Managing Antarctic Tourism: A Critical Review Of Site-Specific Guidelines

Transcription

1 Agenda Item: ATCM 7, ATCM 12, CEP 6b, CEP 7 Presented by: ASOC Original: English Managing Antarctic Tourism: A Critical Review Of Site-Specific Guidelines 1

2

3 Managing Antarctic Tourism: A Critical Review Of Site-Specific Guidelines Information Paper Submitted by ASOC to the XXIX ATCM 1 (CEP Agenda Items 6 and 7, ATCM Agenda Items 7 and 12) I. Introduction Tourism is a service industry that provides transport and hospitality services. In the Antarctic region tourism now involves the transport of thousands of paying passengers on board vessels of many different types, an emerging air- and land-supported component, and an increasingly diversifying offer of activities and places to visit that are targeted to different market segments. It is apparent that managing Antarctic tourism should be about managing the industry itself. However, in the Antarctic context, the discussion about tourism during recent Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) has largely centred on a single aspect of tourism the landing of customers at certain sites. A logical consequence of this approach has been the development of site-specific guidelines, which are being proposed at the XXIX ATCM as a primary means of managing tourism. ASOC has been monitoring the development of these site-specific guidelines. Given the inherent limitations of this approach to managing tourism, our assessment is that the Treaty Parties would be better advised to focus the bulk of their efforts elsewhere. If site-specific guidelines are to have real value, then they must provide actual site-specific advice and not be just a repetition of existing generic guidelines. Site-specific guidelines should also have a certain bite so that they can limit visitor activities as required in order that these activities do not negatively affect those sites. While our generic concerns about the site-specific guidelines approach remain, we are encouraged by the intersessional work led by the UK. The new versions of the guidelines are more substantive than earlier versions, and introduce some tourism management approaches that could usefully be applied to other instruments. ASOC submits that there is now an opportunity to develop guidelines that could be effective for the management of a small number of specific sites, and more generally for the introduction of sound principles for tourism management beyond the guidelines themselves, including the use of conditions and restrictions as appropriate. It should be noted that we support putting restrictions on commercial tourism in place not for their own sake, but because they are necessary to protect environmental and other values at certain places, in accordance with the principles of the Protocol. In this paper we review critically the pros and cons of guideline development, and discuss briefly tourism management options beyond site-specific guidelines. Clearly any human being visiting a remote site in the Antarctic could have an impact on the fauna, flora, or other values of the site. However, the focus of this paper is on the establishment of individual sites as tourism destinations by commercial tour operators, and on the appropriateness of site-specific guidelines to manage this process. II. Turning Sites In Antarctica Into Tourism Destinations In the Antarctic, as in many other parts of the world, the tourism industry relies significantly on the use of public places to conduct its activities. In the absence of commercial entities facilitating access to many Antarctic sites, visits to those sites would be virtually non-existent, or limited to the comparatively minor 1 ASOC thanks Ricardo Roura for conceptualizing this paper. 3

4 numbers of people who travel independently or who are part of national programs and have opportunistic access to sites nearby their stations or camps. The only activities that occur at some places are related to scientific research; however, in many other places commercial tourism is the main or only activity. As time passes, certain sites become well-established destinations that are regularly used for tourism purposes. A site becomes a destination as a result of a combination of factors, including its intrinsic values ( attractions ), and logistic considerations such as its location in relation to other sites and easy of access. Some sites with outstanding natural or cultural values become must see destinations, while others help to fill in gaps in the itinerary and are also visited frequently. Once a site becomes a well-established destination, tour operators will in all probability use it for the foreseeable future. As a result there is a risk of permanent appropriation of certain sites for tourism purposes, sometimes concurrently with other actual or potential activities at the site. 2 Conflicts between tourism and scientific uses may result from interference with scientific activity, or with an actual, potential or perceived decrease of the science values of a site as a result of tourism activities. There may also be conflict with regard to establishing which activity has a de facto priority over the use of a site. This is particularly the case in sites where the industry reportedly has been landing customers for a long period of time sometimes decades and where tourist numbers are high. In addition, the establishment of regular tourism destinations raises several legal issues, including property rights and usufructuary rights (or use-rights ), which have been discussed elsewhere. 3 Conflict is not unavoidable and in many instances can be managed, but it is a distinct possibility and a cause of concern. The de facto establishment of sites as tourism destinations can be accepted if the key principles and objectives of the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol are not compromised or diminished as a consequence. However, this is not an easy assessment to make, and significant changes can take place over time as a result of seemingly minor changes. In particular, there is a risk of blurring the line that separates science activities from commercial tourism, and of granting tourism activities (valid as they might be) the same rights and access given to scientific activities. The volume of tourism activity in Antarctica and the growing influence of the tourism industry in the Antarctic Treaty System put pressure on Antarctic Treaty states to let the process of destination development continue unimpeded. The commercial tourism industry is eager to maximise access to all areas, and seems to regard instruments such as ASPAs as problematic. Recent concessions to industry demands have included the establishment of tourism zones in some ASMAs or ASPAs, and the introduction of the concept of educational values for certain sites, which in practice is largely a euphemism for the tourism worth of a place. A more recent development is a program for providing accommodation to paying visitors at a scientific research station. 4 ASOC contends that these seemingly minor events could erode fundamental principles and objectives of the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol and have a negative effect on the Antarctic wilderness that these instruments govern and are meant to protect. Overall, there are numerous places in the Antarctic that are being turned into tourist destinations and exploited for tourism purposes. The sites themselves are sometimes publicised in brochures and become important to a particular itinerary in that customers expect, and sometimes demand, to land there. Landings (when passengers are transported to a particular site where they actually set foot ashore ) become a nearpermanent feature. In this context, site-specific guidelines have been proposed as one of the main means to ensure that this process does not cause undue damage on the Antarctic environment and other intrinsic values of the region. Below we examine critically what works and does not work with site-specific guidelines. 2 This process is distinct from the possible designation of areas for tourism visitation by Antarctic Treaty states. See France (2005): Creation of Areas of Special Tourist Interest. ATCM XXVIII, IP ASOC (2005): Some legal issues posed by Antarctic Tourism. XXVIII ATCM/IP Uruguay (2005): Visitors Programme to the "Artigas" Antarctic Scientific Base (BCAA). XXVIII ATCM/IP056. See also: Antártida se suma al menu turístico (Antarctica added to the tourist menu). El País (Montevideo), 11 February

5 III. Positive Aspects Of The Site-Specific Guidelines Approach ASOC recognises some positive aspects to the current debate on site-specific guidelines. First, guidelines provide an opportunity to examine whether or not the exploitation of certain sites for tourism purposes is appropriate or not. It may well be that in a number of sites tourism causes no major problems and can continue, subject to conditions and restrictions as appropriate. However, it may also be that a number of other sites may need to be put temporarily or permanently off limits for tourism. Second, site-specific guidelines, if properly developed and applied, are useful to inform visitors about the specific characteristics of a place and to guide activities at those sites. More specifically, they may be useful to streamline the use of a site for tourism purposes and to minimise some potential impacts. With regard to the site-specific guidelines to be discussed at this ATCM, we have expressed agreement with the following proposals: Targeting expedition leaders as the primary audience for site guidelines; Improving the format and usability of the guidelines; and Removing the site sensitivity index, which can mask the true sensitivity of a place. Third, the current review process has introduced a number of useful approaches to tourism management: Proposed zoning system, which includes no-go zones, and zones where specific requirements apply; Landing requirements; and Limits on visits of various kinds, and rest periods for wildlife. Some of these approaches have a certain bite in that they introduce spatial or temporal restrictions to the conduct of tourism activities. In addition, they could be usefully applied in other tourism management instruments. A logical next step of the site-specific approach would be to improve EIA and monitoring for individual sites. If a site is likely to be used for tourism purposes year in and year out for the foreseeable future, then the site itself becomes the focus of the activities. Consequently, prior EIAs could and should be conducted with a focus on the site itself (just as it would be, for instance, with the construction of a base at a certain place). This would be consistent with Resolution XXVIII-4 concerning the assessment of cumulative impacts. 5 Furthermore, predictability about the use of a site would facilitate the design of environmental monitoring programs regarding, for instance, where monitoring may be needed as a matter of priority. IV. Limitations Of The Site-Specific Guidelines Approach 5 See ATCM XXVIII (2005) Annex to Resolution XXVIII-4 (Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica, under ): Careful consideration is required to determine the full scope of the activity so that the impacts can be properly assessed. This is necessary to avoid preparing a number of separate EIAs on actions which indicate an apparent low impact, when in fact, taken in its entirety, the activity actually has potential for impacts of much greater significance. This [is] particularly common where a number of activities take place at the same site either spatially and/or temporally. Where activities are to be undertaken at sites which are visited repeatedly by one or more operators the cumulative effects of past, current and planned activities should be taken into consideration. In identifying spatial and temporal boundaries for the EIA proponents should identify other activities occurring in the region within the EIA framework. 5

6 The site-specific guidelines approach has significant inherent limitations. A key problem is that this approach is principally reactive to tourist developments. Site-specific guidelines are being developed for sites already exploited for tourism purposes. While this brings the opportunity to examine whether or not tourism use of a certain site is appropriate, it also brings a number of related problems. First, the development of site-specific guidelines is likely to be slow in comparison to the recruitment of new sites and the establishment of regular tourism destinations. To gain an insight on this we examined visitation patterns during and compared them with those of , for which there are comparable data. 6 The analysis intends to be illustrative rather than comprehensive since it covers only two seasons. Appendix 1 summarizes this analysis. The total number of sites visited during at least one of these two seasons was over 200 (Table 1, Appendix 1). 7 Between and there was a net increase in the number of sites where landings took place, with a total of 21 (15%) more sites than the previous year. This compares with the number of sites for which guidelines are under discussion (currently 11 sites). In addition, the total number of landings increased too, by nearly 50% (Table 2, Appendix 1). In particular, there were more landings on those sites where more than 1,000 passengers had landed during the previous season (Table 3 and Figure 1, Appendix 1). 8 Overall, more passengers landed at more sites in than in the previous season. If this becomes an annual trend, there will be significant increases in the number of established tourism destinations including mass tourism and a growing pressure to develop guidelines for those sites. Since guidelines need to be kept up to date, the chances of eventually catching up with developments appear limited. Second, since the guidelines are developed only after tourism activities are well established, there appears to be a certain accommodation to the commercial needs of the tourism industry. The main purpose of the guidelines should be to provide local information about specific sites so that tourist activities can be conducted with the least possible impact. This does not mean that all possible activities at a site need to be accommodated, but only those that make sense for a site located in the Antarctic, given its particular characteristics and sensitive features. One example of accommodation to the needs of the tourism industry that is apparent in the guidelines currently under review, is allowing camping/overnight stays at sites where otherwise resting periods have been proposed. If a site merits such a rest period then it should have it. Another example is when precautionary distances cannot be kept due to topography or other factors such as Giant Petrel nests on Penguin Island and yet visitation is still allowed. In those cases it would be advisable to avoid those sites, especially at sensitive times. These examples have in common that the tourist activities as currently conducted have influenced the content of the guidelines. As a result, the guidelines are less effective than they could be. Overall, it should be the characteristics of the site alone that influence the content of guidelines. If a site has no sensitive characteristics that are inconsistent with limited camping, the conduct of water sports, extended walks, etc., then those activities might be permissible. The fact that some of these activities are already taking place should not be used as a precedent that influences guideline development. 6 We used the files Number of Visits per Site/per Activity (6 Sheets - Sorted by All Sites, Continental and Peninsula) and Number of Visits per Site/per Activity (6 Sheets - Sorted by All Sites, Continental and Peninsula) that are available from (accessed May 2006). We assume the content of these files to be accurate, but we are not responsible for the accuracy of the data contained in these files. 7 We eliminated from the analysis some sites whose names, as far as we could tell, are not specific (e.g. Antarctic Peninsula ) or are inconsistently applied (e.g. sites called alternatively Presidente Frei or Frei Station ). 8 The landings were divided into various categories by popularity using a logarithmic scale that adequately illustrates the distribution of landings. Landings occur in a continuum between new sites where very few landings take place, at one end, and well-established destinations where frequent landings occur, at the other end. The greatest increase in landings between the two seasons was on the higher categories (more than 1,000 passengers landed per site). In the number of sites that experienced between 1,001 and 10,000 landings during a single season increased by 56% (from 32 to 50 sites). The number of sites with more than 10,000 landings increased by 40% (from 5 to 7 sites). 6

7 Third, site-specific guidelines are primarily a tactical response to already existing tourism developments. Site-specific guidelines do not provide a proactive, strategic means of managing a global industry. By going from the particular to the general (rather than the other way around) site-specific guidelines potentially create new problems as they solve others. For instance, the Intersessional Contact Group has recognised that limiting access to some sites may increase access to other sites, which may not be desirable. The need is therefore to examine tourism in Antarctica strategically at least in discrete regions, if not continentwide to see what level of tourism and what tourism activities could be acceptable at various sites and times. Fourth, by their nature guidelines are not legally binding, and thus not enforceable. The Protocol and its annexes, in contrast, create legal obligations, which are written into each country s domestic law and regulations and must be enforced by each country over its nationals. The ATCPs need to find a suitable way to make the guidelines legally binding and enforceable. V. Conclusions: Tourism Management Beyond Site-Specific Guidelines There are some positive elements in the site-specific guidelines approach for individual sites at least and useful work has been done intersessionally, both in Antarctica and through online discussions, by a number of parties and IAATO. However, notwithstanding the progress made so far, the site-specific guidelines approach is clearly insufficient as the main tourism management tool since the activity involves much more than landing at certain sites. Site-specific guidelines cannot (and should not, in our view) be the main mechanism for tourism management in the Antarctic. Over the years ASOC has put forward a number of alternatives for the management of tourism. 9 To summarize briefly, Parties could develop a Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Tourism, which would be consistent with the approach taken with other industries as they have appeared. A more immediate option would be the adoption of a Measure or series of Measures under the Antarctic Treaty. Particular environmental aspects of regulation could be addressed in an additional annex to the Protocol on Environmental Protection. These options could be developed without excluding complementary mechanisms, including the application of Port State Jurisdiction to tourism vessels 10 and the development of accreditation systems. ASOC submits that these alternatives should be examined by the CEP and ATCM. The commercial tourism industry will be kept in bounds that make sense in the particular context of Antarctica only by taking a more comprehensive approach. Now that Annex VI of the Protocol has been signed and the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat discussions have been completed, there is an opportunity to discuss more detailed tourism regulation, which was not possible before due to lack of capacity by Antarctic Treaty states. The need is to make progress towards developing a global Antarctic tourism policy at the XXIX ATCM and thereafter at the XXX ATCM. Technical fixes such as site-specific guidelines are useful up to a point, but are not a substitute for substantive regulation of the tourism industry. 9 The instruments available for the regulation of tourism were discussed in ASOC XXV ATCM/IP 83 Regulating Antarctic tourism (2002) and ASOC s ATME Paper #22 Mechanisms for regulating commercial tourism (2004). 10 ASOC (2002). Port State Jurisdiction: an appropriate international law mechanism to regulate vessels engaged in Antarctic tourism. XXV ATCM IP/63. 7

8 Appendix 1: Comparison of tourism landing sites in and Table 1: Overview of landings and landing sites, and Changes N o sites TOTAL Number of sites visited in TOTAL Number of sites visited in INCREASE Number of sites not visited in but visited in DECREASE Number of sites visited in but not visited in NO CHANGE Number of sites visited both in and in BALANCE Net additional sites in TOTAL SITES Visited in and/or NOT INCLUDED in this analysis (site names unspecific or inconsistent) 12 Table 2: Key indicators and Indicator N o landings Changes to N o landings % landings Total landings Average number of landings per site Maximum number of landings at a single site Minimum number of landings at a single site Total number of landing sites Table 3: Landings per site, and Changes to N o landings N o sites N o sites % sites , ,001-10, > 10, Note that the IAATO figures are higher since they include sites that have been excluded from this analysis (names unspecific or inconsistently used). 8

9 Fig. 1 Number of landings per site, and Number of landings per site, to Number of sites ,000 1,001-10,000 > 10,000 Number of landings 9