Kees Bastmeijer

Regulating Antarctic Tourism and the Precautionary Principle

Antarctic tourism is a rapidly growing industry. From 1958 until 1987, an average of fewer than 1000 tourists visited Antarctica each season. In the 1993-1994 season, the tourists visiting Antarctica outnumbered the scientists for the first time. In recent years (1999-2003), between 13,000 and 15,000 tourists made landings in Antarctica, and during the last season (2003-2004) this number increased by 45 percent to more than 19,500 (see figure 1, p. 764). The estimate of total passengers for the 2003-2004 season, including those not landing, is over 27,000.

Intergenerational Equity and the Antarctic Treaty System: Continued Efforts to Prevent 'Mastery'

Intergenerational equity has rarely been related to the management of Antarctica. This contribution discusses the question to what extent the principle of intergenerational equity has been implemented in the Antarctic Region through the instruments of the Antarctic Treaty system (ATS). A complicated question, not only because the ATS itself is comprehensive, but particularly because intergenerational equity is a complex principle that can be viewed from many angles. This contribution builds on Edith Brown-Weiss’ view that a balanced and fair relationship between generations of humankind depends in part on a responsible relationship between man and nature. On the basis of the rich literature on intergenerational equity and the types of human-nature relationships that have been distinguished by environmental philosophers, the theoretical part of this contribution develops three sub-questions for discussing the ATS. It is concluded that the Consultative Parties have made substantial efforts to implement intergenerational equity for the Antarctic Region, as far as the environmental component of this principle is concerned. The continuing efforts to prevent ‘mastery’ (the term in environmental philosophy for nature subordinated to humanity; see Section 3) and the comprehensive ecosystem approach of the ATS instruments safeguard to a large extent options for future generations to enjoy Antarctica’s environment and natural resources. However, a number of concerns is identified that might limit the ATS’ ability to prevent mastery. Furthermore, because an explicit policy on wilderness protection is lacking, the ATS does not safeguard the option for future generation to value and enjoy Antarctica as one of the last wilderness regions of the earth. This contribution ends with a glimpse into the future: to ensure intergenerational equity in Antarctic management, the ATS must continue and strengthen its efforts to prevent mastery in the Antarctic Region. The best way to ensure this is to prevent ‘no rule’-situations. Such efforts are also in the ATS’ self-interest: ensuring intergenerational equity is important for the stability of the ATS itself as mastery will destroy the balance of interests.

Reaching Consensus on Antarctic Tourism Regulation: Calibrating the Human-Nature Relationship?

The states that jointly manage Antarctica were not yet able to reach consensus on a number of specific management issues relating to Antarctic tourism. While recognizing that many factors influence the international decision-making process, this publication aims to explore one rarely discussed philosophical factor that may be of great significance for understanding the difficulties in reaching consensus: the possible differences in the human-nature relationship among the CPs and expert organisations. Based on an explorative analysis of relevant documents, it is concluded that CPs and expert organisations consistently reject the ‘mastery’ attitude, both in general Antarctic policy instruments and in tourism-specific documents. The relevant documents relating to two sub-themes (the acceptability of permanent land-based tourism facilities and large-scale adventure or sporting events) show that there is a strong tendency to use ‘rational arguments’ that do not reflect human-nature relationships; however, a closer look reveals that underneath these relatively neutral positions, substantially different human-nature attitudes appear to be hidden. These differences may not block consensus regarding general policy statements on Antarctic tourism, as these statements leave sufficient space for different interpretations; however, different attitudes towards nature may well constitute a hurdle in reaching consensus on concrete management issues. It is most likely that CPs with different human-nature relationships have different views on what the specific ‘values’ of Antarctica are and how these values could best be protected, and, consequently, it is also most likely that these CPs have different opinions on what norms should be set in respect of specific tourism developments. This makes it understandable that the approach of the ATCM to focus strongly on (the desirability of) norm setting is not always successful. Underlining the explorative nature of this study, the authors would recommend further research on human-nature relationships in the Antarctic tourism context. More knowledge and consciousness of differences in human-nature attitudes might invite stakeholders to search for management solutions based on a greater understanding of each other’s convictions.

Antarctica – A Wilderness Continent for Science: The ‘Public's Dream’ as a Mission Impossible?

The Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty have frequently declared their collective ambition to manage Antarctica “in the interest of all mankind”. However, the concrete implications of these declarations are not clear. As part of an international research project, the authors asked people from different parts of the world to respond to a questionnaire about Antarctica, its values, and the way it should be managed. Notwithstanding differences in respondents’ nationalities, ages and the time of data collection, our results indicate that a significant proportion of the public values Antarctica both as a scientific laboratory and as one of the world’s last wildernesses.Is this ‘public’s dream’ of co-existence of science and wilderness a Mission Impossible? In this article, we contend that: 1) in theory, it is a Possible Mission that would connect well with the recognition of science and wilderness in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) instruments; 2) in practice, science in Antarctica has gradual and cumulative impacts on all three main wilderness qualities of Antarctica (absence of permanent infrastructure, naturalness and large size); 3) currently, the co-existence of science and wilderness is not an important consideration in the management of human activities in Antarctica; and 4) in the future, unless a proactive and concerted effort is taken by the Consultative Parties, it appears to be a Mission Impossible, as the expansion of scientific activities and associated logistics remains uncontrolled, inexorably eroding the Antarctic wilderness. Recent ATS resolutions and high-level interventions may signify that Treaty Parties are becoming more aware of the need to increase their cooperation on the ground in Antarctica and hence, open up a space to allow the coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica to become possible. We propose the adoption of principles providing clear and concrete guidance on scientific facilities and international cooperation as a constructive step forward in realising the ‘public’s dream’ of coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica.

Addressing Weak Legal Protection of Wilderness: Deliberate Choices and Drawing Lines on the Map

Wilderness areas are characterized by a relatively high degree of naturalness, the absence of proof of modern human society (e.g., roads, buildings, bridges, motorized transportation) and a relatively large size (IUCN 2008). Worldwide, wilderness areas are becoming more scarce and this article focuses on the role of law in protecting such areas. The discussion starts with an analysis of the historic human-nature attitude in Western society and how this attitude has influenced legal concepts regarding private property on land and territorial sovereignty. It will be shown that these concepts have stimulated active land transformation by humankind and that (as a consequence) wilderness protection is not embedded in our Western legal roots. Next, the discussion focuses on the response to the increasing awareness of the downside of modern human civilization: a changing human-nature attitude in the Nineteenth Century and the adoption of a large number of international nature protection conventions in the Twentieth Century. However, all this ‘law making’ has not resulted in comprehensive wilderness protection at the global or regional level, which may be explained by a number of important weaknesses in these conventions and their implementation. Probably, many of these weaknesses have much to do with weaknesses of humankind itself, such as the difficulty to accept limitations to our social and economic ambitions and our disability to deal with accumulative impacts. Against the background of these discussions, the final part of this chapter discusses options for strengthening wilderness protection with an emphasis on the importance of making deliberate policy choices to protect wilderness.