Daniela Liggett

Polar research: Six priorities for Antarctic science

Antarctica. The word conjures up images of mountains draped with glaciers, ferocious seas dotted with icebergs and iconic species found nowhere else. The continent includes about one-tenth of the planets land surface, nearly 90% of Earths ice and about 70% of its fresh water. Its encircling ocean supports Patagonian toothfish and krill fisheries, and is crucial for regulating climate and the uptake of carbon dioxide by sea water.

A roadmap for Antarctic and Southern Ocean science for the next two decades and beyond

Abstract Antarctic and Southern Ocean science is vital to understanding natural variability, the processes that govern global change and the role of humans in the Earth and climate system. The potential for new knowledge to be gained from future Antarctic science is substantial. Therefore, the international Antarctic community came together to ‘scan the horizon’ to identify the highest priority scientific questions that researchers should aspire to answer in the next two decades and beyond. Wide consultation was a fundamental principle for the development of a collective, international view of the most important future directions in Antarctic science. From the many possibilities, the horizon scan identified 80 key scientific questions through structured debate, discussion, revision and voting. Questions were clustered into seven topics: i) Antarctic atmosphere and global connections, ii) Southern Ocean and sea ice in a warming world, iii) ice sheet and sea level, iv) the dynamic Earth, v) life on the precipice, vi) near-Earth space and beyond, and vii) human presence in Antarctica. Answering the questions identified by the horizon scan will require innovative experimental designs, novel applications of technology, invention of next-generation field and laboratory approaches, and expanded observing systems and networks. Unbiased, non-contaminating procedures will be required to retrieve the requisite air, biota, sediment, rock, ice and water samples. Sustained year-round access to Antarctica and the Southern Ocean will be essential to increase winter-time measurements. Improved models are needed that represent Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in the Earth System, and provide predictions at spatial and temporal resolutions useful for decision making. A co-ordinated portfolio of cross-disciplinary science, based on new models of international collaboration, will be essential as no scientist, programme or nation can realize these aspirations alone.

Perspective: Strategic challenges of tourism development and governance in Antarctica: taking stock and moving forward

Antarctic tourism has grown rapidly in volume and diversified into an ever wider range of activities, transport modes and destinations. Antarctica is a global commons, which limits the range of options for regulating tourism development. This configuration has raised concerns and debates among academics, policy makers and interest groups about the challenges for regulation and management in the long term. Based on a literature review of recently published research and policy papers, this article takes stock of the current state of knowledge about the strategic challenges facing Antarctic tourism regulators and proposes ways forward for research and policy. Three clusters of strategic challenges are presented: addressing collective interests in the face of increasingly diverging interests of actors; the complex nature and indeterminacy of Antarctic tourism processes and impacts across different spatial and temporal scales; and the reliance on shared responsibility in developing and implementing tourism policy. In light of these strategic challenges, this article outlines aspects that need to be improved if a more strategic governance approach is to be embraced towards Antarctic tourism. The paper posits that a collective strategy on Antarctic tourism should be positioned at the heart of Antarctic tourism regulation and should be developed to address upcoming challenges more comprehensively and consistently. Finally, besides identifying policy instruments capable of contributing towards this strategy, independent monitoring and observation systems ought to be created to guarantee impartial checks and balances with regard to Antarctic tourism.

Setting the Scene: Human Activities, Environmental Impacts and Governance Arrangements in Antarctica

The scope and intensity of human activity in the Antarctic region has changed considerably over the past 100 years, resulting in significant modifications to the Antarctic environment and its ecosystems, and to the institutional arrangements governing human activities. Since the nineteenth century, Antarctica has seen periods of heavy resource exploitation followed more latterly by swells of governmental scientific research programmes which have, in turn, led to a plethora of international agreements. By the end of the twentieth century, commercial tourism was also firmly established. Development in human engagement with the Antarctic environment has been accompanied by changes in human values, technologies and ways of thinking. This chapter sets the scene for the entire volume by providing a historical background on human activities, their management and their implications, which other chapters build upon. The purpose of this chapter is not to explore the full breadth of human activities, environmental impacts and governance arrangements in Antarctica. Rather, it aims to provide a contextual framework that can be used to anchor together the diverse subjects treated in the subsequent chapters.

Delivering 21st century Antarctic and Southern Ocean science

Abstract The Antarctic Roadmap Challenges (ARC) project identified critical requirements to deliver high priority Antarctic research in the 21st century. The ARC project addressed the challenges of enabling technologies, facilitating access, providing logistics and infrastructure, and capitalizing on international co-operation. Technological requirements include: i) innovative automated in situ observing systems, sensors and interoperable platforms (including power demands), ii) realistic and holistic numerical models, iii) enhanced remote sensing and sensors, iv) expanded sample collection and retrieval technologies, and v) greater cyber-infrastructure to process ‘big data’ collection, transmission and analyses while promoting data accessibility. These technologies must be widely available, performance and reliability must be improved and technologies used elsewhere must be applied to the Antarctic. Considerable Antarctic research is field-based, making access to vital geographical targets essential. Future research will require continent- and ocean-wide environmentally responsible access to coastal and interior Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Year-round access is indispensable. The cost of future Antarctic science is great but there are opportunities for all to participate commensurate with national resources, expertise and interests. The scope of future Antarctic research will necessitate enhanced and inventive interdisciplinary and international collaborations. The full promise of Antarctic science will only be realized if nations act together.

Nationalism in Today’s Antarctic

Whilst nationalism is a recognised force globally, its framing is predicated on experience in conventionally occupied parts of the world. The familiar image of angry young men waving Kalashnikovs means that the idea that nationalism might be at play in Antarctica has to overcome much instinctive resistance, as well as the tactical opposition of the keepers of the present Antarctic political arrangements. The limited consideration of nationalism in Antarctica has generally been confined to the past, particularly “Heroic-Era” and 1930s–1940s expeditions. This article addresses the formations of nationalism in the Antarctic present. Antarctic nationalism need not present in the same shape as nationalisms elsewhere to justify being called nationalism. Here it occurs in a virtual or mediated form, remote from the conventional metropolitan territories of the states and interests concerned. The key aspect of Antarctic nationalism is its contemporary form and intensity. We argue that given the historic difficulties of Antarctic activities, and the geopolitical constraints of the Cold War, it has only been since the end of that Cold War that a more muscular nationalism has been able to flourish in Antarctica. Our assessment is that there at least 11 bases upon which Antarctic nationalism might arise: (i) formally declared claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; (ii) relative proximity of Antarctica to one’s metropolitan territory; (iii) historic and institutional associations with Antarctica; (iv) social and cultural associations; (v) regional or global hegemonic inclinations; (vi) alleged need in relation to resources; (vii) contested uses or practices in Antarctica; (viii) carry-over from intense antipathies outside Antarctica; (ix) national pride in, and mobilisation through, national Antarctic programmes; (x) infrastructure and logistics arrangements; or (xi) denial or constraint of access by one’s strategic competitors or opponents. In practice of course, these are likely to be manifested in combination. The risks inherent in Antarctic nationalism are the risks inherent in unrestrained nationalism anywhere, compounded by its already weak juridical situation. In Antarctica, the intersection of nationalism with resources poses a particular challenge to the regional order and its commitments to shareable public goods such as scientific research and environmental protection.

Is it all going south? Four future scenarios for Antarctica

The future is uncertain for Antarctica, with many possibilities – some more plausible, others more preferable. Indeed, the region and its governance regime may be reaching (or may have reached) a crossroads moment as a result of a series of challenges, including the changing Antarctic climate and environment, increasing human activity, shifting values among Antarctic states and a low-cost, somewhat benign governance regime (the Antarctic Treaty System). Within this context there are a number of interdependent drivers that are likely to influence Antarcticas future over, say, 25 years: global environmental and socio-economic developments; Antarctic governance; Antarctic research, including national Antarctic programme operations; and Antarctic tourism. The research presented here involved a thorough examination of Antarctic literature on current Antarctic developments and challenges, and an assessment of global trends. Scenarios were developed through a facilitated workshop process. From these, four future scenarios were developed based on interactions between these drivers. The resulting scenarios provide a dynamic, evolving possibility space to be explored as a means of understanding where Antarctic issues might evolve, depending on the growth or diminishing importance of drivers. In turn these suggest that more structured polar futures are needed based on formal quantitative and qualitative data.

The evolution of polar tourism scholarship: research themes, networks and agendas

ABSTRACT The growth in polar travel has been matched in recent decades by an intensification of scholarly activity related to many aspects of polar tourism. This paper systematically reviews 262 journal articles published on polar tourism (1980–2016) and identifies key research phases and themes. The development of the polar tourism scholarly network is documented through a social network analysis (SNA) and reveals a highly fragmented scholarly community with the exception of a dense principal core group of researchers. A research agenda outlining future research themes and priorities is proposed. The paper indicates that polar tourism research has now emerged from its infancy and now is more likely to be underpinned by empirical, multi-disciplinary and theoretically situated research than in the past.

Tourism and Arctic Observation Systems: exploring the relationships

The Arctic is affected by global environmental change and also by diverse interests from many economic sectors and industries. Over the last decade, various actors have attempted to explore the options for setting up integrated and comprehensive trans-boundary systems for monitoring and observing these impacts. These Arctic Observation Systems (AOS) contribute to the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of environmental change and responsible social and economic development in the Arctic. The aim of this article is to identify the two-way relationship between AOS and tourism. On the one hand, tourism activities account for diverse changes across a broad spectrum of impact fields. On the other hand, due to its multiple and diverse agents and far-reaching activities, tourism is also well-positioned to collect observational data and participate as an actor in monitoring activities. To accomplish our goals, we provide an inventory of tourism-embedded issues and concerns of interest to AOS from a range of destinations in the circumpolar Arctic region, including Alaska, Arctic Canada, Iceland, Svalbard, the mainland European Arctic and Russia. The article also draws comparisons with the situation in Antarctica. On the basis of a collective analysis provided by members of the International Polar Tourism Research Network from across the polar regions, we conclude that the potential role for tourism in the development and implementation of AOS is significant and has been overlooked.

Conceptualizing and enhancing the argument for port state control in the Antarctic gateway states

Antarctica is a global commons – an area recognized internationally as a shared resource outside of state jurisdiction. As with any global commons, the protection of the public good lies within the public interest. A wide array of regulation is required to protect the public interest in common goods from adverse impacts arising from unsustainable private sector behaviours. In the Antarctic context, tourist transportation to the continent can threaten the natural environment, particularly when Antarctic tourist vessels are involved in accidents, which has occurred at least 11 times since 2007. Many of these accidents, as well as most seafaring accidents in general, involve ships flying flags of convenience. More than 44% of vessels carrying tourists to Antarctica were flagged by states that are not party to the Antarctic Treaty System. This, coupled with the increasing demand for Antarctic tourism experiences, raises concern about how best to ensure the safety of the vessels and limit the risks posed to the natural environment. Port state control of Antarctic-bound tourist vessels in gateway states could be part of the solution but has yet to gain full acceptance. Port state control allows port state authorities to inspect the operating condition, machinery, safety systems and crew of a foreign vessel in its ports. Failed inspections can result in detention until the problems are remedied. This research confirms the need for standard regulations of tourist vessels among gateway states that should include inspection of equipment, engines, crew and hygiene conditions for crew and passengers as well as publicly available information about all ship inspections. However, before port state controls can be consistently implemented across all gateway states, research on the states’ current policy and capacity is necessary.