Ukrainian Antarctic Journal

No 9 (2010): Ukrainian Antarctic Journal
Articles

Tourism development at Antarctic stations: the analyze of Consultative Parties' positions and perspectives for Ukraine

PDF (Українська)
  • A. P. Fedchuk
A. P. Fedchuk
National Antarctic Scientific Center, Kyiv
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33275/1727-7485.9.2010.417
Published December 15, 2010
Keywords
  • Antarctic tourism,
  • permanent land-based facilities,
  • tourism regulation policy,
  • Vernadsky station
How to Cite
Fedchuk, A. P. (2010). Tourism development at Antarctic stations: the analyze of Consultative Parties’ positions and perspectives for Ukraine. Ukrainian Antarctic Journal, (9), 302-320. https://doi.org/10.33275/1727-7485.9.2010.417

Abstract

Over the past two decades tourist activities have grown and diversified rapidly, and now tourism represents an increasingly important aspect of the Antarctic economy. The key components of tourism development include, among other things, emerging involvement of National Antarctic Programs as providers of logistic support. Tourism issues become progressively more politicized within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), while they are used by Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) as a tool in support of their wider Antarctic interests and operations. Hence, the object of this paper is an analysis the connections between national positions in relation to tourism
management. It is described, the ATCPs that do not support tourism and non-governmental activities purport that unconstrained commercial tourism inevitably attacks the intrinsic values of Antarctica and the primary role of science and environmental protection. Consequently, the geopolitical stability of the ATS will be severely stressed. On the other hand, this article presents, states supporting tourism constitute more heterogeneous group that can be categorized as follows: 1) states that pursue political goals (the states with claims to Antarctic territories; states that attempt to strengthen their position within the ATS by encouraging tourism); and 2) states that support and manage tourism at their stations in pursuit of a wide range of economic gains, such as covering part of their operational costs or benefitting from personnel movement sponsored by tourism operators on their cruise vessels. A number of case studies were undertaken to identify the national policies applied by ATCPs to manage Antarctic tourism. Vernadsky station, in tourist terms, may be considered a representative of other stations as it has been regularly visited by seaborne tourists, while their visit patterns strictly depend on change of station government. It is suggested, that it would be a clear advantages (both economic and political) for Ukrainian National Program if it has clearly stated tourism policy and proper operational procedures for tourism activities at the Vernadsky station. For this purpose, it is identified four approaches with respect to the level availability of station infrastructure and personnel to cater for tourism activities.

PDF (Українська)

References

  1. Argentina. (2010). Proposal for the drafting of guidelines for bases that receive visitors. XXXIII ATCM Working Paper No. 49.
  2. ASOC. (2006). Strategic issues posed by commercial tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area. XXIX ATCM Information Paper No 120.
  3. ASOC. (2008). A decade of Antarctic tourism: Status, change, and actions needed. XXXI ATCM Information PAper No 41.
  4. ASOC. (2009). Tourism and Land-based Facilities in Antarctica. XXXII ATCM Information Paper No 23.
  5. ATCM. (2003). Report of the Informal Intersessional Group on tourism activities in Antarctica. XXVI ATCM Information Paper No. 12.
  6. Bastmeijer, K., Lamers, M., & Harcha, J. (2008). Permanent land-based facilities for tourism in Antarctica: The need for regulation. RECIEL17(1), 84–99.
  7. Bastmeijer, K.(2003). Tourism in Antarctica: Increasing Diversity and the Legal Criteria for Authorisation // New Zealand Journal of International Law, 7, 85–118.
  8. Bastmeijer, K., & Roura, R. (2004). Regulating Antarctic Tourism and the Precautionary Principle. The American Journal of International Law, 98(4), 763–781.
  9. Beck, P.J. (1990). Regulating one of the last tourism frontiers: Antarctica. Applied Geography, 10(4), 243–356.
  10. Bertram, E. (2007). Antarctic Ship-borne Tourism: an Expanding Industry. Prospects for Polar Tourism, 149–169.
  11. Bertram, E., Muir, S., & Stonehouse, B. (2007). Gateway Ports in the Development of Antarctic Tourism. Prospects for Polar Tourism, 123–146.
  12. Brasilia. (1996). Interministerial commission for resources of the sea Brazilian Antarctic Program: Tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. XX ATCM Information Paper No. 61.
  13. Ciaputa, P., & Salwicka, K. (1997). Tourism at Antarctic Arctowski Station 1991–1997: policies for better management. Polish Polar Research, 18(3-4), 227–239.
  14. COMNAP (Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs). (2004). Interaction between National Antarctic Programs and non-government and tourism operations. XXVII ATCM Information Paper No. 14.
  15. Enzenbacher, D.J. (1994). Tourism at Faraday Station: An Antarctic case study. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(2), 303–317.
  16. Enzenbacher, D.J. (2007). Antarctic Tourism Policy-making: Current Challenges and Future Prospects. In G. Triggs & A. Riddell (Eds.), Antarctica: legal and environmental challenges for the future (pp. 155–189). London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
  17. Fedchuk, A. (2007-2008). Dynamic of Antarctic tourism at Faraday/Vernadsky station (1968–2008). Ukrainian Antarctic Journal, 6-7, 226–241.
  18. Germany. (2005). The admissibility of land-based tourism in Antarctica under international law. XXVIII ATCM Information Paper No. 20.
  19. Headland, R.K. (1994). Historical Development of Antarctic Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(2), 269–280.
  20. Hemmings, A.D. (2007). Globalisation's Cold Genius and the ending of Antarctic isolation. In Kriwoken, L., Jabour, J. and Hemmings, A.D. (Eds.), Looking South: Australia's Antarctic Agenda. Federation Press. pp. 176–190.
  21. IAATO. (2009). IAATO overview of Antarctic Tourism. Information Paper IP-063 on XXXII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Baltimore.
  22. Landau, D., & Splettstoesser, J. (2007). Management of Tourism in the Marine Environment of Antarctica: The IAATO Perspective. Tourism in Marine Environments, 4 (2–3), 185–193.
  23. Mason, P.A., & Legg, S.J. (1999). Antarctic tourism: activities, impacts, management issues, and a proposed research agenda. Pacific Tourism Review, 3, 71–84.
  24. Molenar, E.J. (2005). Sea-borne Tourism in Antarctica: Avenues for Further Intergovernmental Regulation. International Journal for Marine and Coastal Law, 20 (2), 247–295.
  25. Murray, C., & Jabour, J. (2004). Independent expeditions and Antarctic tourism policy. Polar Record, 40(215), 309–317.
  26. New Zealand and Australia. (2006). Regulation of Land-Based Infrastructure to Support Tourism in Antarctica. XXIX ATCM Working Paper WP-15rev.1
  27. New Zealand. (1996). New Zealand Antarctic tourism policy: for management of tourist and nongovernmental activities. XX ATCM Information Paper No. 1.
  28. New Zealand. (2008). Control of Permanent Land-based Facilities in Antarctica. XXXI ATCM Working Paper No. 21.
  29. Norway. (2010). The 2009 Norwegian Antarctic Inspection under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty. XXXIII ATCM Working Paper No. 57.
  30. Pineschi, L. (1996). The Protocol on the Protection of the Antarctic Environment and its Effectiveness. In F. Francioni & T. Scovazzi (Eds.), International Law for Antarctica (pp. 262–291). The Hague, Cambridge, UK: Kluwer Law International.
  31. Russia. (2004). Orthodox temple in the Antarctic. XXVII ATCM Information Paper No 45.
  32. Russia. (2010a). Training and education center at Bellingshausen station. XXXIII ATCM Information Paper No 89.
  33. Russia. (2010b). Queen Maud Land – a new center of non-governmental activity in the Antarctic. XXXIII ATCM Working Paper No. 61.
  34. Scott, S.V. (2001). How Cautious is Precautious? Antarctic Tourism and the Precautionary Principle. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50 (4), 963–971.
  35. United Kingdom. (1996). UK policy regarding visits by tourists to British stations and historic sites in Antarctica. XX ATCM Information Paper No. 21.
  36. United Kingdom. (2002). UK policy regarding visits by tourists to British stations and historic sites in Antarctica. XXVATCM Information Paper No.21.
  37. United States. (1996). Tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. XX ATCM Information Paper No. 37.
  38. Uruguay. (2005). Program of Visitors to the “Artigas” Antarctic Scientific Base (BCAA). XXVIII ATCM Information Paper No. 56rev.1.
  39. White, K.J. (1994). Tourism and the Antarctic economy. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 245–268.