The damage of a single footprint can destroy fragile grasses, mosses and lichens that will not recover. If carelessness were to prevail, the environment of Antarctica could suffer serious damage (Oceanus, summer, 1988, p. 95).
Walton gives an account of the human impact of land-based sealing and whaling activities through history, which ceased by 1965, resulted in settlements and processing stations on several islands which led to widespread destruction of the vegetation around these areas The introduction of domestic animals (sheep, goats, cattle, horses, pigs, poultry, cats, dogs) and the accidentally introduced rats and mice have caused significant changes to both the vegetation and the native wildlife. Many of the domestic animals were fed on imported fodder containing seeds of temperate climate plants. Thus, on most islands numerous introduced weed species occur around the existing and ruined settlements (Walton, 1994, p. 78). As a result of Antarctica?s fragile environment and the less than ideal historical human impact, measures providing for the protection of fauna and flora have been implemented in the Antarctic Territories Environmental Plan Act and the Antarctic Seals Conservation Regulations. Many activities require a permit before they can be undertaken, including the collection of animal and plant specimens (along with bones, eggs and dead specimens), and the disturbance of a concentration (more than 20) of birds or seals (ATE, Act, 1980).
Historical Sites and the Human Impact
The historic and heritage aspects of the Australian Antarctic Territory are managed in accordance with the Australia ICOMOS charter (”the Burra charter”), which is concerned with the identification of cultural significance and the development and implementation of a (cultural) conservation strategy. The Antarctic Treaty also provides for the recognition of “tombs, buildings, or objects of historic interest”.
Australia’s Antarctic heritage is of unquestioned intrinsic value to the nation, and is a fundamental element of pride to ANARE personnel. It’s recognition and development has the potential to engender a strong sense of ownership and responsibility in expedition personnel, and other visitors, and thus is a powerful means of developing and enforcing appropriate environmental attitudes and behaviours (Luyendyk, 1995, [on line]).
The significant risks facing potential or known heritage sites, outlined by Parker (1972, p. 44) include disturbance by expeditions and/or tourists, inappropriate assessment and conservation. The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, as amended to implement the requirements of the Madrid Protocol addresses these concerns. (EIA Process, 1997, p. 1)
Theoretical Considerations
Advancement in Antarctic tourism would not have been possible without an increase in the enabling conditions including transportation. Massive passenger carrying ships such as the Marco Polo have been especially constructed to facilitate journeys into Antarctica (bj-doc.htm [on line]). It is this writers opinion that Clawson?s model of the five stages of the tourism experience is accentuated as a result of the remoteness of the Antarctic destination,; The planning and anticipation stage, as a result of the need for activity permits and the infrequent visitation opportunities, requires extended preparation. Travel to the destination is primarily by ship and even at the closest port of call, Ushuaia in Argentina, requires a 48 hour sea journey, conceivably accentuating both these phases of the experience. The ?round trip? return via sub Antarctic Islands would add further enjoyment on the return phase of the journey.
The on site experiences and activities, described as ? ? all those who experience its magnificent scenery and wildlife gain a greatly enhanced appreciation of Antarctica?s global importance and of the requirements for its conservation (IUCN, 1994), would conceivably offer a unique experience that would be a highlight in the recollection phase that few people have participated in.
Conclusions /Recommendations / Summary
In the early phases of exploration of the Antarctic continent, scientists and explorers were little aware of the potential environmental effects of their activities. Their principal concern was to preserve human life in the conduct of nationalistic exploration and the gathering of scientific data in this new, unchartered landscape. These earlier visits were at a time when the fragility and sensitivity of parts of the environment were simply not understood. Growing awareness of the potential for environmental harm has been slow to mature, and only highlights the need for a balanced review of the types of activities that can be carried out, their potential short and long term effects, and the need for continued reassessment of the issues by those committed to the preservation of this unique heritage, and its intrinsic scientific and cultural value.
Considerable progress has been made over the last few decades in the development of environmental controls and management strategies for specific locations in Antarctica and for the Antarctic region as a whole. The most important of these within the Antarctic Treaty System has been the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection. The advent of the potential for conflict between the various scientific and cultural values and tourism has heightened the need to clearly define goals and priorities for the protection of the environment.
It is this writers opinion that in the case of mutually exclusive goals, priority should be given to the need to protect the scientific integrity of the region. Protection of the scientific values of this region will serve to protect many other values. The conservation of landscape integrity for ongoing geomorphological studies would protect the aesthetic qualities of that landscape; conservation measures applied to protect the fragile biological communities will also protect the wilderness characteristics and values as an aesthetic resource. Priorities need to be defined that recognise the mutual interests of all parties, yet still provide for the free and open conduct of scientific and cultural inquiry without fear of detrimental environmental impacts that would destroy the conditions that the scientific studies require.
Bibliography
Appendix 1.
Tourist Guidelines and Conduct
Tourists must inform their government of their expeditions to the continent.
Tourists need early permission to visit scientific sights, such as Antarctic stations.
Tourists can not enter specially protected areas (SPA) without a permit.
Tourists may not bring with them to the continent a non-indigenous species (plant or animal) unless they have a permit to do so.
Tourists can not harm any animal or bird except in an emergency.
Tourists must not damage the environment (ie., litter, harass, or disturb animals or plants).
Appendix 2.
Summary of the Antarctic Treaty (1959)
I – Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only; any military measures are prohibited.
II – Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation as applied during IGY shall continue.
III – Plans for scientific programs and the observations and results thereof shall be freely exchanged; scientists may be exchanged between expeditions.
IV – All national claims are frozen from the date of signature. No future activity of any country during the life of the Treaty can affect the status quo on any rights or claims to territorial sovereignty.
V – Nuclear explosions and disposal of radioactive waste are prohibited in Antarctica.
VI – The provisions of the Treaty apply to the area south of 600S.
VII- VIII
Any contracting party may appoint observers. They shall have complete freedom of access at any time to any area of Antarctica, with the right to inspect any other nation’s buildings, installations, equipment, ships or aircraft or to carry out aerial observations.
IX Regular consultative meetings of the active signatory nations shall be held.
X Contracting parties shall ensure that no activity contrary to the Treaty is carried out.
XI Any disputes between contracting parties shall be resolved by peaceful negotiation, in the last resort by the International Court of Justice.
XII The Treaty shall remain in force for a minimum of 30 years.
XIII – XIV
Provides the legal details of ratification and deposit.
Bibliography
Abbriano, B. N., Belrose, D. D., Valles, M. J., 1991, Antarctica Recreation & Tourism: What do people in Antarctica do for fun, http: ant.rec.bib.html [on line]
Australasian Legal Information Institute, 1997, http:antdiv.gov.au [on line].
Bromley, A. M., 1985, Weather observations in Wright Valley Antarctica. New Zealand Meteorological Service Information Publication 11: p. 37
Cameron, R. E., 1972, Pollution and conservation of the Antarctic terrestrial ecosystem. pp. 267-306 in Parker, B. C. (ed.) (1972). Conservation Problems in Antarctica. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, BlacksBurg, Virginia.
Campbell, I. B. and Claridge, G. G. C., 1989, Antarctica: soils, weathering processes and environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 368 p.
Carvallo, M. L., 1994, Antarctic tourism must be managed, not eliminated. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 9: 76-79.
EIA Process, 1997, Commonwealth of Australia, GoPrint, Canberra.
Hart, P. D., 1988, The Growth of Antarctic Tourism, Oceanus, summer edition
Impact Assessment of Australian Activities in Antarctica ? 1989 to Present, 1997, Commonwealth of Australia, GoPrint, Canberra.
IUCN, 1994, A Strategy for Antarctic Conservation, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Luyendyk, B., 1995, Tourism in Antarctica, http:bj-doc.htm [on line]
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G., 1982, Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts, Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex.
Parker, B. C. (ed.), 1972, Conservation Problems in Antarctica. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Parker, B. C. and Holliman, M. C. (eds), 1978, Environmental Impact in Antarctica, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
SCAR, 1980, A Visitors Introduction to Antarctica and its Environs, New Zealand Antarctic Program, Christchurch.
SCAR / COMNAP, 1992, Environmental monitoring in Antarctica: A discussion document. 23 pp.
Walton, D. W. H. and J. Shears, 1994, The need for environmental monitoring in Antarctica: baselines, environmental impact assessments, accidents and footprints. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 55: 77-90.
Waterhouse, E. J., 1995, Lake Vanda Environmental Operating Procedures. New Zealand Antarctic Research Program.