Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 18, number 2, June 2000, pages 138–150, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK. Antarctic tourism
Tourism on ice: environmental impact assessment of Antarctic tourism
Lorne K Kriwoken and David Rootes
The evolving institutional arrangements for the HE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of Ant- TSouthern Ocean cover 50 million square km, or arctic tourism are evaluated and suggestions about 10% of the Earth’s surface (Figure 1). made on its future. The EIA provisions of the Continental Antarctica is almost entirely covered by 1991 Madrid Protocol are legally required by ice with an average thickness of over 2,000 meters. companies, registered in Treaty signatory states, The ice sheet holds 90% of the earth’s fresh water and in planning and managing all tourist activities. its thermal mass is significant for global climate. Less than 2% of the continent is ice-free (Kriwoken and An assessment of the three tiers of EIA estab- Keage, 1989). lished under the Protocol is presented. Potential As a result, plant life is impoverished and consists solutions for assessing impacts of Antarctic of a patchy distribution of mosses, lichen and grasses. tourism include adoption of strategic environ- Except for a few insects, animal life is sea or airborne mental assessment, regional assessments and and migratory. There are six species of seal and 14 environmental auditing. International best species of bird. Compared with ecosystems in more practice methods should be adopted in the initial temperate parts of the world, the Antarctic marine environmental evaluation along with greater ecosystem has relatively few species but they are consistency of EIA application through indica- abundant (Walton, 1987). tive lists and guidelines, a dedicated database of Forty-three countries now adhere to the Antarctic Antarctic EIAs and increased cooperation in Treaty which applies to the area south of 600 South lat- the EIA process between the tourism industry itude (Headland, 1999). The Antarctic Treaty System consists of a number of separate international instru- and Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties that ments and their associated measures: 1959 Antarctic support Antarctic logistics and science. Treaty; 1964 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora; 1972 Convention on the Keywords: tourism; environmental impact assessment; Antarctica Conservation of Antarctic Seals; 1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Re- sources; 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection Dr Lorne K Kriwoken (the contact author) is at the Centre for En- to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol); and recom- vironmental Studies, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-78, Hobart, Tasmania 7001 Australia; Tel: +61 3 6226 2458; Fax: +61 mendations of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meet- 3 6226 2989; E-mail: [email protected]. David Rootes ings and several Special Meetings in the form of is at Poles Apart, PO Box 89, Bourn, Cambridge CB3 7TF, UK. decisions, measures and resolutions (Kriwoken and This article is published under the auspices of the Antarctic Co- Keage, 1989). operative Research Centre (Law, Policy and International Rela- The most significant environmental instrument, tions Program), University of Tasmania. The authors wish to thank Martin Betts, Andrew Jackson, Tom Maggs, Dr Riki with origins in the 1988 Convention for the Regula- Therivel and Dr Chris Wood for comments on an earlier draft. All tion of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors. (CRAMRA) (Joyner, 1987), has been the Madrid
138 1461-5517/00/020138-13 US$08.00 © IAIA 2000 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 EIA of Antarctic tourism
Figure 1. Major seaborne and airborne tourist routes to Antarctica
Protocol which codified and made legally binding a reserve devoted to peace and science”. All 27 Antarc- number of environmental protection measures. The tic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) had ratified Protocol and its five annexes (Annex I: Environmen- the Protocol and it formally entered into force on 14 tal Impact Assessment; Annex II: Conservation of January 1998. However, not all Parties have detailed Antarctic Fauna and Flora; Annex III: Waste Disposal regulations in place to guide human activities. and Waste Management; Annex IV: Prevention of Antarctica can be cold, windy and dangerous. Yet, Marine Pollution; Annex V: Area Protection and in the 1996/97 austral summer, 7,322 tourists ven- Management) provide a comprehensive multilateral tured south to Antarctica by ship, 155 by aircraft, and agreement on the management of the Antarctic envi- a further 2,958 passengers visited by overflying the ronment (Blay, 1992). continent (IAATO, 1996a). As tourist numbers in- The Protocol bans mining in Antarctica for a mini- crease so does the potential for environmental impact mum of 50 years and designates the whole of the con- during the short Antarctic summer. The use of envi- tinent and its dependent marine ecosystems a “natural ronmental impact assessment (EIA) has been widely
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 139 EIA of Antarctic tourism acknowledged as an appropriate tool to assess and mitigate the impacts of Antarctic tourism. The Madrid Protocol, particularly Annex I (Envi- ronmental Impact Assessment), introduced a three- tiered process which applies to all activities, whether government, private or commercial. This requirement has meant that tour companies, registered in Treaty signatory states, are now legally required to conduct EIAs for their Antarctic shipborne, landborne or air- borne/overflight operations. The overall objective of the paper is to evaluate the evolving institutional arrangements for EIA in Ant- arctic tourism. It begins by describing the scale of Figure 2. Russian-registered, Kapitan Khlebnikov, chartered Antarctic tourism and the types of impact associated to US-based Quark Expeditions with the industry. The conduct of EIA, outlined in the Madrid Protocol, is presented with problems related Antarctica on 13 different vessels, exceeding the to implementation and arrangements for its number of national scientific and logistic personnel, application. which is estimated at 4,000. Ushuaia was home port to This is followed by an examination of the three 114 departures, averaging 70 passengers per voyage, tiers of EIA outlined in the Protocol, along with yet ranging from 23 to 162. During this summer pe- specific examples. The paper goes on to outline riod, 1,007 landings were made (IAATO, 1996a). Ad- additional means of supporting environmentally re- ditionally, 17 yachts made 22 expeditions during the sponsible Antarctic tourism and specific institutional 1995/96 season for a total of 150 passengers (IAATO, suggestions are made with respect to increased 1997b). integration between the three tiers of EIA and co- A typical shipborne tourist itinerary would in- operation between industry, science and government. volve: flying from the eastern USA to Ushuaia; sail- Discussion is limited to the Antarctic Treaty area and ing two days across the Drake Passage onboard an ice therefore does not include peri-Antarctic islands. strengthened ship; five days exploring the Peninsula with two or three landings and one or two Zodiac cruises per day; and two days return sailing to Ushuaia Antarctic tourism and environmental impacts (Figures 1 and 2). For this, and other related polar tourist experiences, passengers pay from US$4,000 to Antarctica is a growing international tourist destina- US$20,000 for a trip ranging from 6 to 21 days. tion and marketed as a unique nature-based experi- Hall (1992) and Hall and Johnston (1995a) have as- ence. The tourist industry consists of three types of sessed the nature of environmental impacts associated activity: shipborne; landborne; and airborne or over- with infrastructure characteristics. Shipborne tourism flights (Hall and Johnston, 1995a). In 1996/97, 48% does not usually require a permanent land-based facil- of tourists were from the USA, followed by Germany ity as passengers are accommodated onboard for the (11 %), Australia (9%); Japan (7%); and others duration of the expedition. Environmental impacts are (25%). Typically, Antarctic tourists are tertiary edu- generally transient (Hall and Johnston, 1995a) with cated, well traveled and have high disposable pressure placed on repeat visited shore-based attrac- incomes. The numbers of tourists visiting each year tions such as colonial seabird rookeries (penguins). fluctuates with 6,585 in 1992/93 compared with Impacts can involve: water pollution from oils spills, 10,013 in 1997/98 (IAATO, 1999). Each tourist Zodiac operations and sewage disposal; introduction activity has associated environmental impacts of bird and plant diseases; littering; collection of sou- (Enzenbacher, 1992; 1993; Hall, 1992; Hall and venirs; introduction of exotic flora; incineration from Wouters, 1995) which are outlined below. the ships; and disturbance as a result of a shipwreck. Shipborne tourism began to Antarctica in 1958 Landborne tourism is the second significant type of with tours to the South Shetland Islands and the west tourist operation in Antarctica. One company, Adven- coast of the Antarctic Peninsula (Reich, 1980) (Figure ture Network International (ANI), operates a tented 1). Lindblad Travel, the first US company to offer summer camp at Patriot Hills, Ellsworth Mountains, trips to Antarctica, began in 1966 and strengthened its accommodating 50 people and taking advantage of a Antarctic shipborne tourism operations during the natural runway on blue ice (glacial ice) (Figures 1 and 1970s. The Lindblad Explorer, which was purpose- 3). Over the 1997/98 season, ANI carried 131 passen- built for polar tourism, made its maiden voyage in gers to Antarctica (Swithinbank, 1998), chartering a 1970 (Headland, 1989). This is considered the begin- Lockheed L-382G Hercules, two DHC-6 Twin Otters ning of modern Antarctic tourism. and a Cessna 185. Eight Hercules flights were made Thirty years later the focus remains on the Penin- between Punta Arenas, Chile and the Patriot Hills in sula with the majority of ships departing from the 1997/98 season (Swithinbank, 1998). Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. In the 1996/97 ANI is the only company that provides regular in- austral summer 7,322 shipborne passengers visited tercontinental flights between South America and
140 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 EIA of Antarctic tourism
The nature of the impacts of landborne activities includes: human competition with flora and fauna for ice-free land; trampling of high-use areas; water pollution; disposal of sewage and waste; and introduction of exotic flora and fauna
Figure 3. Hercules C-130 landing on blue ice at Patriot Hills Victoria, Australia, using Qantas Airlines Boeing Antarctica. The most popular activity is the climbing 747s. The Antarctic Day Sightseeing consists of a program to Vinson Massif (the highest mountain in 13-hour flight departing Melbourne, Victoria or Syd- Antarctica), followed by flights to the South Pole and ney, New South Wales, overflying Hobart, Tasmania, visits to an Emperor penguin rookery. ANI also pro- the Antarctic continent and returning to Australia vides logistical support for other activities such as ski- (Figure 1). In the five seasons since 1994/95, over ing, trekking, parachuting and photography. Polar 13,000 passengers and 900 crew have taken part in 52 Logistics, the logistical arm of ANI, also operates flights (Betts, 1999). In recognition of its environ- flights between Cape Town, South Africa and mentally sound Antarctic overflight program, Croy- Dronning Maud Land (Blue Ice I), Antarctica (Figure don Travel was awarded the Victoria Tourism 1). Environmental Award in 1995 and was a finalist in Other landborne activities involve expeditions for 1998 (Keage, 1999). climbing, skiing, photography and ocean kayaking, The growth in Antarctic tourism resulted in an often in association with seaborne tourist operators. industry association being formed in 1991. Seven Adventure travel companies specialize in small group Antarctic tour operators formed the International travel and can spend from one day to one week camp- Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) to ing on the continent. For instance, Aurora Expeditions represent industry interests (Enzenbacher, 1993). and World Expeditions offer skiing and climbing trips Concern for environmental principles has been dem- with opportunities to camp overnight and are sup- onstrated by the Association through support for Ant- ported by tourism ships operating in the Antarctic arctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Recommendation Peninsula. XVIII-1 on guidance for visitors to the Antarctic. In Impacts associated with landborne activities are addition, IAATO members are bound by the organi- potentially the most severe. Infrastructure support can zation’s “Guidelines of conduct for Antarctic tour be extensive including: airstrips; accommodation fa- operators”. cilities; tracks and trails; and waste disposal facilities There are now 23 members and associate members (Hall and Johnston, 1995a). The nature of the impacts in Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan, Nether- can include: human competition with flora and fauna lands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United for ice-free land; site-specific degradation of high-use States. IAATO policy is to “operate within the param- areas, such as trampling; water pollution; disposal of eters of the Antarctic Treaty, Environmental Protocol, sewage and waste; introduction of exotic flora and relevant national legislation and other international fauna; collection of souvenirs; cruising of small boats agreements …” (IAATO, 1996b). The Association close to animals; disturbance to bird colonies; and has argued that rules and regulations that apply to damage to heritage sites (Hall and Johnston, 1995a). tourism should apply to all other human activities. Airborne tourism began in 1956 when a Chilean IAATO encourages the preparation of environmental airline overflew the South Shetland Islands impact assessments by its members and may endorse (Stonehouse and Crosbie, 1995). In 1957, the first appropriate research studies. commercial flight landed at McMurdo Sound in a Pan American Stratocruiser which departed from New Zealand. Qantas and Air New Zealand made 44 flights The Madrid Protocol and EIA from 1977 to 1980 carrying over 11,000 passengers. The crash of an Air New Zealand aircraft on Mt The tourist impacts must be considered in the context Erebus in late 1979 saw the cessation of this period of of environmental regulations outlined in the Madrid airborne tourism. In 1983/84, the Chileans had com- Protocol. With respect to EIA of tourist operations, menced flights from Punta Arenas, Chile to Teniente the most significant requirements are detailed in three Rodolfo Marsh Station, King George Island, South Articles and Annex I to the Protocol. Shetland Islands (Kriwoken, 1995). Article 3 (Environmental Principles) is a corner- A resurgence of airborne tourism to Antarctica stone of the Protocol and states, inter alia, that in the took place in 1994/95 with Croydon Travel, based in Antarctic Treaty area:
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 141 EIA of Antarctic tourism
· “activities … shall be planned and conducted so as however the implementing legislation gives effect to to limit adverse impacts on the environment and the policies and permitted activities of the Protocol. dependent and associated ecosystems; Even after national legislation has been enacted it may · activities … shall be planned and conducted to take some time before the regulatory framework for avoid: each country is in place. – significant adverse effects on air or water quality; These differing national legal systems have, by ne- – significant changes in the atmospheric, terres- cessity, resulted in a variety of interpretations of the trial (including aquatic), glacial or marine Protocol. Lyons (1993) has argued that there are diffi- environments; culties in determining the appropriate level of assess- – detrimental changes in the distribution, abun- ment and that the language of the EIA provisions is dance or productivity of species or populations open to interpretation. Phrases such as “a minor or of species of fauna and flora; transitory impact on the environment”, “significant – degradation of, or substantial risk to, areas of bi- changes” and “detrimental changes” are indicative of ological, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilder- the problems of interpretation. There are no quan- ness significance.” titative standards to assist tourist operators, or the countries that assess those activities, to determine Moreover, the Article requires that “activities … be precise measures of impact. planned and conducted on the basis of information sufficient to allow prior assessments of, and informed judgments about, their possible impacts” (Article Three tiers of environmental assessment 3(c)). This Article provides general guidance on the activities allowed and makes predictive EIA a Preliminary assessment requirement. Article 6 (Cooperation) states that “Consultative Each of the three levels of environmental assessment Parties should co-operate in the planning and conduct varies according to form, circulation and evaluation. of activities in the Antarctic Treaty area and provide The first is the preliminary assessment, following appropriate assistance to other Parties in the prepara- which, “if an activity is determined as having less than tion of environmental impact assessments”. Article 8 a minor or transitory impact, the activity may pro- (Environmental Impact Assessment) states that pro- ceed” (Annex I, Article 1). It is implied, although no posed activities shall be subject to the EIA process as guidance is given, that the preliminary assessment is outlined in Annex I (EIA), which details a three-tiered an ‘in-house’ activity. process. It also includes the requirement that activities The decision as to whether to progress to the next “shall be subject to the procedures set out in Annex I stage of the assessment process is usually made by the for prior assessment of the impacts of those activities national authority responsible for Antarctic environ- on the Antarctic environment …” mental affairs. There is no triggering mechanism that All Antarctic tourist operators are therefore re- automatically pushes the tourist activity up to an ini- quired to conduct an EIA of their activities. The tial environmental evaluation (IEE). Indicative lists co-operation referred to in Article 6 is between Treaty and schedules of activities that require a second level parties, not with tourism operators, as the operators of assessment, often found in domestic environmental are not party to the Madrid Protocol. Examples of legislation, do not exist in the Madrid Protocol. Most tourist activities, at each level of assessment, will be countries do not maintain such lists and the judgment provided in the next section. about the level of assessment usually rests with the Article 4 of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty puts sover- policy and/or environment representatives in the re- eign claims on hold, yet the reality for Antarctic tour sponsible national authority. operators is that sovereignty plays a large part in man- aging tourist activities. In order for the Madrid Proto- Table 1. Requirements for a Preliminary Assessment of col to apply at a national level it must be given effect Environmental Impacts under the Australian 1980 through domestic legislation. In Australia, for in- Antarctic Treaty stance, the Madrid Protocol is implemented through the 1980 Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) A description of the activity Act [AT(EP) Act] and associated environmental Impacts (on flora, fauna, ecological processes, ice, water, air, impact assessment regulations (the EIA Regulations). surface quality) Australian nationals operating tourist activities in the Heritage, wilderness and/or aesthetic values Antarctic Treaty area must comply with the Act, which Waste management is administered by the Australian Antarctic Division of Cumulative impacts the Department of Environment and Heritage. Most significant negative impact Whilst the Madrid Protocol came into force on 14 Mitigation measures January 1998, many of the Consultative Parties that Alternatives ratified the Protocol have not completed their national Conformity with management plans implementing legislation. The Protocol provides the Possible public concerns framework for protecting the Antarctic environment,
142 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 EIA of Antarctic tourism
Table 2. Selected preliminary assessments for Antarctic circulated or advertised. Examples of tourist activities tourism activities that have required a preliminary assessment are shown in Table 2. Tourist operator Tourist activity Date (country registered) (country of prepared assessment) Initial environmental evaluation
Adventure Network Fuel cache, Marble 1994 The second level of assessment is the initial environ- International (Canada, Point (UK) mental evaluation (IEE) which is required for pro- UK) posed activities that may have a minor or transitory Qantas/Croydon Travel Qantas overflights 1994 impact on the Antarctic environment (Annex I, Arti- (Australia) (Australia) cle 2). The IEE should include sufficient detail to GMMS Pty Ltd (Australia) Climbing and 1995 assess whether the proposed activity may have more (now Aurora Expeditions) photography expedition (Australia) than a minor or transitory impact (Annex I, Article Adventure Network Dronning Maud Land 1996 1(1)(a)(b)) and must include the following International/ Polar Air Link (UK) information: Logistics (Canada, UK) Quark Expeditions (USA) Visits to Macquarie 1996/97; · a description of the proposed activity, including its Island Base, Cape 1997/98 purpose, location, duration and intensity (Annex I, Denison Historic Sites, Mawson, Davis Article 2(1)(a)); and and Casey Bases · consideration of alternatives to the proposed activ- (Australia) ity and any impacts that the proposed activity may One Step Beyond (UK) Camping permit 1997 have on the Antarctic environment, including cu- application (UK) mulative impacts in light of existing and known Aurora Expeditions Voyages to the 1997 (Australia) Antarctic Peninsula, planned activities and existing information on such expedition for activities (Annex I, Article 2(1)(b)). climbers and photographers (Australia) Whilst the general detail of the IEEs is found in Annex I, the format has been largely drawn from “The envi- ronmental impact assessment process: practical In Australia for instance, a Preliminary Assess- guidelines” developed by the Committee of Managers ment of Environmental Impacts (PA) is required for of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP, 1992) non-science (tourist) activities in accordance with (Table 3). The 1992 guidelines have been subse- section 12D of the Antarctic Treaty (Environment quently updated (COMNAP, 1999) and act as an aid Protection) Act. The assessment consists of check- for both national programs and tourist operators pro- list-type questions to be submitted by the proponent posing activities in Antarctica. These guidelines “are (Table 1). The assessment is then reviewed by the En- meant to encourage flexibility and creativity in prepa- vironment Management Section in the Australian ration of … IEEs and CEEs as defined in Annex I of Antarctic Division. A decision on whether the activity the Protocol” (COMNAP, 1992). can proceed, or should be subject to an IEE, is made The guidelines provide an element of comparabil- by the Minister (although this power is delegated to an ity in the environmental assessment process used by official within the Division). all national Antarctic programs and nongovernment When the tourist operator would be visiting bases organizations, including tour operators. The critical of other nationalities, the Antarctic Division may seek consideration for tour operators is that the assessment external comment. For instance, if a tourist operator of their planned activities should not exceed minor or intended to visit the historic huts in the Ross Sea or McMurdo Station, comments could be solicited from Antarctica New Zealand or the United States Antarc- Table 3. Initial environmental evaluation format tic Program. The PA is not required to be publicly Nontechnical summary Description of the proposed activity Description of the existing environment The critical consideration for tour Methods and data used to predict impacts Analysis of expected impacts operators is that the assessment of Alternatives their planned activities should not Mitigation measures exceed minor or transitory impacts: if Monitoring of impacts they do exceed these levels they would Unavoidable impacts Potential impacts on research and other uses not be allowed to continue without Gaps and uncertainties mitigation measures Contact name and address Source: COMNAP (1992)
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 143 EIA of Antarctic tourism transitory impacts. If their planned activities do ex- An increasingly significant player in Antarctic ceed these levels they would not be allowed to con- tourism, in terms of passenger numbers, has been tinue without mitigation measures to ensure that these Croydon Travel of Victoria, Australia. They have op- levels are met. erated the Antarctic Day Sightseeing flights (Figure The IEE is the first point in the process at which 1) since 1994 and undertook environmental impact there is a formal requirement to notify other agencies assessments at a Preliminary Assessment level but or interested parties of the assessment (Annex I, Arti- with IEE-level documentation (Qantas, 1994). Over- cle 6, Circulation of Information). This notification flights, with no requirement for permanent land-based occurs generally post-event in association with the facilities in Antarctica, have the least impact of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. IEEs con- three types of tourist activity. ducted for tourist operators are submitted to the The Qantas environmental assessment (Qantas, appropriate national Antarctic authority and are often 1994) recognizes two types of discernible impacts: tabled at annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative noise and exhaust emissions. Overflying at 3,048 me- Meetings by the IAATO representative (IAATO, ters (10,000 feet), a B747 aircraft would produce ap- 1997a). Feedback on the content of the IEEs can come proximately 70dB on the ground. Jet engine exhaust from the national authority, other Consultative emissions consist of smoke (soot), unburned hydro-
Parties, nongovernmental organizations or private carbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), citizens. Preparation of IEEs is the responsibility of and carbon dioxide (CO2). NOx and CO2 can contrib- the proponent, although in some instances the tour ute to global warming. Overflights can also cause operator may engage another person to prepare the terrestrial impacts because of aircraft crashes, as documentation on their behalf. witnessed in the 1979 Mt Erebus Air New Zealand The first IEE undertaken for an Antarctic tour opera- disaster. tor was in 1993 for Adventure Network International, Given the number of countries and the range of which operates the intercontinental flights from Chile tourist operators, it is not surprising that different in- to Antarctica. The concerns of ANI were quite different terpretations have led to different requirements for, or from the rest of Antarctic tourist operators which were levels of, environmental impact assessment. For ex- largely ship-based. Because ANI used one main sum- ample, Norwegian law requires advance notice of any mer camp it was possible to focus the IEE on their activity that falls under its authority including “ … in- Patriot Hills operations (Poles Apart, 1993). formation on who is responsible for the activity, and ANI has also undertaken preliminary assessments on the scope of the activity, including an initial envi- for its fuel caches and one for the environmental im- ronmental evaluation …“ (Norway, 1995). This pact of proposed intercontinental flights to Dronning means that the first step of the environmental impact Maud Land from South Africa (Poles Apart, 1996). assessment procedure under Norwegian law is the This assessment was presented to the 8th Council of IEE; there is no preliminary assessment. Furthermore Managers of National Antarctic Programs meeting in the Act requires a full year’s advance notice for activi- August 1996. Although the latter assessment was pre- ties. The content required by the IEE has also been sented to COMNAP the ultimate decision-making modified and differs slightly from that prescribed by responsibility on all EIA rests with the national the Protocol under Annex I, Article 2. authority, in this case, the UK. Under the New Zealand 1994 Antarctica (Environ- The number of IEEs prepared for ship-based opera- mental Protection) Act there is no requirement to pro- tors has been growing. Marine Expeditions Inc, based vide an ‘initial environmental reference state’, which in Toronto, Canada, commissioned an IEE for its Ant- corresponds to Annex I, Article 2 of the Protocol. arctic and Southern Ocean tourism operations in the However, the provision of an ‘initial environmental 1994/95 season (Poles Apart, 1995). Orient Lines reference state’ is a requirement under the Australian (1995) has produced an IEE for the Marco Polo which 1993 Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) has a capacity of 800 passengers, but is limited to 400 (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations for its Antarctic operations. The New Zealand based (s6). Southern Heritage Expeditions conducted an IEE in The provision of an ‘initial environmental refer- 1995 for Academik Shokalski that operated three ex- ence state’ raises some important questions with re- peditions to Antarctica sailing from the Ross Sea Sec- spect to the application of IEEs. The IEE in the tor (Southern Heritage Expeditions, 1995). The context of the Madrid Protocol uses the traditional German-based Hanseatic Cruises completed an IEE project-type assessment procedure whereby impacts for the MS/Bremen (Fragebogen zur Prufung der are predicted before the development takes place. The Umweltvertraglichkeit für Antarkktisresisen)in project is monitored and an assessment of the impacts 1996. is undertaken to see whether the original prediction Affiliated with these ship-based operators are was successful. Mitigation of impacts plays a critical mountaineering, skiing and photography expeditions. role in the process. For instance, in 1995 Adventure Consultants com- However, in most cases, Antarctic tour operations pleted an IEE for its fifth mountaineering expedition are existing and continuing. The predictive element to the Ellsworth Mountains to climb Vinson Massif required by the Protocol then becomes one of and Mount Tyree. measurement from an impacted state. This makes the
144 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 EIA of Antarctic tourism
Table 4. Contents of a comprehensive environmental this model, the government agency takes on the re- evaluation sponsibility of developing comprehensive site inform- ation, and the operators, in their EIAs, concentrate on A description of the proposed activity including its purpose, the proposed activities at each site. In this way, the re- location, duration and intensity, and possible alternatives to the activity, including the alternative of not proceeding, and the petitive description of the environment was avoided consequences of those alternatives and the EIA could focus on process and mitigation A description of the initial environmental reference state with measures. which predicted changes are to be compared and a prediction of the future environmental reference state in the absence of the proposed activity Comprehensive environmental evaluation A description of the methods and data used to forecast the impacts of the proposed activity The third level of assessment is the comprehensive Estimation of the nature, extent, duration, and intensity of the environmental evaluation (CEE) which must be pre- likely direct impacts of the proposed activity pared for any activity likely to have more than a minor Consideration of possible indirect or second order impacts of or transitory impact. The Protocol states “[i]f an IEE the proposed activity indicates or if it is otherwise determined that a pro- Consideration of cumulative impacts of the proposed activity in posed activity is likely to have more than a minor or the light of existing activities and other known planned activities transitory impact, a CEE shall be prepared” (Annex I, Identification of measures, including monitoring programs, that Article 3). The CEE must be publicly available and could be taken to minimize or mitigate impacts of the proposed activity and to detect unforeseen impacts and that could provide circulated to interested Consultative Parties, allowing early warning of any adverse effects of the activity as well as to 90 days for comments. Once comments have been in- deal promptly and effectively with accidents corporated the draft CEE is forwarded to the Commit- Identification of unavoidable impacts of the proposed activity tee for Environmental Protection (CEP) and the Consideration of the effects of the proposed activity on the Consultative Parties at least 120 days before the next conduct of scientific research and on other existing uses and values Consultative Meeting. Table 4 outlines the contents of a CEE as detailed in the Protocol. An identification of gaps in knowledge and uncertainties encountered in compiling the information required under this CEEs have not been undertaken for Antarctic tour- paragraph ism, although they have been used by national opera- A non-technical summary of the information provided under this tors to assess major projects such as scientific rock paragraph drilling (New Zealand) (Keys, 1994), the construction The name and address of person or organization which of a research station (South Africa) (Claassen and prepared the CEE and the address to which comments thereon should be directed Sharp, 1993) and the construction of an airstrip (United Kingdom) (Bonner, Lewis Smith and Walton, Source: Article 3 (2)(a) - (l) Annex I, Madrid Protocol 1989). The scale of these projects has meant a signifi- establishment of the initial reference state more diffi- cant commitment of resources to complete the CEE. cult. In most cases, tourist operators do not have the The relevance of CEEs has been canvassed as an capability to document the ‘initial environmental ref- appropriate level of assessment for Antarctic tourism erence state’ of a number of sites used throughout a although specific details regarding its introduction season. Some operators may use from 20 to 60 differ- have not been forthcoming. Two workshops in 1996 ent sites in a season and in some locations only land have provided a first look at how cumulative impacts once. If the same level of information is required for could be assessed. The World Conservation Union each site it then seems disproportionate for a transient held a Workshop on Cumulative Environmental Im- visit which may not be repeated. pacts in Antarctic” (18–21 September 1996, Wash- To address some of these issues, the New Zealand ington, DC) (IUCN, 1996) and was attended by 25 Government developed a model IEE for shipborne Consultative Parties and tourist representatives. Antarctic tour operations (Hemmings, 1997). The Twenty-two recommendations were made under the model IEE was tabled as an information paper in 1997 following headings: site protection; protected spe- at the XXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting cies; EIA; information exchange; tools for assessing (ATCM). Hemmings (1998) has argued that three is- compliance; education and training; information sues have not been evident in Antarctic tourist IEEs to management; international cooperation; monitoring; date: identification of precisely where the expedition and further research. proposes to go; the proposed activities en route and at A second workshop followed closely behind enti- each particular site; and consideration of the potential tled “IAATO Workshop on Environmental Assess- direct, secondary and cumulative impacts of the pro- ment: Building the Frame” (27–29 September 1996, posed activity. The model makes suggestions for: Warrenton, VA). Representatives from the US site-specific landing details; direct/indirect impacts National Science Foundation, US Environmental from ship and helicopter operations and passenger ac- Protection Agency (EPA), IAATO members and tivities; and cumulative impacts. independent consultants attended. The workshop Coincidentally, the Australian Antarctic Division concluded that the developed a model similar to Hemmings’ (1997) whereby information from tourist operators should be “most effective way of addressing potential en- provided on a site-specific basis (Betts, 1999). Under vironmental impacts, particularly cumulative
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 145 EIA of Antarctic tourism
impacts, would be to conduct an EIA on overall Potential solutions for assessing impacts activities in the Peninsula by IAATO-member companies with substantially similar opera- The discussion so far has revealed limitations of the tions.” (IAATO, 1997b) existing administrative framework for EIA of Antarc- tic tourism. This section provides potential solutions Although a cumulative-type assessment has not been by supporting more integrated and forward-looking undertaken for IAATO, five of its members devel- alternatives to the project-specific EIA process which oped a ‘programmatic’ environmental assessment for are now gaining prominence (Vanclay and Bronstein, shipborne activities in the Antarctic Peninsula and 1995; Porter and Fittipaldi, 1998). South Shetland Islands for the 1997/98 season (Anon- ymous, 1997). Submitted as an IEE, it covered five Strategic environmental assessment US tour operators undertaking similar tourist activi- ties and was submitted to the US EPA, which accepted One technique that has been gaining wide inter- it as sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 8 national attention is the application of strategic and Annex I of the Protocol: the expeditions pro- environmental assessment (SEA) whereby the conse- ceeded (Jatko, 1999). The assessment also complied quences of policies, plans and programs are consid- with the US EPA “Interim Final Rule for Environ- ered at the earlier stages of decision-making (Therivel mental Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in et al, 1992). SEA is an approach used to ensure that Antarctica” issued 30 April 1997. environmental considerations are integrated into It is evident that the assessment of cumulative im- government policy-making (Court et al, 1996), yet the pacts of Antarctic tourism is very much in its infancy. use and application of SEA could extend beyond this Baseline data on site assessment and landing criteria and be used by the Antarctic tourism industry and are beginning to be compiled. Some of this informa- national operators supporting science and logistics. tion is now being gathered through the US-based SEA is a proactive process of assessing the Oceanites Antarctic Peninsula site inventory project environmental effects of any proposed decision by (Oceanites, 1997). Tourism in Antarctica has been adopting, as the basis for making the assessment, studied by Project Antarctic Conservation, Scott Po- the concepts of land-use capability, environmental lar Research Institute, University of Cambridge. The carrying capacity or limits of acceptable change. Pro- project aimed, inter alia, to study the development, perly developed, SEA can instill and integrate environ- evolution and environmental impact of tourism and mental goals into the highest levels of policy making made recommendations on the management of the (Court et al, 1996). industry (Stonehouse and Crosbie, 1995). The Inter- Although the Madrid Protocol makes no mention national Centre for Antarctic Information and Re- of SEA, at a national level some of the Antarctic search, Christchurch, New Zealand has been active in Treaty Consultative Parties have in place directives to documenting the growth and development of consider SEA. In the United States, the National Envi- Antarctic tourism. ronmental Policy Act 1969 requires programmatic Internet-based sites are now developing, such as environmental impact statements. The US Department the Australian Antarctic Division’s “Antarctic Tour- of Housing and Urban Development has developed a ism and Nongovernmental Expeditions: Policy and methodology for area-wide EIAs and has produced a Management” (Australia, 1999). The site provides de- guidebook for undertaking SEA. The State of Califor- tails on, inter alia, the history and status of tourism, nia has a legislative requirement to prepare SEAs and planning and management provisions and operations. is considered the most developed and operational sys- Specific details on landing requirements, protected tem in the world (Therivel et al, 1992). The United areas or sensitive ecosystems and contact protocol Kingdom’s Department of Environment has recom- with the stations are provided. The advantage of this mended procedures resembling SEA and the Nether- internet site is that it can be accessed by tour opera- lands set up a statutory SEA system in 1987 (Therivel tors, passengers and the interested public and updated et al, 1992). when new information becomes available. Whilst limited institutional arrangements for SEA have been set up at a national level this has not ex- tended to all countries involved in Antarctic science or the tourism industry. Most Consultative Parties do SEA is used to ensure that not have requirements for SEA in their own domestic environmental considerations are legislation and therefore lack the requisite expertise in integrated into government policy- the area. Similarly, the tourism industry has not em- braced the concept inherent in SEA. making, yet its use and application Nevertheless, SEA is widely seen as one of the could be used by the Antarctic tourism principal mechanisms to implement ecologically sus- industry and national operators tainable development principles (Goodland and Sadler, 1993). Consultative Parties should be encour- supporting science and logistics aged to undertake SEAs of the Antarctic tourism, sci- ence and logistic sectors to ensure that the
146 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 EIA of Antarctic tourism environmental effects of decisions are considered in If CEEs of Antarctic tourism are required in the fu- the earliest stages of planning. The programmatic EIA ture, regional assessments will assist in identifying for the Antarctic Peninsula carried out by Antarctic and quantifying cumulative impacts. Increased co- tourism operators could be considered as a form of operation between stakeholders will be critical to SEA and should be more widely supported by the ensure success. Greater cooperation between IAATO, tourism industry. COMNAP and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) would be instrumental in such an Regional assessments and cumulative impacts undertaking. The joint COMNAP–IAATO meeting which was held on 21 March 1997 in New York dis- An additional planning tool to assess Antarctic tour- cussed issues of common interest and concern ism is the use of regional assessments and cumulative (IAATO, 1997b) between the logistics and operations impact assessment. This is particularly the case be- sections of the national operators and the tourism cause Antarctic tourist activity is concentrated in industry. National operators have expertise in assem- three Antarctic regions (Antarctic Peninsula, Ross bling long-term biological and physical data sets, Sea, Ellsworth Mountains) and there is a tendency for mapping and geographical information systems and seaborne tourist operators to concentrate their activi- established monitoring protocols. This expertise will ties in a localized and repetitive manner. Court et al need to be shared with the Antarctic tourism industry (1994) have argued that there is a “general agreement and mechanisms for cooperation will need to be on the need to have regard for cumulative, regional formalized. and long-term impacts and to evaluate development proposals within the carrying capacity of regional Environmental auditing environments”. This has direct application to Antarctic tourism The third of the possible solutions for assessing im- where more emphasis should be given to environ- pacts is the introduction of environmental auditing at mental management on a regional basis (Kriwoken, the level of the tourist operator. Most operators have 1991). Regional planning activities are supported in nominated environmental officers for overseeing the Annex V of the Madrid Protocol that provides for Ant- environmental responsibilities of the tourism com- arctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). The pany, and environmental policies and regulations ASMA is an area have been developed. These are important first steps in the process of greater environmental awareness and “where activities are being conducted or may in accountability. the future be conducted … to assist in the plan- It is here that the role of environmental auditing ning and coordination of activities, avoid possi- could further support Antarctic tour operators. ble conflicts, improve cooperation between Goodall (1995) argues that: Parties or minimize environmental impacts.” “environmental auditing provides tourism firms ASMAs may include: with a tool to assess their environmental per- formance, identifying any negative environ- · areas where activities pose risks of mutual interfer- mental impacts and evaluating the opportunities ence or cumulative impacts; and to change current practices in order to improve · sites or monuments of recognized historic value that performance.” (Article 4(2)(a)(b)). Although environmental audits are not widely used in The application of regional assessments, incorporat- Antarctica there are two examples from the private ing zoning at a coastal zone level, could prove benefi- and public sectors. Quark Expeditions (USA) pro- cial for seaborne tourist management, especially in duced an environmental audit of its Antarctic and reducing cumulative impacts. A major component of Southern Ocean expedition cruises in 1994 (Poles the regional assessment process would be the iden- Apart, 1994). The national operator, Antarctica New tification of different types of landing sites and Zealand, undertook an independent environmental ecologically sensitive areas plus the development audit of its operations in 1993/94 (Royds Consulting, of prescribed management plans with detailed 1994). provisions for zoning. Whilst the Madrid Protocol does not specifically The monitoring of tourism numbers, nationalities require environmental auditing procedures, tour oper- of tourists and areas visited at this regional level ators should consider its application. The ISO 14000 would provide valuable baseline data on cumulative environmental management standards provide guid- impacts. An additional area, which is often neglected, ance on the management of five areas: environmental is the associated environmental impact of ship traffic management systems; environmental performance from both tourist operators and Consultative Parties. evaluations; environmental labeling; life-cycle Ship movements, emissions, noise and waste manage- assessment; and environmental auditing (AS/NZS ment should also be considered in these regional ISO 140001, 1995). This could have direct applica- assessments. tion to Antarctic tourism whereby audits could be
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 147 EIA of Antarctic tourism undertaken internally and used to identify areas of en- for the CEP and the SCAR Group of Specialists on vironmental improvement and compliance. Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) to assemble and disseminate indicative lists for the range of EIAs currently adopted under the Madrid Conclusions Protocol. These lists would assist in facilitating com- parison of EIAs for similar activities and/or environ- The objective of this paper was to evaluate the evolv- mental conditions. Explanatory guidelines on EIA, ing institutional arrangements for EIA of Antarctic such as those produced by COMNAP, are extremely tourism and to make suggestions on its future. The fol- useful in interpreting the EIA provisions under the lowing four points are meant as positive suggestions Madrid Protocol and should be more widely in which to improve the integration of EIA principles encouraged. in Antarctic tourism operations and to generate discussion about their application. Database of Antarctic EIAs
International best practice in EIA EIAs undertaken for tourism operators and ATCPs represent a wealth of information that has not been The EIA provisions of the Madrid Protocol are legally fully documented or assessed. Since 1995, ATCPs required by companies, registered in Antarctic Treaty agreed as Resolution 6 that the host country of the signatory states, in the planning and management of Antarctic Treaty Meeting should compile an updated all shipborne, landborne or airborne/overflight tourist list summarizing EIAs and environmental audits. The activities in Antarctica. Thus tourist operators have an host government updates the list, presents the paper at obligation to conduct EIAs whether at a preliminary the ATCM, and then it becomes the job of the next assessment, initial environmental evaluation or com- host. This type of institutional arrangement is clearly prehensive environmental evaluation level. However, inadequate and more formal arrangements need to be there are other internationally accepted best-practice introduced. methods that can offer additional improvement to the Again, there is a clear role for the CEP to take a lead existing case-by-case reactive system of project EIA in hosting an updated Antarctic EIA database. There currently supported by the adoption of IEEs. For in- are other institutions that could assist in this process stance, internationally industry and governments such as GOSEAC, the Antarctic Environment Offi- have adopted a range of techniques including strategic cers Network and the SCAR-COMNAP Joint Com- environmental assessment, regional assessments and mittee on Antarctic Data Management (JCADM). environmental auditing. JCADM comprises the manager of each National Operators are not solely responsible for producing Antarctic Data Centre and its role is to promote the es- individual assessments (PAs, IEEs) for their opera- tablishment, coordinate and support the Antarctic tions. They increasingly have to address cumulative, Data Directory System, promote data management indirect or secondary impacts of their diverse and within the Antarctic scientific community, assist in multiple activities. This requires greater sophistica- establishing Antarctic data management policies and tion in the EIA process and those methods outlined priorities and to report to SCAR and COMNAP on under “Potential solutions” should be assessed in the Antarctic data management issues. A centralized and wider application of EIA for Antarctic tourism. In searchable database of Antarctic EIAs would greatly some cases the tourism industry has adopted SEA-like assist in the analysis of cumulative impacts for spe- assessments such as programmatic EIAs for the Ant- cific sites and encourage a process of continuous im- arctic Peninsula. These developments should be en- provement for EIAs. couraged by the tourism operators and supported by the relevant national authorities. Cooperation between Antarctic stakeholders
Determining the proper level of the EIA document As requirements for EIA increase so will the need for greater cooperation, information sharing and The wording of the Protocol allows for wide interpre- resourcing between the tourism industry and the Ant- tation of the EIA requirements. However, this is not arctic Treaty Consultative Parties that support Antarc- unique to the Madrid Protocol. Different Consultative tic logistics and science. This means that linkages Parties interpret the Protocol in different ways between IAATO, CEP, COMNAP and SCAR must be through their own domestic implementing legislation. forged and strengthened. The tourist industry will Discrepancies between ATCPs, in the implementa- need assistance in developing appropriate science and tion of domestic legislation, will continue and this will technical tools needed for EIAs. Operators will need complicate the application of EIA for tourist activi- to employ the skills required to undertake scientific ties. However, as the number of completed tourism baseline monitoring at the landing sites most fre- EIAs increases there will be a larger pool of indicative quently visited. activities with which to make comparisons between The Consultative Parties have not widely sup- countries and operators. ported directed research into tourism impact, besides To ensure greater consistency there is a greater role those notable exceptions mentioned under
148 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 EIA of Antarctic tourism
“Comprehensive environmental evaluation”. There (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK). R K Headland (1999), “Circulated note, Archivist and Curator” has been some promising progress made in this re- (Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cam- gard, but the true test lies ahead. The necessity for co- bridge, UK). operation between Consultative Parties in the EIA A D Hemmings (1997), “A model initial environmental evaluation (IEE): Antarctic tourism cruise 1996/97 MV Hypotheticus” (Ant- process is clearly outlined in the Protocol, yet this arctic Policy Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, needs to be extended more widely to the tourism in- Wellington, New Zealand). dustry. Finally, cooperative funding and resourcing at A D Hemmings (1998), personal communication (Antarctic Policy Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellington, New Zealand). this highest level will need to be addressed if the EIA IAATO, International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators charter of the Madrid Protocol is to be fulfilled. (1996a), IAATO News (Office of the Secretariat, New York, USA). IAATO, International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (1996b), “Preliminary overview of Antarctic tourism, 1995–97”, References XX ATCM/INF 96, Utrecht, Netherlands. IAATO, International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators AS/NZS ISO 140001 (Int) (1995), “Interim Australian/New Zealand (1997a), “Environmental impact assessments for Antarctic tour- Standard Environmental Management Systems — specification ist activities”, Agenda Item 6b, XXI ATCM, Information Paper 74. with guidance for use” (Standards Australia/Standards New IAATO, International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators Zealand, Homebush, Wellington). (1997b), “Overview of Antarctic tourism activities: a summary of Anonymous (1997), “Initial environmental evaluation, ship based 1996/98 and five year projection 1997/2002”, Agenda Item 9, tourism by five US organizers for the Antarctic Peninsula, South XXI ATCM, Information Paper 75. Shetland Islands and South Orkney Islands”, November IAATO, International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators 1997–March 1998, USA. (1999), IAATO Home Page,
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000 149 EIA of Antarctic tourism
environmental audit under the 1991 Madrid Protocol” C Swithinbank (1998) “Non-government aviation in Antarctica (Christchurch, New Zealand). 1997/98”, Polar Record, 34(190), page 249. Southern Heritage Expeditions (1995), “Initial environmental evalu- R Therivel, E Wilson, S Thompson, D Heaney and D Pritchard ation prepared for Southern Heritage Expeditions 1995/96 (1992), Strategic Environmental Assessment (Earthscan Publi- Antarctic Cruise Programme, Polar Research Vessel Akademik cations Ltd, London.) Shokalski” (Christchurch, New Zealand). F Vanclay and D Bronstein (editors) (1995), Environmental and B Stonehouse and K Crosbie (1995), “Tourist impacts and manage- Social Impact Assessment (Wiley, Chichester, UK). ment in the Antarctic Peninsula Area” in CM Hall and ME DWHWalton(editor) (1987), Antarctic Science (Cambridge Johnston (1995b), pages 218-233. University Press, Cambridge, UK).
150 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2000