism to protect the Antarctic wilderness values and preserve untouched areas for research only. To counteract the development of mass tourism in the Antarctic continental area, limitation of overnight stays should be enforced by a moratorium against the establishment of hotels in the Antarctic Treaty area. In addition, it will be necessary to keep an eye on the potential increase of flights, which is already observed by IAATO since DAP (Chile) and TAC (South Africa/Russia) are operating.

Long-term approaches have to be followed since there are too less-efficient regulations impeding tourism impacts. While research is privileged by the Environmental Protocol, neither tourism in its current dimension nor its future development was explicitly considered. An adapted additional annex for tourism might be an option to integrate the topic into the legal frame of the Environmental Protocol. Since such regulations require time for political discussion and national preparation for implementation, local regulations like zoning and Antarctic site guidelines seem to be useful tools for the next years. To react to short-term variation in climatic conditions and their consequences for the landscape, anticipatory regulation and site management are very important issues. With regard to conserve the pristine continent with its unexplored regions, the wilderness value has to be the first concern. In intermediate term, the German Federal Environment Agency deems best the implementation of measures to improve safety and environmental awareness and a moratorium on restricted land-based tourism.