NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law >> 2013 >> [2013] NZJlEnvLaw 10

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Li, Steven (BoHao) --- "Antarctic tourism: the urgent need for a new comprehensive regulatory regime" [2013] NZJlEnvLaw 10; (2013) 17 NZJEL 321

Last Updated: 21 January 2023


Antarctic Tourism:

The Urgent Need for a New

Comprehensive Regulatory Regime

Steven (BoHao) Li*

Antarctica is the Earth’s southernmost continent. The perceived wilderness nature of Antarctica, while increasingly drawing visitors interested in its outstanding natural values may, paradoxically, lead to the continent’s destruction. The growth of tourism interest has focused academics, non-governmental organisations and Antarctic Treaty Parties’ attention on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the current Antarctic Treaty System on the management of tourist visitation in Antarctica. This article will examine the effectiveness of the current legal framework regulating Antarctic tourist activities. To the extent that the existing legal framework may be ineffective, the article will also explore potential avenues of addressing these inefficiencies.


Antarctica is among the world’s last tourism frontiers. The continent’s geographic isolation has helped to preserve a relatively pristine environment.1 However, this pristine environment is increasingly under threat from a rapidly growing Antarctic tourism industry.

As self­appointed stewards of Antarctica, the Antarctic Treaty Parties2 have claimed for themselves the responsibility of regulating all human activities in

*LLB (Hons) Victoria University of Wellington. The author is currently working as a law graduate at Chapman Tripp, Wellington office:

  1. Colin Hall and Margaret Johnston “Introduction — Pole to Pole: Tourism Issues” in Colin Hall and Margaret Johnston (eds) Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1995) at 21.
  2. The total number of Parties to the Treaty is now 50 [Treaty Parties].

Antarctica, including tourism, through the Antarctic Treaty System.3 In 1991, to protect the Antarctic environment from human impact, the Parties signed the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991.4 At the 1992 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) the United States and New Zealand governments hailed the Protocol as comprehensive and effective tourism regulation.5

Twenty years after signing the Protocol, this article will examine if the Protocol continues to meet its original policy goal. Under this broad question, the article will identify the legal, political and economic factors that are currently influencing the effectiveness of the Protocol. The ultimate question is what can the Treaty Parties do to improve the regime’s effectiveness?


2.1 Number and Trends

Commercial tourism began in the 1950s when fare­paying passengers travelled aboard Chilean and Argentinian naval vessels to Antarctica.6 The last two decades have seen a rapid increase in tourist numbers and a diversifying supply of transport and activities.7 Tourism season coincides with scientific exploration and the peak breeding season for most Antarctic species.8 From a base of 4,698 tourists in the 1990/1991 season, tourist numbers have risen to 26,519 over the 2011/2012 season.9 Tourist numbers for the 2012/2013 season are projected to be around 35,000.10

  1. Debra Enzenbacher “The Regulation of Antarctic Tourism” in Colin Hall and Margaret Johnston (eds) Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1995) at 180.
  2. This Protocol was signed in Madrid on 4 October 1991 and entered into force in 1998 [Protocol].
  3. Davor Vidas “The Legitimacy of the Antarctic Tourism Regime” in Olav Schram and Davor Vidas (eds) Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996) at 312.
  4. R Headland “Historical Development of Antarctic Tourism” (1994) 21 Annals of Tourism Research 269.
  5. Antarctic and South Ocean Coalition “Antarctic Tourism” <>; Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade “New Zealand, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean” <www.mfat.>.
  6. E Stewart, D Draper and M Johnston “A Review of Tourism Research in the Polar Regions” (2005) 58 Arctic 383 at 386; G Cessford “Antarctic Tourism: A Frontier for Wilderness Management” (1997) 3 IJW 7.
  7. This number does not include non­IAATO operators.
  8. International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators [IAATO] “IAATO Announces Results of 23rd Annual Meeting and Antarctic Tourism Statistics for 2011–2012 Season” (18

2.2. Forms of Tourism

Today, ship­borne tourism landing in Antarctica remains the foremost type of tourism activity.11 Ship­borne tourism usually involves passengers embarking at a port in Argentina or Chile.12 Once in Antarctic waters, landings are conducted each day.13 Although a landing period is usually short, they are concentrated into a small number of landing sites.14 These sites are vital areas for animal breeding and plant life.15 Landings normally encompass a wide range of activ­ ities, including seeing wildlife ( penguins and seabirds) colonies, and visiting historical sites and active scientific stations.16

2.3 Past Incidents

Tourism in Antarctica has not been without incident. The largest single oil spill event in Antarctica occurred when 600,000 litres of diesel oil was spilt during the grounding and sinking of the Bahia Paraiso.17 The spill killed seals, penguins, krill and other marine life near the United States Palmer Station. In the process several of the United States’ scientific marine projects were also ruined.18 This incident highlighted that travelling in Antarctic waters is inherently hazardous.

2.4 Environmental Impacts

The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO)19

consistently claims that in the 40 years of organised tourism to Antarctica,

May 2012) <>; World Tourism Organisation Tourism 2020 Vision: Global Forecasts and Profiles of Market Segments (World Tourism Organisation, Madrid, 2001).

  1. CEP Tourism Study “Tourism and Non­Governmental Activities in the Antarctic: Environmental Aspects and Impacts” (May 2012) Antarctic Treaty Secretariat <www.ats. aq/index_e.htm>.
  2. Antarctic Tourism Graphics: An Overview of Tourism Activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area Antarctica Treaty Consultative Meeting XXVIII (2005) IP 119 presented by ASOC and UNEP.
  3. During the 2011/2012 season, 81% of the ship­borne tourists landed in Antarctica.
  4. Gateway Antarctica “Tourism in Antarctica” University of Canterbury <www.anta.>.
  5. Arthur Watts International Law and the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992) at 256.
  6. IAATO, above n 10, at 14.
  7. Bahia Paraiso was an Argentine naval resupply ship that additionally carried tourists.
  8. Davor Vidas Protecting the Polar Marine Environment — Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000) at 105.
  9. The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators was formed in 1991. The majority of Antarctic tourism operators belong to IAATO.

no noticeable environmental impact has been observed.20 However, as early as 1982, scientists expressed their concern for the environment based on the increase in tourist numbers.21 For example, according to the United Nations Environment Programme Report, the 50 per cent reduction in the Adélie penguin’s breeding population over a six­year period was attributable to stress from repeated tourist visits.22 Furthermore, substantial alterations in the soil surface were evident even at the less frequently visited tourist sites. This alteration is likely to reduce water availability in soil, which is known to be an important control on Antarctic invertebrate distribution.23

In sum, unregulated tourism in Antarctica would cause significant consequences to an environment which is already extremely vulnerable to the impacts associated with human activities.24


3.1 History of Antarctic Legal Framework

Antarctica is the only landmass on Earth without a sovereign government.25 In the first half of the 20th century, disputes over sovereignty dominated the Antarctic scene.26 This raging conflict became gradually détente in the 1940s and most notably during the International Geophysical Year (1957– 1958). This success promoted the idea of continuous international scientific research cooperation in the Antarctic, as a mode of shelving the sovereignty controversies27 and to manage the continent collectively.28 However, art IV of

  1. IAATO “Antarctica Tourism Fact Sheet 2010–2011” (2011) <>.
  2. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research “Report of the Working Group on Logistics” (17th Meeting, Leningrad, July 1982).
  3. Vidas, above n 5, at 295; Stewart and others, above n 8.
  4. Watts, above n 15, at 3.
  5. Vidas, above n 18, at 11.
  6. Machiel Lamers “The Future of Tourism in Antarctica: Challenges for Sustainability” (PhD thesis, Maastricht University, The Netherlands, 2009); Peter Mason and Stephen Legg “The Growth of Tourism in Antarctica” (2000) 85 Geography 359.
  7. The following states asserted sovereignty claims in Antarctica: the United Kingdom (1908), New Zealand (1923), France (1924), Australia (1933), Norway (1939), Chile (1940) and Argentina (1942). The United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina have overlapping sovereignty claims over the Antarctica Peninsula.
  8. Davor Vidas, “The Antarctic Treaty System in the International Community: An Overview” in Olav Schram and Davor Vidas (eds) Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996) at 36.
  9. Lamers, above n 25.

the Treaty does not solve the sovereignty dispute.29 The sovereignty problem will resurface whenever the management of economic activity is concerned.30 The Antarctic Treaty 195931 laid down two basic principles: freedom of scientific research32 and safeguarding peace.33

There are currently 50 Treaty members. Twenty­eight Treaty members have been recognised as Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs). Only the Consultative Parties can participate in the decision­making process at the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM). Recommendations adopted at the ATCM, which are hortatory texts, are not legally binding. In contrast, Measures are legally binding once they have been approved by all Consultative Parties.34

Since the Treaty was promulgated, several other conventions and recommendations have been adopted. Jointly, this set of legal instruments is referred to as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).35 The Madrid Protocol is the most relevant ATS instrument that regulates tourism.

3.2 Principle of Environmental Protection

The third principal value of environmental protection emerged gradually up to its codification in the Protocol.36 The importance of environmental protection in connection with the Antarctic can be divided into three time periods: pre­1991; 1991 to 1998; and post­1998.

3.2.1 Pre-1991

Tourism existed prior to the Treaty,37 and yet it did not form part of the subject matter of the Treaty. Moreover, this period of regulatory laissez faire was to last nearly a decade from the beginning of commercial tourism until the ATCPs

  1. Watts, above n 15, at 135 and 140.
  2. Olav Stokke and Willy Østreng “The Effectiveness of ATS Regimes: Introduction” in Olav Schram and Davor Vidas (eds) Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996) at 116.
  3. The Treaty entered into force on 23 June 1961. 32 Antarctic Treaty 1959, arts II and III.
  4. Art I.
  5. Antarctic Treaty Secretariat “Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” <>. 35 Art 1(e) of the Madrid Protocol defines the Antarctic Treaty System.
  6. Vidas, above n 27, at 3.
  7. Ian Nicholson “Antarctic Tourism — The Need for a Legal Regime?” in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed) Antarctic Challenge II: Conflicting Interests, Cooperation, Environmental Protection, Economic Development (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1986) at 191.

formally turned their attention to tourism in 1966.38 Even then the responsibility of tourism regulation was left to individual states. The principal gateway states’ (Chile and Argentina) supportive attitude allowed commercial tourism to establish a niche for itself in Antarctica.39 In comparison, Australia and New Zealand have traditionally adopted a restrictive attitude towards commercial Antarctic tourism.40 Therefore the Treaty Parties’ diverging attitudes towards the merits of Antarctic tourism resulted in different domestic tourism regulation standards.

Tourism was not subject to direct regime regulation because the Parties’ primary interests were that of regime effectiveness. The gain from extended regulatory involvement was too small compared to the great risk of internal division.41

Finally, all five tourism recommendations adopted at the ATCMs42 were concerned more with safeguarding the Treaty’s science values rather than on an intrinsic concern for the environment.43 In sum, before 1991, tourism policies were formulated on an ad hoc basis and no tourism regulation existed at the regime level during the first 30 years of the Treaty’s operation.44

3.2.2 1991 to 1998

During the late 1980s, the shift of emphasis from scientific values to environmental protection was largely spurred by criticism from third parties. For example, before the United Nations, Malaysia45 highlighted that the ATS’s weak tourism regulations provided inadequate environmental protection for Antarctica.46 Under such pressure, Treaty Parties attempted to rebuild

  1. Peter Beck “Regulating One of the Last Tourism Frontiers: Antarctica” (1990) 10 Applied Geography 344.
  2. Richard Herr “The Regulation of Antarctic Tourism: a Study in Regime Effectiveness” in Olav Schram and Davor Vidas (eds) Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996) at 210.
  3. Patrick Maher, Gary Steel and Alison McIntosh “Antarctica: Tourism, Wilderness, and ‘Ambassadorship’” ( paper presented to the Seventh World Wilderness Congress Symposium, Port Elizabeth, November 2001).
  4. Herr, above n 39, at 212.
  5. The recommendations were IV­27 (1966), VI­7 (1970), VII­4 (1972), VIII­9 (1975) and

X­8 (1979).

  1. Herr, above n 39, at 213.
  2. Samuel Blay “New Trends in the Protection of the Antarctic Environment: The 1991 Madrid Protocol” (1992) 86 Am J Intl L 377.
  3. Malaysia acceded to the Antarctic Treaty on 31 October 2011.
  4. Malaysia (UN Doc. A/C/.1/45/PV. 40) at 27; and Malaysia (UN Doc. A/C.1/46/PV.38) at 9 and 10.

confidence in the ATS by providing a regime that guaranteed environmental protection.

In the gathering together of issues to ensure comprehensive environmental protection, for the first time, Treaty Parties led by Chile47 proposed that the ATS should embrace responsibility for tourism regulation at the regime level. First, a comprehensive legal framework for regulating tourism would allow states at national levels to enact homogeneous regulations thereby avoiding serious inconsistencies. Second, tourism regulations would have indisputable legally binding force, much stronger than the current hortatory recommendations.48 Both propositions aimed to address the previous shortcomings in the ATS. However, Chile’s proposition failed to gain support from other ATCPs, particularly the United States and New Zealand.49 Both governments argued that the Protocol, in particular the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Annex, provides a comprehensive and effective legal framework for regulating tourism impacts in Antarctica.50 The idea of a separate tourism Annex to the Protocol has since been abandoned by Chile.51

The Protocol finally came into force in 1998. Many ATCPs did not ensure an interim application of the Protocol to and by their tour operators during the six­year gap between signing and adoption of the Protocol. This six­year gap coincided with the greatest phase of expansion in the Antarctic tourist industry.52 Even to the degree that EIA has been implemented by tour operators, the industry often adopted a minimal interpretation of EIA obligations.53

The principal tool employed to meet the environmental protection principle of the Protocol54 is the prior EIA process under art 8 and the EIA Annex to the Protocol. Hemmings described the EIA as the sole “gatekeeper” for overseeing access to Antarctica.55 An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) is required

  1. Chile’s proposed protocol annex on tourism was supported by France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  2. Preliminary Draft: Annex IV to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty Regulation concerning Tourism and Non-Governmental Activities Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XVII (1992) WP 1 presented by Chile.
  3. Antarctic Tourism and the Environmental Protocol Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XVII (1992) WP 6 presented by United States.
  4. Christopher Joyner “The Role of Domestic Politics in Making United States Antarctic Policy” in Olav Schram and Davor Vidas (eds) Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996) at 432.
  5. Vidas, above n 27, at 314.
  6. Alan Hemmings “EIA Not a Sufficient Antarctic Gatekeeper” (speech on the Antarctic Tourism Research Issues, Lincoln University, October 2001) at 3.
  7. At 3.
  8. The environmental protection principles are stipulated in art 3 of the Madrid Protocol. 55 Hemmings, above n 52, at 2.

for all activities covered by the Protocol, including tourism.56 An IEE must be prepared unless it is determined that activities will have “less than a minor or transitory impact” or a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) has been prepared. A CEE must be circulated to all Treaty Parties and the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP)57 for comment at least 120 days prior to the next ATCM.58 To date, no CEE has ever been prepared for a tourism activity.59 Furthermore, a recent survey of tourism EIAs suggests that “key aspects of EIA are either poorly developed or absent”.60

Since 1991, the Protocol is paralleled by IAATO’s non­legally binding voluntary industry self­regulations. The IAATO has been proactively abiding by the hortatory ATCM recommendations.61 The IAATO requires its members to comply with the EIA even if their state does not impose EIA obligations on them.62 Furthermore, in some cases, IAATO’s regulations have been developed ahead of any similar ATCM recommendations.63

3.2.3 Post-1998

Post­Madrid, while the ATCPs have agreed that “Antarctic tourism needs further regulation”,64 the provisions of the Protocol remain the only legally binding mechanism that manage tourism­related activities. All other “regulatory mechanisms” are of a hortatory nature.65 Furthermore, there is no certainty that a separate tourism regime will ever emerge.66 Thus, with the rapid commercial tourism growth in the last two decades, this article will examine whether the

  1. Madrid Protocol, art 8(2).
  2. The Committee for Environmental Protection [CEP] is established under art 11 of the Madrid Protocol. Functions and powers of the CEP are stipulated under art 12 of the Madrid Protocol.
  3. Madrid Protocol, art 3.2.
  4. CEP Tourism Study, above n 11, at 61.
  5. Kees Bastmeijer and Ricardo Roura “Regulating Antarctic Tourism and the Precautionary Principle” (2004) 98 Am J Int’l L 763 at 770.
  6. Vidas, above n 5, at 317.
  7. However, not all Antarctic tour operators are members of IAATO.
  8. These have included regulations and restrictions on numbers of people ashore, staff­ to­passenger ratio, reporting on activities, and measures to prevent non­native species introductions.
  9. Post­2001 the tourism regulation topic has annually appeared on the ATCM agenda. Final Report of the Twenty-Fourth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (2001) (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, St Petersburg) at [106]; Antarctic and South Ocean Coalition “Report on the XXVII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting” <> at [59].
  10. CEP Tourism Study, above n 11, at 59. Furthermore, three of the four remaining legally binding instruments are not yet effective: Measure 4 (2004), Measure 15 (2009), Annex VI to the Protocol. Even of the earliest tourism instruments, Recommendation XVIII­1 (Kyoto, 1994) has not yet become effective.
  11. Vidas, above n 27, at 8.

EIA has achieved its original environmental protection aim. If it has not, this article concludes that the ATS has returned to its prior Protocol position where no “effective” Antarctic tourism regulations existed.


The answer to the question of whether the Protocol been effective with regards to tourism depends on what it initially tried to achieve. The Protocol aimed to be an effective mechanism that detects, minimises and manages the environmental impacts that are associated with tourism. In the last two decades, many inconsistencies, limitations and loopholes have been identified in the EIA.

4.1 Inconsistencies

The first barrier to the effective regulation of Antarctic tourism is the ambiguous language employed in some of the terms used in the Protocol. For example, the repeated use of the phrases “to the maximum extent practicable” and “exert appropriate efforts” leaves parties to interpret measures as they see fit.67

The key threshold term “minor or transitory impacts” in art 8 is left undefined. So far no agreement on the definition of this term has been reached. Furthermore, the preliminary stage for assessing the environmental impact of the proposed activity is determined in accordance with “appropriate national procedures”.68 This leaves abundant scope for varying translation and interpretation among Treaty Parties.69 Two years after the Protocol entered into force, Kriwoken and Rootes highlighted that there are considerable differences in the requirements and levels of EIA applied among the Treaty Parties.70 More recently, the authors’ observations have been confirmed by others.71 As a result, there is currently no coherent set of rules at the domestic level governing tourists given the vagueness of the Protocol language.

  1. Environmental Impact Assessment Annex, art 1.1.
  2. See also Madrid Protocol, art 13.1; and Vidas, above n 18, at 113. 69 Vidas, above n 18, at 114.
  3. L Kriwoken and D Rootes “Tourism on Ice: Environmental Impact Assessment of Antarctic Tourism” (2000) 18 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 138; M Richardson “Regulating Tourism in the Antarctic: Issues of Environment and Jurisdiction” in D Vidas (ed) Implementing the Environmental Protection Regime for the Antarctic (Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands, 2000).
  4. Kees Bastmeijer “Tourism in Antarctica: Increasing Diversity and the Legal Criteria for Authorisation” (2003) 7 NZ J Intl L 85; and Machiel Lamers “Permanent Land Based Tourism in Antarctica” (GCAS, University of Canterbury, 2005).

4.2 Limitations

Academic writers have strongly critiqued that the EIA process does not count for all aspects of tourist activities.72 For example, Hemmings and Roura highlighted that the EIA structure had primarily evolved to deal with national scientific programmes.73 EIA obligations were largely predicated on isolated, fixed-point, long-term, science and support activities at a few sites, where there was a reasonable likelihood of having or acquiring data to determine the initial reference state and thereafter being able to monitor the actual effects of the activity. In contrast, tourism operators generally carry out quite different sorts of activities at multiple sites where often no systematic data are available and where the prospects for monitoring are negligible. Therefore, the EIA processes enshrined in the Protocol were drawn from a more narrow range of activities than they are now expected to apply to.

More recently, academics have argued that environmental impacts that are less than observable, such as cumulative impacts,74 damage to the marine environment75and greenhouse emissions as a result of tourist transport,76 have been omitted from the EIA. As a result, not all environmental impacts associated with tourism activities are currently being taken into account under the EIA.

The ultimate limitation on the Protocol’s effectiveness is the unresolved Antarctica sovereignty issue.77 For example, South American claimant countries view the claimed Antarctic area as a direct extension of their national boundaries. This will strongly influence the negotiators who hold such views.78 As a result, consensus on tourism issues is likely to be hindered by deep­rooted

  1. See L Pineschi “Tourist Activities and the Protection of the Antarctic Environment: Current Obligations and Possible Future Developments” in F Francioni (ed) International Environmental Law for Antarctica (Giuffre Editore, Milano, 1992) at 186; Erik Molenaar “Sea­borne Tourism in Antarctica: Avenues for Further Intergovernmental Regulation” (2005) 20 International Journal for Marine and Coastal Law 247; A Hemmings and R Roura “A Square Peg in a Round Hole: Fitting Impact Assessment under the Antarctic Environmental Protocol to Antarctic Tourism” (2003) 21 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 13; Hemmings, above n 52; and Lamers, above n 25, at 61–73.
  2. Hemmings, above n 52, at 3; and Bastmeijer and Roura, above n 60, at 770.
  3. Bastmeijer and Roura, above n 60; William Bush “Means and Methods of Implementation of Antarctic Environmental Regimes and National Environmental Instruments: An Exercise in Comparison” in Davor Vidas (ed) Implementing the Environmental Protection Regime for the Antarctic (Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands, 2000) at 25.
  4. Molenaar, above n 72.
  5. Bas Amelung and Machiel Lamers “Estimating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Antarctic Tourism” (2007) 4 Tourism in Marine Environment 121.
  6. This issue was foreshadowed by Nicholson, above n 37, at 200. 78 Watts, above n 15, at 114.

territorial notions.79 Furthermore, Annex IV does not apply to ships flying flags of a third­party state, a category which approximately 50 per cent of the tourist ships operating in the ATS area fall under.80 Many of the third­party states have either no financial means or political incentive to regulate tour ships carrying their flags.81 This creates a potential for free­riding, resulting in the loss of effective control by the ATS.82

4.3 Loopholes

In 2004 New Zealand identified a major loophole in the EIA.83 The EIA does not specify that tourist ships need to be ice­strengthened.84 Vessels that are not ice­strengthened are considered to be unsuitable for navigation in polar waters.85 This type of vessel has now established itself in Antarctica and IAATO has projected its numbers will increase for the 2012/2013 season.86

The most stinging criticism on the ineffectiveness of the EIA came from the New Zealand Government, which originally had vigorously defended the EIA as a “comprehensive and effective regulation” mechanism. In 2004 New Zealand acknowledged that its confidence of 20 years earlier was misplaced.87 Furthermore, New Zealand urged other ATCPs to construct “a

  1. Enzenbacher, above n 3, at 191. An example of this issue can be found in the recent land­ based tourism debate amongst the consultative parties: Tourism and Land-Based Facilities in Antarctica Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXII (2009) IP 23 presented by ASOC; Final Report of the Twenty-Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting — Eighth Committee on Environmental Protection Meeting Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (2005) (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, Stockholm).
  2. Final Report of the Meeting of Experts on the Management of Ship-borne tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (2009) (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, Wellington) at 22.
  3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, art 34; Vidas, above n 5, at 299.
  4. A Decade of Antarctic Tourism: Status, Change, and Actions Needed Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXI (2008) IP 128 presented by ASOC at 3 [A Decade of Antarctic Tourism].
  5. An Analysis of the Existing Legal Framework for the Management of Tourism and Non- Governmental Activities in Antarctica: Issues, Some Proposals and Comments Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Tourism and Non­Governmental Activities in Antarctica (2004) WP 7 presented by New Zealand at 3 [Analysis of the Existing Legal Framework].
  6. Lawson Brigham “The Emerging International Polar Navigation Code: Bi­polar Relevance” in Davor Vidas Protecting the Polar Marine Environment — Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000) at 256.
  7. Kees Bastmeijer and Ricardo Roura “Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica” in K Bastmeijer and T Koivurova (eds) Theory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (Martinus Nijhoff, The Netherlands, 2004); Brigham, above n 84, at 245 and 254.
  8. IAATO, above n 10.
  9. Analysis of the Existing Legal Framework, above n 83, at 1.

more comprehensive response to, and establish the necessary regulatory responsibility for, the management of tourism”.88

In sum, while the ATS has created some form of tourism regulation, it is currently failing to achieve its original aim. From the Treaty Parties’ perspective, it is in their long-term interest to ensure that the EIA is a sufficient environmental protection “gatekeeper” before the issue of the effectiveness of the ATS, which in large part underpins its legitimacy, is once again subjected to international scrutiny before the United Nations.

Striking the right balance between the competing issues of external acceptance by tourism industry group and non­Treaty parties, preserving the sensitive modus vivendi on the sovereignty issue, economic use (tourism) and environmental protection,89 will be the pre­condition to an effective and legitimate tourism regulation regime.90


The Treaty Parties could adopt either the long­term policy aims of prohibition or tougher restrictions on tourism. This article favours any policy directions that preserve art IV of the Treaty. This is because containment of the territorial dispute, which is so central to the political stability of Antarctica, is essential to the successful and unified management of Antarctic affairs.91 The prospect of steadily increasing tension amongst the original Treaty Parties, in regard to the deep­seated sovereignty disputes, should never be underestimated, particularly in light of the tensions which existed in the years immediately before the Treaty was concluded.92

5.1 Prohibition

A tourism ban is unlikely to be entertained by the original Treaty Parties. For example, Argentina, Australia and Chile are currently using tourism to support their territorial claims.93 Furthermore, tourism is unambiguously permitted under the ATS.94

  1. At 6.
  2. These competing factors were foreshadowed in 2008 in A Decade of Antarctic Tourism, above n 82, at 8.
  3. Also see Bastmeijer and Roura, above n 60.
  4. Watts, above n 15, at 135; Vidas, above n 5, at 294.
  5. Watts, above n 15, at 126 and 136. 93 Hall and Johnston, above n 1.

94 Kees Bastmeijer, Machiel Lamers and Juan Hacha “Permanent Land­Based Facilities for Tourism in Antarctica: The Need for Regulation” (2008) 17 RECIEL 84.

5.2 Restriction

With tourism and science operations largely operating in the same area, this situation has led to conflict in terms of infrastructure use, site and stations visits, and scientific value.95 The recognition of “priority” for scientific research96 and environmental protection97 implies that economic interest (tourism) is inferior to those expressed interests. Therefore, environmental and scientific values should be viewed as fundamental conditions for any type of development in Antarctica.98 An Antarctic­wide restriction on tourism, based on the twin primacy of science and environment, could be explored by the ATCPs in future. There is currently insufficient scientific evidence to either prove or disprove adverse environmental impacts caused by Antarctic tourism.99 Furthermore, cumulative impacts of tourism are not well understood.100 As a consequence of these uncertainties and gaps in knowledge, academics have argued that Treaty Parties should adopt a precautionary approach to tourism.101 Arguably, art 3(2)

(c) of the Protocol already accommodates the precautionary principle in the EIA:

... (emphasis added)

Furthermore, the precautionary principle has already been codified in other ATS instruments.102 Historically, due to political opportunism, most Consultative Parties have staunchly rejected a precautionary approach to tourism.103

This article strongly recommends that Treaty Parties adopt a new “comprehensive and effective” tourism regulation scheme within the existing

  1. Lamers, above n 25.
  2. Madrid Protocol, art 3.3.
  3. Art 4.
  4. Watts, above n 15, at 78 and 83.
  5. A Decade of Antarctic Tourism, above n 82, at 3; Environmental Aspects and Impacts of Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXV (2012) WP 22 presented by New Zealand at 4 and 5.
  6. Lamers, above n 25, at 116; and Machiel Lamers, Daniela Haase and Bas Amelung “Facing the elements: analysing trends in Antarctic tourism” (2008) 63 Tourism Review 15 at 21.
  7. Bastmeijer and Roura, above n 60.
  8. For example, Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.
  9. Shirley Scott “How Cautious is Precautious? Antarctic Tourism and the Precautionary Principle” (2001) 50 Int’l L & Comp LQ 963; Bastmeijer and others, above n 94.

ATS framework.104 The 1992 tourism Annex proposed by Chile should be revisited here. To avoid continuing the slow decision­making process due to political differences amongst the original Treaty Parties, the current consensus voting rule at the ATCM should be lowered to a two­thirds or majority voting rule.105 Furthermore, non­consultative parties should be given the right to vote at the annual ATCM. The CEP should be transformed into a Treaty institution. It should have the powers to make legally binding tourism regulations106 after consultation with non­governmental organisations. Furthermore, to overcome the current conflicting domestic EIA standards, the CEP should oversee all EIA applications.


In the late 1980s unregulated Antarctic tourism drew international criticism of the ATS’s inability to provide for effective environmental protection of Antarctica’s pristine and fragile environment. This criticism united the Treaty Parties’ desire to regulate tourism. Twenty years later, the New Zealand Government, an original supporter of the Madrid Protocol, has admitted that the Protocol has failed in its attempt to be an effective tourism regulatory regime. Therefore, a new coordinated ATS response at the regime level is urgently needed. Unfortunately, there currently appears to be no unified political will to do so.107

  1. In ATCM Resolution 7 (2009) Treaty Parties promise a consistent tourism management framework will be developed. However, no timeframe was given for achieving this purpose.
  2. For a similar voting model see the International Labour Organization, the Universal Postal Union, the World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization.
  3. For an example of this proposition that already exists under the ATS see the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, art IX 1(f ).
  4. This lack of political will is further exemplified the Treaty Parties’ continual unsuccessful attempts to establish a marine reserve in the Antarctic area: “No Deal on Huge Antarctic Marine Reserves” BBC News (online, United Kingdom, 16 July 2013).

NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback