Contextualising Antarctic tourism diversification: tourism management implications from multinational policy debates

ABSTRACT

Beyond the growth in tourist numbers, tourism in the Antarctic has been rapidly diversifying over the last decades. This paper examines Antarctic tourism policy documents from 1961 to 2022 while exploring Antarctic tourism diversification’s historical development and current state. The paper frames Antarctic tourism diversification, clarifying its dimensions, expressed concerns, and suggested policy options for tourism management and regulation. The results reveal that policy discussions were often not aligned with the practice of tourism in the Antarctic, indicating a lack of a comprehensive understanding of its extent and dimensions. While Treaty Parties have long recognized and voiced several concerns over tourism diversification, they have achieved little progress toward regulation and concrete management actions. Market-based processes and policy indecisiveness, including inaction, strongly influence diversification processes. Given tourism’s increasing importance and potential effects, a structural understanding of tourism diversification, its ramifications, processes, and policy relationships is essential to proactively shape Antarctic tourism governance.

KEYWORDS:

• Antarctica
• tourism diversification
• Antarctic treaty system
• policy
• management
• governance

Introduction

This paper explores and clarifies the development, current state, and framing of Antarctic tourism diversification while examining Antarctic policy discussions, expressed concerns, and suggested options for tourism management. Antarctica has become an increasingly popular destination in tandem with the growth of international tourism worldwide. According to the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), in the 2022/23 season, more than 104,000 documented visitors reached the continent,¹ not including staff, scientists, and non-IAATO expeditions. Besides the growth in numbers, tourism has diversified from small boat trips to cruises, airborne operations, luxurious camping, and a diverse range of activities, including snorkelling, stand-up paddling, skydiving, and marathons.²

The Antarctic is a unique setting for tourism, not only because of its extraordinary natural environments. The region lacks the undisputed territorial sovereignty of a state and does not have an Indigenous population. The Antarctic Treaty,³ applied to the area south of 60°S latitude and signed in 1959, devoted Antarctica as a place for peace and science, promoting international scientific cooperation and freezing all territorial claims. Currently, 56 countries are Parties to the Treaty, comprising 29 Consultative Parties with decision-making power and 27 Non-Consultative Parties who may contribute to the discussions but do not formally participate in the decision-making.⁴ Representatives from all Parties, along with Observers and Invited Expert representatives, are invited annually to discuss relevant issues at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM).⁵ At the ATCM, Measures (legally binding) and Decisions and Resolutions (not legally binding) may be adopted on a consensus-based approach, providing regulations and procedures for managing the Treaty area.⁶ Before 1995, this division did not exist, and measures taken at ATCMs were referred to as Recommendations.⁷

The Treaty and its related agreements are collectively known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).⁸ Highly relevant to tourism, the Protocol on Environmental Protection,⁹ adopted in 1991, aims for the comprehensive ‘protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems’.¹⁰ The Protocol provides a regulatory framework for almost all human activity in the region; therefore, tourism activities under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties to the Protocol are subjected to its provisions.

Most of the day-to-day conduct of tourism operations is done by the tour operators themselves through IAATO, a self-regulating tourism body founded in 1991. IAATO represents the tourism sector at ATCMs and significantly contributes to monitoring activities and implementing guidelines, best practices, and operational procedures for its members. Over the years, IAATO has grown to 109 members.¹¹ However, membership is not mandatory, establishing a ‘free-rider’ risk: operations by actors unwilling to be conditioned or restricted by IAATO self-regulation.

Tourism has been discussed at many ATCMs since 1966 and at all ATCMs since the adoption of the Protocol.¹² Tourism has additionally been the subject of two Antarctic Treaty Meetings of Experts (ATME). Discussions related to tourism diversification have thus permeated the policy forums for the last decades.

Although tourism activities remain spatiotemporally concentrated in the Antarctic Peninsula, several studies have already referred to the diversification of Antarctic tourism. Bastmeijer,¹³ 20 years ago, observed the rapid increase in the diversity of tourist activities, while Murray and Jabour¹⁴ examined independent expeditions. Liggett et al.¹⁵ investigated diversification concerns from Antarctic tourism stakeholders, followed by Lamers and Gelter,¹⁶ who explored diversification implications using scuba diving as a case study. Concomitantly, a range of activities have been identified¹⁷ alongside observed variations in visitor nationalities,¹⁸ tourism operators and their interests,¹⁹ and trip lengths.²⁰

In addition to potential environmental impacts,²¹ tourism may affect the values and principles of the ATS,²² interfere with other Antarctic activities,²³ and raise geopolitical considerations.²⁴ Yet, Antarctic tourism management presents a unique set of challenges, chiefly due to its complex legal framework and the absence of a local community benefiting from the activity. Management options may range from a strong conservation imperative²⁵ to employing site-specific and regional adaptive management models,²⁶ relying on robust self-regulation,²⁷ or even allowing market dynamics to proceed without intervention.

Even though some note that the ATS has been regarded as one of the most successful examples of international governance,²⁸ there ‘appears to be an increasing mismatch between the nature and capacity of the present ATS and global realities, including in relation to the process and consequences of globalization’,²⁹ of which tourism represents a sizeable portion. Decisions are often driven by ‘non-decision-making’³⁰ processes, where the absence of consensus effectively results in implicit decisions. By not prohibiting one activity, for example, an implicit decision is made that the activity is allowed as long as it follows the existing regulations.³¹ Yet, several authors have repeatedly voiced the importance of a proactive approach to setting policies and managing Antarctic tourism.³²

Given Antarctic tourism’s increasing volume and potential impacts, a more structural understanding of and attention to tourism diversification is essential in further informing tourism governance. In summary, this study assesses Antarctic tourism diversification by (a) outlining policy discussions and tourism developments over time, (b) conceptualising Antarctic tourism diversification and its dimensions, (c) investigating existing policy concerns, (d) identifying proposed policies and instruments, and (e) discussing potential implications for Antarctic tourism governance and management.

Literature review

Tourism and product diversification

Diversification is not a novel concept, having received extensive attention in economics, business, and marketing. Ansoff’s seminal work introduced a matrix delineating four business growth strategies combining markets and products.³³ The final quadrant, diversification, entails developing new products and services for new markets.³⁴ Businesses typically use this strategy to utilise previously unexploited resources, enter new segments, or recover from unprofitable products or services.³⁵

In tourism, diversification can occur across sectors, at the regional level, or at the product and market level.³⁶ Diversification enhances destination competitiveness by introducing new products and experiences, which can either complement or differ from existing offerings, expanding prospects for customised services and granting flexibility to adapt to changing demands.³⁷ Diversification within the tourism context often incorporates both product and market development,³⁸ being used as a strategy not only to increase profits and generate competitive advantage³⁹ but also to develop more sustainable forms of tourism.⁴⁰ Tourism diversification has been presented, for example, as a policy tool for economic development⁴¹ and as a strategy to relieve strains on other tourism products, such as wildlife tours.⁴²

However, tourism diversification can also create confusion regarding destination image, as unique qualities that make a destination stand out get diffused.⁴³ Additionally, it can add extra stress to unexploited or already strained resources.⁴⁴ Finally, tourism diversification is frequently characterised by uncoordinated individual market-based decisions instead of coordinated destination-level policies and market interventions.⁴⁵

Tourism diversification is driven not only by the increased competition and appetite for profit from the supply side but also by changes in travel motivations from the demand side. Ek et al.⁴⁶ describe a ‘performance turn’ that has shifted tourism in recent decades. The authors claim that the consumption of places has expanded from the romantic ‘tourist gaze’⁴⁷ to consumption in multisensory ways involving bodily sensations, active physical engagements, and corporeal proximity premised on tourists now having an active and dynamic role in the tourism experience production. Moreover, Bauman⁴⁸ asserted that tourists always search for novel and untried experiences, moving from one pleasurable sensation to another. Tourism and diversification from the demand side under the terms of performance thereby tap into the libidinal economy of desire, allowing for a nigh limitless expansion of touristic experience possibilities. As demand and supply cannot be separated, the globally expanding tourism industry more strongly emphasises ever-greater variety, flexibility, and differentiation of products and services to meet the desires of the potential visitor.⁴⁹

Policy issues and wicked problems

Policy issues often involve a highly complex set of elements, including an extensive array of actors with potentially different values and interests, perceptions of the situation, and policy preferences, engaged in technical disputes over the severity of issues and their causes.⁵⁰ Moreover, policy compromises governance action and inaction, ranging from direct interventions to allowing self-regulation and refraining from interfering with market forces.⁵¹

Rittel and Webber⁵² stated that nearly all public policy issues could be considered ‘wicked’ problems, relying on political judgement for resolution. The authors characterised those by 10 features, including no clear definition, no opportunity for trial and error, and no stopping rule, meaning there are no criteria to determine when a solution is final. More recently, Alford and Head remarked that wicked problems are ‘where neither the problems nor the solutions are known, and where both relevant knowledge and interests are fragmented – and this situation will be even more intractable if key conflicting knowledge-holders also have substantial power’.⁵³

Modern social problems involve not only disagreements about appropriate courses of action but also contesting opinions about the nature of the problems⁵⁴ and ‘about the values or principles that should guide improvements’.⁵⁵ Failures and unintended outcomes are likely to prevail if problems are not adequately identified and scoped, are constantly changing, and if the proposed solutions only address the problem’s symptoms instead of its underlying causes.⁵⁶ Awareness that a particular problem is wicked can clarify why problem-solving and decision-making have failed or are likely to fail and promote new ways forward, cognisant that ‘we do not so much solve wicked problems as make progress towards improving them or towards better managing them’.⁵⁷

According to Head, ‘understanding how policy “problems” are conceptualised, prioritised and contested provides a solid platform for understanding the dynamics of policy debate, decision-making and policy change’.⁵⁸ Additionally, in global institutions, agenda-setting or decision-making ‘is extremely fluid not only because of (mostly) rotating participation but also because of significant variability in problem definitions and focusing events’.⁵⁹ Investigating problem definition and problem framing becomes noteworthy, as how a problem is defined is closely tied to the type of solution proposed.⁶⁰

Methods

A content analysis of policy documents was conducted to determine how Antarctic tourism diversification has been discussed. This method allows for systematic organisation and pattern finding,⁶¹ similarly employed in past tourism studies, for instance, to track the evolution of sustainable tourism discourse in policy documents⁶² or to understand policy development through its historical institutional context.⁶³

To establish patterns in how tourism diversification has been addressed, documents from 1961 to 2022 were analysed. The main body of analysis compromised the Final Reports of the (a) ATCMs (1961–2022), including CEPs (Committee for Environmental Protection) (1991–2022), (b) Special Consultative Meetings (SATCM) (1977–2000) and (c) ATMEs on tourism and non-governmental activities (2004) and on shipborne tourism (2009). Working papers (WPs) and information papers (IPs) submitted by Parties, Observers, and Experts were also reviewed if they were linked to Intersessional Contact Group (ICG) discussions or provided insights into tourism status (e.g. IAATO statistics). Finally, adopted Decisions, Measures, Recommendations, and Resolutions related to tourism were examined. These consisted of a total of 167 documents, detailed in the Supplementary Material, and retrieved from the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty website⁶⁴ with full and unrestricted access.

Overall, the content analysis focused on (1) the problem identification process and framing, (2) concerns raised, (3) policy options and instruments proposed, and whether those had been adopted. Inductive coding was used to create data-grounded categories,⁶⁵ ensuring close alignment with the original data extracted from the policy discussions. Initial codes, primarily overly inclusive, were refined iteratively for consolidation and consistency, resulting in a hierarchical code structure. This structure included central codes representing the main dimensions contributing to the diversification of Antarctic tourism, with subsidiary codes elaborating on ramifications and concerns. A final set of codes involved numerical coding, addressing proposed policy options and their progression. ATLAS.ti software (version 22.2.5.0) was utilised to enhance efficiency and organisation.

Other resources, such as literature, brochures, media, and online information, enhanced the analysis and contextualised Antarctic tourism practices. Yet, information on early and novel developments, particularly private expeditions, can be challenging to retrieve. Thus, this paper does not aim to provide an exhaustive account of all developments but to capture the extent of Antarctic tourism diversification and the alignment between policy discussions and tourism practice.

Some limitations warrant acknowledgement. First, this study does not include further considerations described in other documents, discussions not directly related to tourism, or IAATO policies and guidelines. Second, the analysis was limited to the written content of the documents, serving only as a representation of the historical institutional context.⁶⁶ Consequently, it does not include the Parties’ further views on tourism diversification. Third, efforts were made to identify key actors and points of tension in the diversification narrative. However, the language employed in the Final Reports often omits specific Parties’ names, using terms like ‘some’ or ‘several’ Parties or ‘one Party’. Likewise, specific issues, such as disagreements over particular words or definitions, were sometimes mentioned but not fully elaborated upon. Despite efforts to explore such contentions, a complete account was not consistently possible.

Results

Framing Antarctic tourism diversification

Contextualisation: Antarctic tourism diversification

This section provides an overview of the policy discussions on tourism diversification, complemented by a timeline of tourism developments until 2022. These are intended to illustrate the problem identification process and pinpoint shifts in the focus of the discussions.

1950–1980: the early years of commercial tourism

Commercial tourism to the Antarctic began in the late 1950s with visits on naval vessels resupplying research stations,⁶⁷ followed by the first tourist flight in 1956⁶⁸ and private yacht visits recorded in the 1960s.⁶⁹ What is regarded as the modern era of Antarctic tourism started in the late 1960s,⁷⁰ with the Lindblad Explorer becoming the first ice-strengthened vessel explicitly made to take fare-paying passengers to the Antarctic,⁷¹ applying the integrated formula of exploration cruising and shore excursions coupled with education.⁷² Small inflatable boats enhanced wildlife viewing and expanded tourist access to otherwise inaccessible locations.⁷³

From the first ATCM in 1961 until the 1970s, the sporadic tourism debates focused on research station visits and tourism effects on scientific programmes and the environment. Reich⁷⁴ provides an overview of tourism developments by the 1980s. According to the author, mountain climbing has attracted visitors since the 1966/67 season, both under the auspices of research programmes or under independently organised tourism parties, while overflights without landing started by the 1976/77 season, further marked by the 1979 Mount Erebus fatality.⁷⁵ Various groups, including artists, filmmakers, mountaineers, and media representatives, became regular visitors, so ‘the stereotyped image of a tourist as purely a camera-decked pleasure-seeking holidaymaker should therefore be expanded to become a multiple collection of visitors’.⁷⁶

1981–1990: the early years of land-based adventure tourism

In 1983, ATCM discussions lacked consensus on where to place responsibility for non-governmental expeditions,⁷⁷ while in 1985, Germany noted that earlier recommendations ‘responded to developments as they had occurred’.⁷⁸ That same year, Antarctica’s first land-based tour operator, known nowadays as Antarctic Logistics & Expeditions (ALE), was founded. The company was established after an organised ascent to Mount Vinson, as the group intended to be ‘the first to scale the Seven Summits, the highest peak on all seven continents’.⁷⁹ Within five years of existence, ALE was responsible for many other ‘firsts’: the first tourist flight to the South Pole, the first guided ski expedition to the South Pole, and the first continent crossing on foot, opening up ‘the heart of Antarctica to expeditions’.⁸⁰

The development of land-based tourism is innately related to the upsurge and expansion of tourist semi-permanent facilities and camping grounds, as tourism in Antarctica’s interior requires overnight accommodation. Further, the range of activities inland could be expanded from water-based to land-based developments, such as skiing, mountain climbing, and trekking. By 1987, several delegations expressed concern that existing tourism measures were complex and inadequate, containing significant information gaps, especially concerning small private expeditions.⁸¹

1991–1998: early tourism expansion

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian icebreakers became widely available for polar tourist transport, leading to a significant tourism expansion in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.⁸² Commercial helicopter tours began to be offered,⁸³ and two important events also happened in 1991: IAATO was founded, and the Protocol was signed, leading to more substantial tourism discussions. Tourism diversification was explicitly brought to the ATCM’s attention by ASOC,⁸⁴ who provided a compilation of non-governmental undertakings and expressed concern about ‘the diversity of the above activities, which include both commercial and non-commercial ventures’.⁸⁵

During the 1993/94 season, tourists outnumbered scientists for the first time.⁸⁶ Even after recognising the need to take action, it was agreed ‘that the objective at this Meeting was not to create new rules and regulations but to provide guidance to those visiting Antarctica and those organising and conducting tourism and non-governmental activities’.⁸⁷ Not long after, the first marathon and half-marathon took place in Antarctica.⁸⁸

By 1996, increased visitations at remote sites in Antarctica’s interior were noted,⁸⁹ and a standard post-visit report (PVR) form was implemented the following year.⁹⁰ The trial report form contained only eight codes for site activities.⁹¹ Nevertheless, the range of tourist activities offered was continuously expanding. In 1997, the first attempt at skydiving over the South Pole resulted in a tragedy.⁹² During the 1998/99 season, 24 tourists scuba dived, about 10 joined sea kayaking, and eight participated in a surfing expedition, while snorkelling was also offered.⁹³

1999–2001: the millennium boom

The 1999/2000 season witnessed a considerable peak in visits due to the millennium approaching and the introduction of large cruise-only trips. This development contradicted IAATO’s 1997 prediction that ‘large cruise lines will not enter the market. None of the world cruise lines contacted expressed interest in future Antarctic voyages due to operational and marketing considerations’.⁹⁴ The season peaked at nearly 15,000 tourists that could join ‘kayaking, mountain climbing, scuba diving, surfing, skiing, snowboarding, camping, parachuting and marathon running’.⁹⁵ After the season, IAATO reported a ‘current trend towards the diversification of activities’⁹⁶ and the ‘possible expansion of IAATO to accommodate the diversification of adventure type tourism’,⁹⁷ although clarifications were not further developed.

Apart from commercial tours, several novel activities involving ‘firsts’ were recorded between 1999/2001. These include the first Antarctic motorcycle ride,⁹⁸ the first hot air balloon flight at the South Pole,⁹⁹ and the first unsupported snow kite Antarctic crossing.¹⁰⁰

In 2001, tourism debates substantially focused on diversification, with the ATCM recognising ‘an increase in the diversity of tourism activities, which may present new management challenges’.¹⁰¹ IAATO illustrated, for the first time, all types of potential tourist activities to ‘better represent the diversification of the industry’,¹⁰² sorting them between modes of transport, location, and membership.¹⁰³ IAATO also claimed being ‘pressured by the tourism industry and by several of the Antarctic Treaty Parties to find a way to be more inclusive of all forms of tourism’.¹⁰⁴

2002–2011: changing focus on tourism diversification

In 2002 and 2003, particular interest was taken in adventure tourism. All Parties agreed on the challenges posed by increasing flight connections and new developments ‘such as high-risk (adventure) tourism’.¹⁰⁵ After suggestions to differentiate commercial and adventure tourism and debate ‘on what should be meant by “adventure tourism”’,¹⁰⁶ a contact group led by Spain was formed to discuss the concept. The group conveyed that ‘some delegations considered … extremely difficult to draw a distinction between what might be considered adventure tourism or tourism in general’¹⁰⁷ but reported that some attributes included high risk and participant autonomy, with implications to human safety and environmental impact.¹⁰⁸ Fly-sail operations started being offered, allowing tourists to leave Punta Arenas, fly across the Drake Passage, and board the expedition ship already in the Antarctic.¹⁰⁹

At the 2004 ATME, France recalled the need for stronger regulation to ‘protect the Antarctic environment from the effects of an increasing and diversifying human activity’.¹¹⁰ Nevertheless, ASOC noted that discussions primarily focused on technical issues such as operational processes and legal mechanisms were not addressed.¹¹¹

From 2004 to 2006, discussions focused on land-based tourism. Parties recalled several issues and the ‘need to define this concept’.¹¹² However, even as the ‘Meeting observed that no delegation spoke in favour of the development of new permanent land-based infrastructure to support tourism’,¹¹³ no policy options were adopted. IAATO reported no diversification of activities in 2006.¹¹⁴

After a proposal from the United Kingdom,¹¹⁵ Parties discussed convening a strategic vision to articulate acceptable future tourism forms and volume and ‘whether Parties should place greater controls on the overall size, geographic limits or diversity of tourism activities’.¹¹⁶ The strategic vision proposal became the basis of Resolution 7 (2009),¹¹⁷ recommending general principles to inform and guide Antarctic tourism management.

In response to increasing activity and incidents, the 2009 ATME focused on shipborne tourism.¹¹⁸ New Zealand recognised the sinking of MV Explorer as ‘a particular “wakeup call”’¹¹⁹ and the Meeting noted that over the last 20 years, the Peninsula ‘had seen an increase in around 85 ice-free days during the summer season’,¹²⁰ a considerable addition to the tourism season. Maritime tourism discussions continued between 2010 and 2012 after a yachting incident at the designated Historic Site and Monument (HSM) Wordie House, with the United Kingdom remarking on the difficulty of collecting data and regulating yachts.¹²¹ Marathons and large-scale sporting activities were also discussed,¹²² with Ecuador expressing concern about the definition of large-scale events.¹²³

After a proposed draft Resolution on the ‘Unending Increase and Diversification of Tourism’¹²⁴ by New Zealand, ‘several Parties sought clarification on what terms such as “increase” and “diversification” were intended to address, suggesting these terms were ambiguous’.¹²⁵ While several Parties supported the proposal, ‘some Parties raised concerns that taking a position against “unending tourism” could imply that Parties already now were willing to set limits on tourism, and suggested instead referring to “unmanaged” tourism’.¹²⁶ Consequently, consensus could not be reached.

At this point, larger scale tourism was present in the Antarctic with the expansion of the cruise industry and its large carrying capacity. At the same time, specialist niche tourism was being supplied for both adventurous and higher-end clients, with new land-based tour operations and the proliferation of activities offered. Even rising interest in South Pole visits was noted via air, vehicle, and skis¹²⁷ by the United States.

Between 2008 and 2011, however, the Antarctic experienced its first expressive tourism decrease. Numbers temporarily dropped from 46,265 in the 2007/08 season¹²⁸ to 26,519 tourists in the 2011/12 season¹²⁹ due to the global economic crisis and the banning of heavy fuel oil agreed by Parties to the International Maritime Organization (IMO). A steady recovery followed, as international tourism generally recovered quickly.¹³⁰ Despite the decrease in overall numbers, IAATO observed that the nature of tourism activities was, in fact, evolving and noted increasing trends in several smaller segments, including air-cruise, land programmes, and yacht expeditions.¹³¹

2012–2019: activity-based tourism

In 2012, in the summary of an open-ended ICG led by the Netherlands, tourism diversification was mentioned as one of the ‘pending issues’ for tourism policy, specifically addressing whether Antarctica should be open to all activities.¹³² Parties also discussed and disagreed on whether the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) determining factor should be based solely on the impact of the activity or whether its purpose was also relevant.¹³³ Another ICG was formed, again led by the Netherlands, to discuss tourism diversification further. The ICG provided examples of activities contributing to diversification and suggested continuing discussions, including debates on whether additional policy guidance was desired.¹³⁴ That same season, Metallica performed a concert on King George Island for scientists and contest winners sponsored by Coca-Cola, becoming the first band to play on all seven continents.¹³⁵ Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) started being used for aerial tourist photography.¹³⁶ In addition, IAATO reported that barley ‘seeds had been scattered unexpectedly as part of a religious ceremony by tourists’¹³⁷ at Telefon Bay.

In 2014, IAATO presented an IP summarising ‘both adventure activities and land-based tourism within defined parameters’.¹³⁸ The United States, however, ‘identified the difficulty in defining land-based and adventure tourism’.¹³⁹ By then, the standard PVR included 19 tourist activities known to be offered by IAATO member operators. The form also included a category marked ‘other’, referring to any activity not listed before, which ‘may include … swimming, snowshoeing, filming, use of overhead drones, and even the polar plunge’.¹⁴⁰ The Tourism WG Chair noted an ‘increase in activity-based tourism as compared to traditional location-based tourism’,¹⁴¹ while New Zealand noted challenges posed by the range of actors involved in Antarctic tourism.¹⁴² While the Meeting agreed on the need for a more strategic approach, ‘some Parties were reluctant to add to the CEP’s workload’.¹⁴³ The same year, Red Bull promoted a surfing expedition with jet ski support, reporting that ‘the potential for surf in Antarctica is huge’.¹⁴⁴

IAATO temporarily banned recreational RPAS in coastal areas in 2015, acknowledging their potential to undermine visitors’ wilderness experience, injure wildlife, and cause more than a minor or transitory impact.¹⁴⁵ The Meeting, however, noted the CEP’s lack of consensus on a proposal raised by the Netherlands to adopt the same precautionary approach.¹⁴⁶

By 2016, attention was given to the possible growth of ‘mass tourism and the diversification of activities, particularly those related to extreme adventure tourism’.¹⁴⁷ While several Parties stressed the need to improve current tourism management mechanisms through enhanced supervision, enforcement, and systematic monitoring, other Parties considered the existing regulations sufficient if fully implemented.¹⁴⁸ Whereas IAATO confirmed that several ‘sites were now regularly reaching peak daily visitor numbers’,¹⁴⁹ the Meeting noted that notwithstanding information from IAATO, ‘there is no comprehensive and accurate picture of Antarctic tourism’.¹⁵⁰ The following year, Russia highlighted an art event that happened regardless of a permit refusal,¹⁵¹ portraying further compliance challenges.

Tourism diversification was among the main topics at a tourism management workshop hosted in 2019 by the Netherlands,¹⁵² which recommended the CEP to ‘develop a framework for conducting pre-assessments relating to new, novel or particularly concerning activities … [and] ensure that site guidelines were as specific as possible in terms of which activities were permitted or not at each site’.¹⁵³ IAATO also provided a catalogue of operator activities, describing 49 different activities undertaken by associated operators,¹⁵⁴ including recreational, science, transport, and logistical activities.

2020–2022: from the pandemic to the restart of tourism

While the 2019/20 season set a record number of more than 74,000 visitors travelling to the Antarctic, the 2020/21 season welcomed only 15 private yacht visitors due to the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁵⁵ The ATCM did not occur in 2020. Tourist activities restarted by the 2021/22 season with some restraint as operators decided not to operate or cancel trips due to low occupancy, resulting in approximately 23,500 visitors.¹⁵⁶ Still, submarine rides were available for tourists,¹⁵⁷ and an Airbus A340¹⁵⁸ and a Boeing 767¹⁵⁹ landed in Antarctica for the first time, carrying 23 and 21 passengers, respectively. These aircraft have, nevertheless, 200–300 passenger capacity, raising concerns about large influxes of passengers, along with associated indirect impacts.

At the ATCM in 2021, Parties considered ‘the increasing diversification of aviation activities’,¹⁶⁰ while in 2022, discussions focused on permanent and semi-permanent facilities and authorisation processes.¹⁶¹ The most recent version of the PVR, last updated in 2022, amounts to 51 activities-at-site codes.¹⁶²

Conceptualisation: Antarctic tourism diversification

As seen above, discussions on tourism diversification encompassed and considered various developments. From the analyzed documents, seven dimensions contributing to Antarctic tourism diversification emerged after the coding process. This section outlines these dimensions, supplementing them with examples drawn from tourism brochures, media sources, and online information to offer an overview of the current extent of Antarctic tourism diversification.

It is important to notice that several developments may overlap. For example, camping as part of a tour package is both a type of activity and an overnight accommodation option. All types of tourism entail a range of activities. Adventure tourism, for example, overlaps with the diversification of accommodation options, tourism locations, types of activities offered, and so on. Table 1 summarizes and structures the complexity and wide array of developments within tourism diversification; however, it does not aim to portray an exhaustive compilation.

Table 1. Overview of Antarctic tourism activities, encompassing a broad scope of tourism developments.

	Dimension	Scope and examples^a
		With Landings	Airborne	Flights
1	Modes of Transport	With Landings	Seaborne	Expedition cruises (<500 passengers) Sailing vessels Yachts and Mega-Yachts
			Combined air and cruise transportation	Flight-sail operations
		No Landing	Airborne	Sightseeing flights
			Seaborne	Cruise-only (>500 passengers)
2	Types of Tourism	Adventure, high-risk, extreme tourism	Packaged commercial tours	Accommodation, modes of transport, activities, etc., that often overlap with other dimensions (e.g. deep field or adventurous vessel-based activities, airborne expeditions, ski expeditions to the geographic South Pole)
			Expeditions that involve ‘firsts’ or ‘achievements’ through potentially overcoming natural, physical, mental, and psychological limitations	At least 30 Guinness World Record breakings (e.g. longest unsupported snow kite expedition in Antarctica, the youngest person to ski to the South Pole, the oldest person to complete a marathon on each continent) First Porsche ride, first balloon ride, motorcycle rides, etc.
		Land-based tourism		Expeditions, accommodations, activities, etc., that often overlap with other dimensions (e.g. tour packages with a private charter and luxury land-based accommodation, land-based trekking expeditions on foot, cycling and biking expeditions, expeditions with motorised vehicles or using skis or kites, etc.)
		Other types of tourism		Cruise and thematic cruise tourism, Dark tourism, Influencer marketing tourism, Last-chance tourism, Photojournalism, Wedding tourism, Wildlife tourism, etc.
3	Types of Activities Offered	Air-related activities		Fixed Wing and Helicopter Flights Paragliding RPAS Commercial Flights* Skydiving South Pole Fly-In
		Mountain-related activities		Abseiling Base jumping Climbing Heli-skiing Ice Climbing Mountaineering Skiing Snowboarding
		Science-related activities		Citizen Science Station visit*
		Terrestrial activities		Camping* Cross-country Skiing Cycling Extended Walk (usually over 1 km) Fat biking Ice Walk Motorised Traverse Last 1–2 Degree Expeditions Short Overnight Stays* Ski Kiting Ski Traverse Skidoo tour Sledding Snowshoeing South Pole Motorized Expeditions South Pole Ski Expeditions Zip Lining
		Water-related activities		Kayaking* Polar Plunge Remote Underwater Vehicle (ROV)* Scuba Diving* Ship Cruise Small Boat Cruising Small Boat Landing Snorkelling* Stand Up Paddle Submersible (HOV)* Surfing Swimming (short and long distance)
		Wildlife-related activities		Emperor Penguin Colony Visits* Wildlife watching
		Other activities		Day Trip South Shetland Islands Filming Overnight Stay South Shetland Islands Photography Picnic Shopping for souvenirs, sending postcards, stamping passports
		Large-scale sporting events		Marathon* At least 6 marathons and half marathons taking place (Antarctica Marathon & Half-Marathon, Antarctic Ice Marathon, White Continent Marathon & Half Marathon, Last Desert, Triple 7 Quest, World Marathon Challenge)
4	OvernightAccommodation Options on Land	Short overnight stays		Add-on activity as part of a tour package, offered by most expedition cruise companies
		Coastal multiple-night camping		Often by small expedition groups from small vessels
		Deep-field camping (usually associated with long expeditions or crossings)		At least 10 semi-permanent camps (Whichaway, Wolf’s Fang, Echo, Union Glacier, Patriot Hill, Gould Bay, The Glaciers Retreat, South Pole camp, Vinson base, Oasis guesthouse)
		Other		Permanent facilities, governmentally or non-governmentally operated (year-round or multi-season) with a primary tourism purpose
5	Tourism Organisers	Diversity of the range of actors or proponents of activities		Authorised and unauthorised expeditions Private and commercial operations
		Membership		109 IAATO members
		Specialisation		Antarctic tourism, Birdwatching tourism, Polar tourism, Wildlife/Ecology tourism, etc. General tourism (not specialised)
		Other		Company size, country from which the company is registered, group tourist size per travel, years of Antarctic operation, etc.
6	Other Non-Governmental Activities	Art projects and installations		Art projects (e.g. Antarctica Biennale)
		Educational activities		Programmes linking students to the Antarctic (e.g. Students on Ice, H41)
		Film and photography projects		Documentaries (e.g. Antarctica by BBC, ‘Three Arts in Antarctica’ by Bartosz Stróżyński)
		Other		Musical live performances, religious activities, etc.
7	Tourism Locations	Geographical Locations		Peninsula Continental – South Pole Ross Sea Day trip South Shetland Islands Deep Field Expeditions (e.g. to Pole of Inaccessibility, Last 1–2 Degree Expeditions, South Pole Expeditions, Vinson Massif)

Note: ^a Activities with an IAATO or ATCM guidelines are followed by an *; Activities described in the PVR are in italics.

Current modes of transport

Current modes of transport can be divided between options with or without landings and between seaborne, airborne, or combined. The offers vary significantly in length, route, port of embarking, onboard service, and excursions offered.

Due to technical innovations and specialization, the utilization of new transportation technologies may improve sustainability. Examples include companies acquiring ice-class ships powered by liquified natural gas¹⁶³ and committing to smaller carbon footprint biofuels.¹⁶⁴ New technologies, such as enhanced communication systems or engineering innovations ensuring greater vessel stability,¹⁶⁵ can also further increase the safety of passengers and staff.

Technological innovations can also be accountable for expanding access to unexplored areas. For instance, advancements like ice-strengthened hulls on modern ships have facilitated greater exploration of sea-ice areas,¹⁶⁶while flights to the South Pole are presently available.¹⁶⁷ Additionally, diversified transport modes enabled easier and faster travel to the Antarctic, partly accounting for the exponential growth and prospect of shorter visits. The introduction of large cruise-only ships significantly expanded the carrying capacity of individual vessels – currently, they can carry more than 2,300 passengers in one trip.¹⁶⁸ With fly-sail operations, companies can offer journeys as short as a 5-day cruise,¹⁶⁹ and tourists can reach land-based camps in only 5 hours from South Africa.¹⁷⁰

Yacht activity raises some further considerations. IAATO defines yachts as sailing and motor vessels carrying 12 or fewer passengers.¹⁷¹ In the 2019/20 season, yacht members of IAATO, non-members with authorisation from a Treaty Party, and non-members without or unable to present authorisation from a Treaty Party brought passengers to the Antarctic in relatively similar numbers.¹⁷²

Current types of tourism

In this paper, types of tourism refer to broader categories or classifications of tourism experiences based on the purpose or nature of the trip. These comprise specific sets of experiences or products that distinguish tourist practices, catering to particular market segments with distinct interests, preferences, or needs. In the policy discussions, attention is especially given to adventure and land-based tourism. According to IAATO, all sectors of the Antarctic tourism industry display activities that could be perceived as adventurous, whether land-based or vessel-based¹⁷³ and five land-based operators are currently listed in IAATO’s member directory,¹⁷⁴ offering activities, accommodation, and transportation options.

In addition to commercial tour-packaged expeditions, adventure tourism encompasses individuals or groups engaged in expeditions involving ‘firsts’ or ‘achievements’ or aiming to accomplish a challenging route. Examples include more than 30 Guinness World Record breakings,¹⁷⁵ a private expedition taking a Porsche to the continent’s interior to complete a 356-mile run in 2021,¹⁷⁶ and a famous baseball player throwing a record-setting pitch in 2022.¹⁷⁷ Even though some of these activities might only happen once, they generate media interest and attention and could evolve into new commercial tourism expansions.

Similarly, social media influencers significantly promote Antarctica as a destination and advance tourism. MrBeast, for example, went with a group on a 50-hour Antarctic travel challenge.¹⁷⁸ With currently over 189M views, the video shows the group climbing a mountain and naming it after one of their sponsors. Videos showing the rough crossing of the Drake passage also went viral on TikTok in 2022 - a honeymoon video showcasing the turbulent passage, for example, has garnered 30.5 M views¹⁷⁹ to date.

Finally, novel products continue to emerge as travel motivations keep diversifying, driving recent developments, such as a luxury wedding trip¹⁸⁰ or the expansion of thematic cruises, including a dedicated kosher cruise,¹⁸¹ a knitting cruise,¹⁸² and an upcoming Disney Adventures cruise.¹⁸³

Current types of activities offered

The variety of activities tourists can join has also increased over the years. These are the specific engagements and experiences that travelers can participate in or engage with during their trip and are often offered as add-on products to a tourism package. For instance, on expedition cruises, travelers can engage in off-vessel pursuits, while on land-based trips, they can partake in activities centered around the semi-permanent camps. This dimension exclusively emphasizes the individual activities on offer that tourists can partake in while in the Antarctic rather than the entire set of elements comprising the previous dimension.

Activities are varied and involve an extended range of engagement. As such, companies assert their commitment to ‘to put you in the action as much as possible [and] to maximise your time’¹⁸⁴ since ‘after all, you certainly don’t go to the South Pole to lay out in the sun. Traveling to Antarctica means kayaking, hiking and generally exploring one of the most untouched places on the planet’.¹⁸⁵

Currently, from the 51 activities included in the PVR, 38 refer to different types of activities at sites.¹⁸⁶ However, more than 50 that have been or are still being offered were accounted for (Table 1), including current offers, such as zip-lining¹⁸⁷ and picnicking,¹⁸⁸ but not including previous single activities (such as ballooning or jet skiing). Also, from those included in the PVR, only 11 have an ATCM or IAATO guideline.¹⁸⁹

Additionally, at least six large-scale sporting (marathon and half-marathon) events currently occur in the ATS area. Two of those challenges bring tourists to run seven marathons on the seven continents in seven continuous days (168 hours),¹⁹⁰ allowing visitors to spend less than 24 hours in Antarctica.

Current overnight accommodation options on land

Most tourists sleep on the vessels transporting them to the Antarctic. Nevertheless, spending a night on the continent has become more widely available. Camping overnight options are either sold as an optional tour package activity or as accommodation for land-based companies and longer expeditions and crossings.

As an optional tour package activity, tourists are taken ashore by a small inflatable boat to spend a night in either tents or bivouac bags. Tour companies advertise that no experience is required and anyone can camp in Antarctica.¹⁹¹ In the case of accommodation for land-based companies, the private camps operate only during summer and are dismantled by the end of each season. Currently, there are at least 10 semi-permanent camps available.¹⁹² Some camps are assembled with double-walled sleeping tents, communal showers, and toilet facilities.¹⁹³ In contrast, luxury camps move away from the basic tough-and-rough idea of an expedition camp, offering heated tents and polar pods with saunas, en-suite washrooms, luxury interiors, and 5-star international cuisine.¹⁹⁴

Current tourism organisers

The current range of proponents of activities can be divided, at least, between private or commercial operations and IAATO membership. Of the current 109 IAATO members, 57 are operators and provisional operators who directly organise travel programmes, while the remaining are associate members booking customers into operator’s programmes or individuals and companies supporting IAATO objectives.¹⁹⁵

Tourism organisers may also be specialised in polar tourism or non-specialised companies offering a larger portfolio of destinations. Differentiations can further include company size, size of tourist group per trip, years of Antarctic experience, and company registration country, for example.

Current other non-governmental activities

Other non-governmental activities have also been associated with Antarctic tourism diversification. These include art projects and installations, film and photography initiatives, including Antarctic documentaries, and educational activities, such as programmes linking students to the Antarctic. Live music performances, such as the Metallica concert or artist Diplo performing a DJ set,¹⁹⁶ also contribute to this dimension.

Current tourism locations

Tourism is mainly concentrated in the Antarctic Peninsula,¹⁹⁷ although activities occur in other continental areas and the Ross Sea. Though also associated with diversification, the geographical expansion of tourism has been most often related to growth discussions. Yet, tourism diversification can lead to visitations to uncharted locations and sites, such as exploring new sites for diving or mountain-related activities.

Concerns related to Antarctic tourism diversification

Concerns raised in the Final Reports were divided into the seven dimensions outlined and subdivided into focuses and issues. These are summarised in Table 2 but cannot be considered exhaustive. Notably, some concerns overlap with considerations on tourism growth, and several overlap within the different dimensions.

Table 2. Overview of concerns related to Antarctic tourism diversification expressed in ATCM final reports.

	Dimension	Focus	Issue ^a	Source
1	Modes of Transport	Combined air and cruise transportation	Authorisation process, which could lead to unexpected gaps in the assessment of activities	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 72, para 251
			Environmental impacts	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 71, para 249
			Involvement of multiple CAs in the various components or segments involved in single fly-cruise expeditions	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 71, para 249
			Potential for increased visits to certain sites	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 71, para 249
			Safety due to increased ship traffic	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 71, para 249
		Future development of air and cruise activities	Concerns related to logistic aspects such as the bunkering, provisioning and resupplying of vessels	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 72, para 252
			Concerns regarding expansion, resulting in a need for larger planes, which could additionally demand the enlargement of current infrastructures and landing strips	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 72, para 252
			Considerations related to air traffic control	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 72, para 252
			Waste management	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 72, para 252
		Large Vessels	Concerns related to the safety of maritime navigation	Final Report XXVIII ATCM, 169, para 5.2; Final Report XXX ATCM, 37, para 157
			Potential for undesirable environmental impacts;	Final Report XXIX ATCM, 36, para 151
2	Types of Tourism	Adventure tourism	Authorisations particularly related to adventure sport tourism activities	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			Differences in domestic legal systems among proponents, and thus the possibility of ‘forum shopping’	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Impossibility of applying binding regulations under current domestic legal systems	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Increasing pressures on SAR resources	Final Report XXIV, 22, para 107; Final Report XLI ATCM, 40, para 88
			Increasing pressures on the environment	Final Report XLI ATCM, 40, para 88
			Interference with scientific programmes	Final Report XXIV, 22, para 107; Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 69, para 243
			Lack of definition and identification of activities belonging to this category	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Lack of legal provisions to address adventure tourism	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Need for stricter regulation of new types of tourism, in particular adventure tourism	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Risk for human life (participant and SAR teams), especially related to extreme adventure tourism	Final Report XXXIX ATCM, 69, para 243
		Land-based tourism	Differences in domestic legal systems among proponents, and thus the possibility of ‘forum shopping’	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Lack of legal provision in the Protocol to address land-based tourism	Final Report XXIX ATCM, 38, para 163
			Legal and environmental matters connected with this type of tourism	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195; AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Need for consistency of land-based tourism with the principles of the AT and the Protocol	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195; AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Need for proper definitions of land-based tourism	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195; AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
3	Types of Activities Offered	Activities involving multiple participants and/or permitted by different CAs	Complications arising from expeditions that contain a mix of NGO and governmental visitors	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			Difficulty in accessing lists of denied permits or authorisations and understanding the reasons for their denial	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			EIES’s limitations concerning relevant information regarding CA, expedition details, authorisations, information regarding permits or authorisations denied, and the updating of the NCA contact list	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			Forum shopping and third-party flagged vessels	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			Lack of progress in the ratification of Annex VI of the Protocol	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			Problems related to multiple authorisation processes	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			Problems related to the enforcement of relevant provisions within domestic legislation	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
			Quality of communication mechanisms between NCAs	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
		Large-scale sports, such as marathons	Effect on infrastructure and personnel at stations	Final Report XXXVII ATCM, 64, para 232
			Environmental impact	Final Report XXXII ATCM, 56, para 207
			Human safety	Final Report XXXII ATCM, 56, para 207
			Lack of international regulation	Final Report XXXII ATCM, 56, para 207
			Potential disruption to the function of scientists and other station activities	Final Report XXXII ATCM, 56, para 207
		New Activities	Difficulty in assessing applications	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 81, para 302
			Difficulty in determining participants’ safety	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 81, para 302
			Difficulty in regulating the types of interactions with the environment	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
			Environmental impact	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 81, para 302
			Lack of guidelines or information on activities that specific NCAs had not dealt with before, such as kite skiing, snorkelling, and leisure fishing	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
			Lack of information regarding risks for new activities, especially sports and adventure-related	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 81, para 301
			Need for comprehensive descriptions of activities	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
			Need to consider cumulative impact when assessing the range of activities proposed	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
			Potential added diversity of behaviour and interaction with the environment	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
			Potential implications of SAR operations on NAPs and personnel	Final Report XLI ATCM, 40, para 88; Final Report XLI ATCM, 40, para 88
		Risky Activities	Lack of a harmonised position across Parties, especially concerning potentially risky activities for the environment and the safety of the environment	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
			Posed risks to NAPs from potentially risky activities conducted by non-governmental organisations	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 81, para 302
			Possible impacts on NAP resources to assist with emergency responses	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 81, para 302
			Potentially risky adventure activities masked under an application as a scientific activity	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
		Station Visits	Station visits that involve multiple NCAs	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 75, para 280
		Unauthorised Activities	Challenge in preventing unauthorised expeditions from taking place	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
4	Overnight Accommodation Options on Land	Non-permanent, semi-permanent and permanent facilities	Environmental impacts	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195 and Final Report XLIII ATCM, 64, para 222
			Impacts on SAR capacity of NAP	Final Report XLIII ATCM, 64, para 222
			Impossibility of applying binding regulations under current domestic legal systems	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Lack of consistency with the principles of the Treaty and the Protocol	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195
			Lack of understanding of the terms non-permanent, semi-permanent and permanent in light of the EIA provisions	Final Report XLI ATCM, 40, para 88
			Need for proper definitions of permanent tourism infrastructure	AT Secretariat SP9, XXXVII ATCM, 3
			Possible assertion of private property rights	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195
			Possible assertion of rights to usufructuary benefits through regular permitting	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195
			Possible impacts on wilderness values	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195, Final Report XLI ATCM, 40, para 88
			Possible jurisdictional issues	Final Report XXVII ATCM, 30, para 195
			Potential for abandoned infrastructure should business circumstances change	Final Report XLIII ATCM, 64, para 222
5	Tourism Organisers	Expansion of the range of actors involved	Consideration over cumulative impacts when assessing tourism activities, including those unauthorised or of non-IAATO members	Final Report XLI ATCM, 40, para 88
			Challenges regarding tour companies and/or tourist ship operations from third-party States	Final Report ATME 2004, 10, para 30
			Difficulties in addressing individuals in NAP engaging in leisure activities	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
			Diversification of proponents of activities	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 83, para 307
		Membership	Challenges that the presence of non-IAATO operators imply for the coordination of operations, collection of accurate tourism statistics and compliance with ATCM tourism measures	Final Report XLI ATCM, 36, para 75
			Challenges regarding tour companies that deliberately decide to operate outside the strictures of industry self-regulation	Final Report ATME 2004, 10, para 30
			How to deal with non-IAATO members	Final Report XLI ATCM, 36, para 75
		Unauthorised Activities	Difficulties in prosecuting unauthorised activities (including dealing with individuals with multiple passports; national legislation that only applied to activities organised nationally, and different levels of involvement between those who initiated an activity and those responsible for its execution)	Final Report XXXVIII ATCM, 76, para 285
6	Other Non-Governmental Activities		Potential challenges when the organiser is an international group without a clear legal address	Final Report XL ATCM, 99, para 363
			Use of another permit (e.g. ship’s permit for tourism) after refusal of activity permit	Final Report XL ATCM, 99, para 364
7	Tourism Locations		Possible conflict of interests between science and tourism	Final Report XXIX ATCM, 39, para 173
			Risk of non-native organism introduction	Final Report XVII CEP, 144, para 233

^aNCA = National Competent Authority, EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment, EIES = Electronic Information Exchange System, NAP = National Antarctic Program, SAR = Antarctic Search and Rescue.

More than 75 different concerns were expressed concerning the diversification of Antarctic tourism, some repeatedly over the years. Concerns are highly intricate, as considerations within each dimension pursue different focuses. In this sense, the ATCM’s view on the diversification of types of activities offered, for example, is manifold: it involves concerns not only about novel activities but also different sets of activities, such as risky, unauthorised, or with multiple participants. Each focus has then specifically raised issues, often as manifold and complex.

On the one hand, some expressed concerns related to known threats. These retain the innate risks of operating in the Antarctic and include increasing environmental impacts. Additionally, several concerns were raised regarding possible interference with National Antarctic Programs (NAPs), including disruption of scientists and pressures on search and rescue (SAR) resources. Thus, both human and environmental safety have been extensively considered. Jurisdictional issues, including differences in domestic legal systems, and the lack of consistency of certain activities and dimensions with the Antarctic values or principles, also received substantial attention.

On the other hand, other concerns were related to unknown threats. These are the unforeseen and unpredictable consequences that tourism developments can have, as some have never occurred before. Those encompass difficulty understanding potential interactions with the environment, unidentified risks for human safety, or unknown influences on prescribed Antarctic values, for instance.

Policy options related to Antarctic tourism diversification

Policy options expressed in the Final Reports were mapped onto the seven previously defined dimensions and subdivided by their focuses. Table 3 summarises the policy options adopted and translated into instruments, while Table 4 summarises those suggested but not adopted. Notably, many also relate to tourism in general or are tightly associated with other issues, such as growth. The proposed policy options were then further categorised by the instrument’s purpose and output (if adopted). The analysis of the policy’s purpose focused on the content of the ATS instruments when adopted and on the policy’s intention when not adopted.

Table 3. Policy options suggested and adopted related to Antarctic tourism diversification.

	Dimension	Focus	Policy option suggested ^a	Years ^b	Output and status ^c	Purpose of the instrument ^d
1	Modes of Transport	Aviation	Ensure that the Air Safety Resolution is applied to all aviation activities in Antarctica	2021 2022	Resolution 3 (2022) NLC: Resolution 06 (2021) and Resolution 01 (2013)	R
		Vessels	Limit the landing of persons from passenger vessels and restrict the number of passengers on shore	2006 2007 2009	Resolution 4 (2007) Measure 15 (2009) (not yet in force).	R
		Vessels	Establish a voluntary on-board observer operational framework for tourist vessels	2004 2009 2010 2011 2019 2021 2022	Resolution 9 (2021)	M
		Yachts	Develop yacht-specific guidelines	2011 2012	Resolution 10 (2012)	G
2	Types of Tourism	Adventure and Land-Based Tourism	Employ a risk-based assessment tool for authorising activities for land-based and adventure tourism*	2014	Resolution 6 (2014) adopted but broadened the application to all activities carried out in the Antarctic	G
		Adventure Tourism	Improve the exchange of information and cooperation among Parties regarding adventure tourism*	2004	Resolution 3 (2004) adopted but broadened the application to all activities carried out in the Antarctic	I
		In-field Activities	Develop a checklist to support inspections of the on-ground conduct of visitors’ activities	2010 2011 2012	Resolution 11 (2012)	G
		Land-based Activities	Develop a checklist to assist with the assessment of land-based activities	2011 2012	Resolution 9 (2012)	G
3	Types of Activities Offered	Station Visits	Advance notification, reporting, and compliance with conditions stipulated for visits to stations	1966 1970 1975	Recommendation IV-27 (1966) [effective 1968] Recommendation VI-7 (1970) [effective 1973] Recommendation VIII-9 (1975) [effective 1982]	I
4	Overnight Accommodation Options on Land	Permanent and Semi-Permanent Facilities	Prevent the construction of permanent facilities for tourism and other non-governmental activities in Antarctica	2005 2006 2021 2022	Resolution 5 (2022) Support for further discussions in an ICG	R
5	Tourism Organisers	Tour Operators and Visitors	Ensure all tourists and those conducting tourism and non-governmental activity are informed about the ATS requirements and general visitor guidelines	1970 1994 2009 2010 2011 2019 2021	Recommendation VI-7 (1970) [effective 1973] Recommendation XVIII-1 (1994) [effective 2016] Resolution 4 (2021) NLC: Resolution 3 (2011) and Resolution 3 (2019)	G
6	Other Non-Governmental Activities	Educational and Cultural Activities	Promote understanding and appreciation of Antarctic values through education and the contribution of artists and musicians	1996	Resolution 2 (1996)	I
		Educational and Cultural Activities	Promote wider public awareness of Antarctica through the development of art projects about Antarctica	2013	Resolution 5 (2013)	I
7	Tourism Locations	Site Guidelines	Develop site-specific guidelines	2003 2004 2005 and further updates	Resolution 2 (2022) and Resolution 5 (2012) NLC: R5 (2005), R6 (2006), R1 (2007), R2 (2008), R4 (2009), R1 (2010), R4 (2011), R4 (2012), R3 (2013), R4 (2014), R2 (2016), R1 (2018), R2 (2019), R3 (2021)	G
		Site Guidelines	Develop a formal checklist to aid the future review of Site Guidelines	2018 2019 2021	Resolution 4 (2021) NLC: Resolution 3 (2019)	G
		Site Guidelines	Develop an interactive mapping tool to help illustrate visitation over time for sites covered by Site Guidelines	2018 2019 2021	Map available at the ATS website	M
		Sites	Inform that visitors must not enter Specially Protected Areas and must respect designated historic monuments	1970	Recommendation VI-7 (1970) [effective 1973]	R
		Sites	Prevent tourists from landing on any new island formed by geological processes	1970	Recommendation VI-11 (1970) [effective 1973]	R
	General – Tourism, but directly or indirectly relating to tourism diversification	Competent Authorities	Develop several instruments/processes to enhance communication between CAs	2016 2017 2018 2019 2022	Permanent forum and contact list on the Secretariat website, discussion email list for NCA	I
		Compliance	Elaborate a manual of regulations and guidelines relevant to tourism and non-governmental activities	2019 2021	Material made available on the Secretariat website	I
		Compliance	Recommend all Parties to expedite approval of Measure 4 (2004) and Measure 15 (2009)	2014 2019 2022	Resolution 7 (2014), but the measure is still not in force	G
		EIEs	Improve the functioning of the EIES to provide detailed information to manage non-governmental activities	2012 and further updates	EIES updated on the Secretariat website	I
		Post-Visitor Report	Post-visit reporting and advance notification and subsequent modifications to deal with new sites and activities	1994 1995 1997 2004 2005 2019 2021 2022	Advance notice outlined in Attachment A to Recommendation XVIII-I (1994) [effective 2016] Resolution 3 (1995) Resolution 3 (1997) Resolution 10 (2021) Resolution 6 (2022) NLC: Resolution 6 (2005)	R
		Safety	Request insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities	2004	Measure 4 (2004) (not yet in force)	R
		Safety	Develop guidelines for insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities	2004 2017	Resolution 6 (2017) NLC: Resolution 4 (2004)	G
		Tourism Guiding Principles	Endorse the concept that all tourism activity is guided by the principle that tourism should have no more than a minor or transitory impact in the Antarctic	2007	Resolution 5 (2007)	G
		Tourism Guiding Principles	Draft a statement of accepted tourism practices	1972 1975 1977 1979	Recommendation VIII-9 (1975) [effective 1982] Recommendation X-8 (1979) [effective 1987]	G
		Tourism Guiding Principles	Develop a strategic vision of tourism*	2008 2009 2010 2015 2017	Resolution 7 (2009) adopted. However, Parties expressed that its current form does not meet the expectations for a ‘vision’. Discussions took place again in 2017, with no further actions.	G

^a* = The proposal was adopted, but the focus differed from the proposed initially.

^aYear = Years in which the policy option was deliberated in plenary, irrespective of whether it has been implemented.

^bLegally binding instruments (bold); NLC = ‘No longer current’; Measure, ‘text which contains provisions intended to be legally binding once it has been approved by all the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties’; Resolution, ‘hortatory text adopted at an Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting’; Decision, ‘a decision taken at an Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on an internal organisational matter will be operative at adoption or at such other time as may be specified’; Recommendation, ATCM output before 1995, following Article IX(4) of the AT.

^cE = Economic and fiscal means; G = Guide; I = Inform or communicate; M = Monitor or measure; R = Regulate or control; S = Standardize a process or procedure.

Table 4. Policy options suggested but not adopted related to Antarctic tourism diversification.

	Dimension	Focus	Policy option suggested	Suggested or introduced by ^a	Years	Purpose of the Instrument ^b	Summary of the discussions
1	Modes of Transport	Maritime Transport	Formalise the role of IAATO in managing maritime traffic in the Antarctic Peninsula region	UK	2007	R	Many Parties did not feel it was appropriate to delegate the responsibility for regulating tourist maritime traffic in the Antarctic Peninsula area to the industry.
		Vessels	Require ice-strengthening to a minimum standard of ICE-1C or equivalent for all commercial tourist vessels	NZ	2004	R	While there was general agreement on the need for requirements regarding ice classification, there was no consensus on how these matters might be taken forward.
		Yachts	Preparation of denied lists of motor-sailing yachts that violate the main provisions of the Protocol during their voyages	RU	2017	R	The Meeting reaffirmed the need to keep working jointly on these complex issues through the Competent Authorities Sub-Forum and at ATCM XLI – but discussions stopped.
2	Types of Tourism	Adventure Tourism	Make permits for adventure expeditions compulsory and not merely voluntary	AU	2003	R	The Meeting agreed to create a unified WG of Experts before ATCM XXVII to discuss the matter. The focus changed from permits to legally binding regulation.
		Adventure Tourism	Legally binding regulation for adventure tourism, including a series of requirements for such activities	UK	2004	R	Not approved, and the discussion stopped.
		Adventure Tourism (+)	Develop a new legally binding ‘code’ for adventure tourism and non-governmental activity	RU	2008	R	The discussion did not get traction.
3	Types of Activities Offered	Camping	Develop guidelines for coastal camping	US/NO US/NO US/CA	2012 2014 2019	G	CEP would undertake intersessional work on coastal camping, and the issue would be addressed again in ATCM XLIII – but discussions stopped.
		Camping	Include explicit statements on short overnight stays on Site Guidelines	US US/CA	2012 2019	G	Same as above.
		Large-scale sporting events	Define measures to restrict or control large-scale events, such as marathons	CH CL (ICG) CL (ICG)	2009 2010 2014	R	An ICG was established, intending to present a draft document and Resolution to the ATCM XXXIII. Still, the information gathered was insufficient to produce a draft Resolution.
		Station Visits	Develop guidelines for visits to stations	UK/AU/PE AR -	2005 2010 2021	G	No agreement was reached regarding the guidelines – the Meeting agreed to encourage Parties to prepare policies related to visits at Antarctic stations and keep the Meeting and IAATO informed to ensure broader access to them.
		UAVs/RPAs	Ban the recreational use of UAVs/RPAS	NL -	2017 2018	R	ICG discussions did not resolve the matter.
		Tourism Activities (General)	Develop a criteria to deny authorisation for proposed activities	NL (ICG)	2013	R	Proposal to facilitate intersessional preparations for a discussion on experiences and challenges identified by CA concerning diverse types of tourism and non-governmental activities at ATCM XXXVII – but discussions stopped.
		Tourism Activities (General)	Develop a framework to underpin greater consistency of standards for new or novel activities	UK/NL UK	2019 2021	S	CEP would undertake intersessional work on the framework and encourage informal consultations, with a view to submitting a WP to ATCM XLIV – which did not happen.
		Tourism Activities (General)	Ensure that Site Guidelines are as specific as possible in about which activities are permitted or not at each site	NL/UK DE (ICG)	2019 2021	G	It was noted that reaching consensus could prove challenging due to the diverse positions and views on some of the outstanding issues relating to Site Guidelines.
		Tourism Activities (General)	Harmonisation of authorisation processes across NCAs	IAATO	2022	S	Support for efforts to harmonise authorisation processes as far as possible within differing national systems and enhance discussions using the online Forum. However, no harmonisation process was implemented.
4	Overnight Accommodation Options on Land	Permanent and Semi-Permanent Facilities	Adopt binding regulations prohibiting permanent and semi-permanent facilities	NZ AU /NZ /DE NZ/AU NL NL (ICG)	2004 2005 2006 2021 2022	R	Some Parties requested a more in-depth analysis, and the issue would be revisited ATCM XXIX. Consensus could not be reached, and the Meeting decided not to establish an ICG but address the proposal again at ATCM XXX – but discussions stopped. An ICG group was established at ATCM XLIII on permanent facilities, but legally binding regulations were not adopted.
		Permanent and Semi-Permanent Facilities	Adopt a moratorium on permanent land-based tourist infrastructure	DE/FR	2008	R	No consensus. The discussion would be used as a basis for further consultations with Parties leading up to ATCM XXXII – but discussions stopped.
		Permanent and Semi-Permanent Facilities	Require all permanent land-based facilities to be included within and under the control of a NAP to ensure they were covered under the jurisdictional framework provided in Article VIII of the Treaty	NZ	2008	R	The discussion indicated that the time was not yet ripe for a decision, and the draft Resolution was withdrawn. The matter was expected to return at ATCM XXXII – but discussions stopped.
5	Tourism Organisers	Tour Operators	Require ice-strengthening vessels to carry a qualified ice-pilot	NZ	2004	R	While there was general agreement on the need for requirements regarding ice classification and the crew’s experience, there was no consensus on how these matters might be taken forward.
		Tour Operators	Develop guidelines related to shipping provisions for Non-Treaty Flagged Vessels	UK	2004	G	Adoption of shipping guidelines was exclusively within the competence of the IMO, and consideration of the proposed Resolution was deferred.
		Tour Operators	Proposal of an accreditation scheme for Antarctic tour operators	AU UK (ICG) IAATO	2004 2005 2006	S	IAATO would present a proposal on accreditation to ATCM XXIX for detailed consideration. Further information on the scheme was expected at ATCM XXX – but discussions stopped.
7	Tourism Locations	Site Guidelines	Implement seasonal considerations into Site Guidelines	NL/UK	2019	G	Seasonal considerations have not yet been taken into consideration in Site Guidelines.
		Sites	List or define areas of Special Tourist Interest	- - - - FR FR	1972 1975 1977 1981 2005 2006	R	Recommendation VIII-9 was adopted, but its annexes (To be discussed at the IX ATCM) were never filled up/reviewed. Owing to lack of time for full discussion, the matter was referred to ATCM X, then XI, then XIII. The issue was brought up again at ATCMs XXVIII and XIX – no action was taken.
		Sites	Establishment of a multiple-use category of Antarctic Protected Area	SCAR	1989	R	Recommendation XV-11 (1989) did not enter into effect and is no longer current [Decision 1 (2007)].
		Sites	Constrain areas to which tourists may visit to reduce the risk of introducing non-native organisms	DE	2014	R	While highlighting the risks associated with non-native species and their relationship with tourism, it was decided that further discussion and reflection were required.
		Sites	Limit tourism and non-governmental activities to sites under Guidelines for Site Visits only	FR-	2011	R	Most Parties agreed that the submitted proposal raised some important questions that needed further discussion in the future – but discussions stopped.
	General – Tourism, but directly or indirectly relating to tourism diversification	Authorisation Process	Develop a complementary mechanism for centralising tourism and non-governmental activity authorisation	FR-	2008	M	Parties would comment on the proposal intersessionally – but discussions stopped.
		EIA	Improve EIA	AR UK/NL	2004 2022	R	The Committee agreed to progress this issue through informal discussion during the intersessional period.
		Growth	Taxation system for tourists travelling to the Antarctic	FR-	2002 2016	E	The Meeting decided to discuss the issue in the Legal and Institutional Matters and the Operational Matters WGs. The topic was mentioned again in 2016.
		Growth	Levying an administrative fee on tourism operators to support environmental monitoring work	FR UK/NL	2002 2019	E	The Meeting agreed that further discussions were needed to better understand how fees could be collected, administered, and used. Interested Parties were encouraged to have further informal intersessional consultation and to submit papers to ATCM XLIII containing concrete proposals describing possible systems for levying fees and administering resulting funds.
		Monitoring	Develop a centrally managed database on tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic	AU AU - CEP Study -	2003 2004 2008 2012 2017	M	All Delegations welcomed the idea of creating a WG or ICG on the database and reporting back. An ICG was established. The Meeting did not reach consensus on what steps the Secretariat should take concerning a centralised depository of tourist sites and activities, and agreed that Parties should reflect through the following intersessional period and be prepared to address it again at ATCM XLI – but discussions stopped.
		Monitoring	Develop a methodology to assess the sensitivity of sites used by visitors	CEP Study - NZ-AU-NO-UK-US - NZ-AU-NO-UK-US-IAATO NZ-AU-NO-UK-US-IAATO -	2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2019 2022	M	Several Parties suggested that the CEP would be best placed to determine the most appropriate method. In 2014, the Committee encouraged interested Members to continue with the planned work, taking account of additional methodologies as appropriate, and report back. A further update was presented in 2017, with a plan to revise the proposal methodology and then conduct ‘desktop’ testing to trial it and report on its process to CEP XXIII. The discussion of the trial methodology was postponed to CEP XXV (2023).
		Monitoring	Establishment of monitoring programmes to assess the potential and cumulative environmental impacts of tourism	- - AU - CEP Study - NL/UK ES/EC/US	1995 1996 2004 2009 2012 2013 2019 2022	M	There was general agreement on the importance of developing programmes to assess impacts. Still, the Meeting noted the challenges associated with establishing strategic long-term monitoring, including the design of monitoring schemes, spatial and temporal scale questions, funding, access to monitoring locations, and coordination across Parties and projects.
		Strategic Approach	Develop a strategic approach to manage tourism (and further operationalise the principles described in Resolution 7 (2009))	NL/UK NZ/UK/NO/NL NZ/IN (ICG) NZ UK/US	2011 2015 2016 2017 2018	G	Some Parties noted concern that the items identified raised several new issues requiring further reflection and discussion before the Meeting could endorse them. The Meeting welcomed further discussion on mechanisms to give effect to the General Principles on Antarctic Tourism at ATCM XLI – but discussions stopped.
		Tourism Annex	Proposals for a future tourism Annex to the Madrid Protocol	CL FR/CL/IT CL/FR/DE/IT/ES FR FR	1990 1991 1992 2002 2003	R	A number of Delegations considered that a new Annex to the Protocol concerning regulation of tourism and non-governmental activities was not required.

^aCountry codes follow ISO 3166; (-) = the topic was discussed, but the Final Reports do not disclose country names.

^aE = Economic and fiscal means; G = Guide; I = Inform or communicate; M = Monitor or Measure; R = Regulate or Control; S = Standardize a process or procedure.

Table 3 summarises 28 policy options adopted and related directly or indirectly to tourism diversification. Most suggestions adopted aim to provide guidance (12), primarily through codes of conduct, guidelines, and checklists. Policies meant to inform or communicate (7) include instruments to improve the exchange of information between Parties and promote broader public awareness. Examples of adopted policy options intended to regulate or control (7) tourism include limiting passengers in certain areas and preventing the construction of permanent facilities for tourism. Finally, two policy options adopted intend to monitor or measure (2) tourism levels and impacts.

Of all the instruments adopted, only two are Measures (legally binding), but none are yet in force. There have also been debates on the legal status of Recommendations, the single ATCM output before 1995.¹⁹⁸ In this paper, Recommendations are seen as legally binding once they are effective, even when their language is vague or leaves space for interpretation, as they have been through a process of adoption through consensus. Thus, as all Recommendations in Table 3 had approval from all Parties needed ‘to enter into effect’,¹⁹⁹ apart from the two policy options translated into Measures, six other policy options embedded in Recommendations can be considered legally binding.

Two proposals related to adventure and land-based tourism had their focus changed in the final instruments to cover all types of tourism. Similarly, the instrument adopted from the proposal to develop a strategic tourism vision is seen by some Parties not to meet the expectations for a ‘vision’.²⁰⁰ Moreover, some adopted policies may have a broader or more restricted application. Visitor Site Guidelines, for example, have been adopted for 45 sites. Conversely, the current PVR focuses on seaborne tourism activities, as there are no specific PVRs for deep-field or air activities.²⁰¹ In this sense, the scope of the first instrument broadens to include a range of sites, while the second instrument has its application restricted to only one type of activity.

Policy options considered in the ATCM plenary but not adopted are summarised in Table 4, totalling 35 suggestions. Most options were aimed at regulating or controlling (19) tourism, including bans, moratoriums, and prohibitions. Suggestions aimed at providing guidance (7) included developing certain guidelines or adding specific criteria to existing guidelines. Monitoring or measuring (4) options considered developing a central management database and methodologies to assess tourism impacts while standardising processes or procedures (3) included harmonising processes across National Competent Authorities (NCAs). Finally, levying an administrative fee on tourism operators or taxing tourists were suggested as options for economic or fiscal instruments (2).

Arguments against policy options vary broadly. Parties indicated financial implications, bureaucracy, and difficulty of legal implementation as reasons not to agree with a proposal. In the discussions about developing a centrally managed database, for example, ‘a Delegation felt it would imply more bureaucracy, especially as it thought that the current information system worked well. Other Delegations underlined the extra work that it might require’.²⁰² On some issues, Parties argued that the current system and existing instruments were already sufficient. While discussing large-scale events, for example, ‘many Parties … agreed with the assertion that marathon activities are problematic. Some Parties and ASOC advocated strict regulation of adventure activities in Antarctica … [while] other Parties felt the current mechanisms for regulation, including environmental impact assessments, are sufficient’.²⁰³

Lack of time for discussion, need for term definitions, and for further information or study on certain proposals were also mentioned. Lack of agreement also originated from different understandings regarding policy instruments. For example, some Parties see guidelines as a potential way to encourage visits instead of regulating tourism activity, mentioning that ‘care be taken that guidelines do not promote the expectation that the tour operators have the right to visit’.²⁰⁴ Likewise, ‘some delegations felt that … the development of specialist tourist sites could be regarded as exploitation rather than preservation’.²⁰⁵ Additionally, even when agreement is reached concerning an issue, adopting a policy instrument might not occur. For example, despite the unanimous rejection of unauthorised yacht activities,²⁰⁶ measures to regulate the activity were not adopted.

In total, 63 policy options relating to tourism diversification were accounted for, from which 28 were adopted. Figure 1 provides an overview of all options described in Tables 3 and 4 and grouped by ‘focus’. Remarkably, discussions often do not follow a cohesive timeline, jumping between different topics and dimensions. Before the 1980s, policy options mainly focused on sites, station visits, tour operators and visitors, and tourism guiding principles. Various instruments were rapidly adopted, often in the same year the policy option was first brought up. However, between 1980 and 1993, limited discussions on policy options took place, conceivably given the ongoing negotiations on related ATS agreements²⁰⁷ and the potential limited capacity of Parties to focus on tourism matters. Consultations intensified by 2004, marking the ATS’s more thorough consideration of an extended range of tourism developments. Nevertheless, the rapid agreements seen in early discussions became infrequent, even for topics such as station visits and sites, which had policy options immediately translated into instruments in earlier debates but no new instruments adopted afterwards. The increasing number of Consultative Parties and growing diversity of interests likely contributed to this shift.

Figure 1. ATS final reports - tourism diversification policy options discussions and instruments.

Additionally, some policy suggestions have been debated over 20 years, going through active and dormant discussion periods. For example, establishing monitoring programmes was first suggested in 1995 and discussed only sparsely until 2022, while the proposal to define areas of Special Tourist Interest was discussed intensely in the 1970s and came back to the agenda only in 2005.

Figure 1 also illustrates the focus and outcomes of policy options discussions concerning the dimensions previously specified. Policy suggestions for modes of transport, types of tourism, and accommodation options on land, for example, were only introduced in the 2000s. Proposals focusing on specific types of activities were seldom adopted – only one out of nine suggestions was translated into an agreed instrument.

Finally, the analysis indicates that one of the leading approaches for tourism issues is the creation of ICGs and informal intersessional consultations. In total, 19 ICGs were established to discuss tourism topics (Table 5), with some leading to adopted instruments²⁰⁸ while others did not.²⁰⁹ For informal intersessional consultations, it is noted that in some cases,²¹⁰ the issue will be addressed again in the following meeting, but the topic is not mentioned in the subsequent report.

Table 5. Established ICGs related to tourism.

Year	Meeting	ICG topic	Submitted by
2004	ATCM XXVII – CEP VII	Development of a database on tourism and non-governmental activities	Australia
2005	ATCM XXVIII – CEP VIII	Accreditation scheme for Antarctic tour operators	United Kingdom
2006	ATCM XXIX – CEP IX	Site guidelines for visitors to Antarctica	United Kingdom
2008	ATCM XXXI – CEP XI	Issues concerning passenger ships operating in Antarctic waters	Norway
2009	ATCM XXXII – CEP XII	Issues concerning passenger ships operating in Antarctic waters (continuation)	Norway
2010	ATCM XXXIII – CEP XIII	Marathons and other large – scale sporting activities in Antarctica	Chile
2011	ATCM XXXIV – CEP XIV	Revision of environmental elements of Recommendation XVIII-1	Australia
2011	ATCM XXXIV – CEP XIV	Supervision of Antarctic tourism	Argentina
2012	ATCM XXXV – CEP XV	‘Outstanding Questions’ on Antarctic tourism	Netherlands
2012	ATCM XXXV – CEP XV	Supervision of Antarctic tourism (continuation)	Argentina
2013	ATCM XXXVI – CEP XVI	Information exchange and the environmental aspects and impacts of tourism	New Zealand
2013	ATCM XXXVI – CEP XVI	Increasing diversity of tourism and other non-governmental activities in Antarctica	Netherlands
2014	ATCM XXXVII – CEP XVII	Marathons and large-scale sporting events held in Antarctica (continuation)	Chile
2016	ATCM XXXIX – CEP XIX	Developing a strategic approach to environmentally managed tourism and non-governmental activities	New Zealand and India
2018	ATCM XLI – CEP XXI	Develop guidelines on the environmental aspects of the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)/Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) in Antarctica	Germany
2021	ATCM XLIII – CEP XXIII	Strengthening the existing guidance for visitors to Antarctica – Proposal to adopt updated General Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic	Germany
2021	ATCM XLIII – CEP XXIII	Voluntary on-board observer operational framework for tourist vessels operating within the Antarctic Treaty area	France and Argentina
2021	ATCM XLIII – CEP XXIII	Post-Visit Reports	Argentina
2022	ATCM XLIV – CEP XXIV	Permanent facilities for tourism and other non-governmental activities in Antarctica	Netherlands

Discussion

By comprehensively reviewing policy documents, this paper revealed how Antarctic tourism diversification had been discussed over time and how those discussions influenced the problem definition, expressed concerns, and proposed policy suggestions. Discussions were generally not aligned with the practice of tourism in the Antarctic, which kept evolving much faster than the forum discussions themselves, indicating a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the extent of tourism diversification and its dimensions.

As such, many tourism developments have been overlooked in the debates, raising questions about whether the ATCM was fully cognisant of them. Some concerns and policy options, for instance, were only raised after incidents, such as the sinking of the MV Explorer or the Wordie House incident. New activities and products have been developed continuously ahead of regulations. Additionally, the focus of the debates frequently varied, resulting in a lack of coherence and comprehensiveness in tackling diversification. Finally, discrepancies were observed in decision-makers’ perceptions, leading to discussions over term definitions and over which values should direct management. Yet, the analysis indicates that the Meeting has long recognised and voiced several concerns over tourism diversification.

It is crucial to stress Antarctic tourism diversification’s complex and multifaceted nature. Apart from encompassing several dimensions of tourism development, the diversification of any dimension is very often tightly related to the further diversification of another. For example, once a new location becomes available for tourism (e.g. the interior of Antarctica), the range of types of activities that can take place there also expands, together with the possibilities for overnight accommodation, modes of transport, etc. The same applies to potentially all other tourism dimensions. Once a new mode of transport becomes available, new locations can become accessible for tourism, new tourism organisers can enter the market, potential further types of activities can be offered, and so on. Inadequate management and regulation of each dimension can lead to an escalated risk of additional concerns in other dimensions, setting off a cascading effect.

Drawing from the policy discussions and historical tourism developments, empirical evidence highlights the significant influence of policy decisions (or lack of) and market-based processes on Antarctic tourism diversification. Adopted policy options are rarely legally binding and usually focus on providing guidance instead of regulating tourism. At the same time, the same driving forces leading tour operators to diversify their offers, providing tourists with a collection of customised alternatives to meet individual demands, can be observed in the Antarctic. A self-regulated market, coupled with inaction and non-decision-making processes,²¹¹ highly influences and even encourages diversification processes.

Additionally, this study considers Antarctic tourism diversification a wicked problem due to its complexity and interconnectedness, lack of clear definition and known solution, and involvement of multiple stakeholders with conflicting agendas.²¹² Exploring how Antarctic policy conceptualises and prioritises tourism diversification reveals insights into problem definition and problem framing shaped by multi-stakeholder dynamics. This examination helps clarify why some types of solutions have been suggested²¹³ and some have been overlooked. Moreover, it reveals that some proposed solutions only address symptoms rather than underlying causes, underscoring the risky implications of an inadequate holistic understanding of the scale of Antarctic tourism in directing policy debates and management decisions.

As such, approaches to addressing tourism diversification should acknowledge its dimensions and ramifications. The dimensions emerging from this analysis, as summarised in Table 1, can be used as heuristic or framing devices by policy officers to structure future debates. Compartmentalising suggested policy options into a dimension-based approach also supports monitoring ATCM debates and outcomes, ensuring that concerns are appropriately documented and addressed. Conducting these systematic data recordings can further aid in tackling fluid participation and managing time constraints, as decision-making bodies would readily have access to a comprehensive overview of past discussions, allowing for more informed decisions.

Thus far, Antarctic tourism management has primarily been reactive, heavily relying on the industry’s self-regulatory framework. While IAATO’s efforts should be recognised, research highlights the rise of escalating tensions exceeding the organisation’s capacity²¹⁴ and the inadequate discharge of governance responsibilities by Parties.²¹⁵ Prospective Antarctic tourism scenarios also suggest that decreased cooperation and reduced importance of IAATO will become inevitable if the current status quo persists and Parties fail to take action.²¹⁶ Concurrently, the yearly exponential increase in tourist numbers and continuously extended tourism offers indicate that constraints cannot be expected to emerge from the market or the tourism industry.

Parties may not have felt the need to ‘create new rules and regulations’²¹⁷ for tourism by 1994. Nonetheless, whereas the need for governance and regulatory arrangements is low when the density of users in a given space is also low, this requirement increases, often exponentially, as uses and capacities expand.²¹⁸ By delaying the implementation of policy options to respond to the rapid and dynamic development of tourism adequately, decision-makers will continue to face constantly changing baselines for decisions. Moreover, effectively identifying current Antarctic tourism impacts is already a complex undertaking.²¹⁹ Continuous diversification, characterised by the ongoing development of novel activities and products, exacerbates persistent uncertainty in impact assessment. Antarctic governance should prioritise a precautionary approach in light of this uncertainty.²²⁰

Finally, studies on tourism diversification remain limited and fragmented,²²¹ with tourism product diversification features and relationships often overlooked.²²² Besides, research on how those can reflect public policy decisions and market-based processes in different contexts is still lacking.²²³ This paper contributes to advancing research on diversification processes and relationships, emphasising the influence of policy decisions and market-based processes on tourism diversification and the need for a comprehensive assessment of its dimensions for effective management. While focusing on Antarctic tourism, this may provide insights into general processes in other destinations, as similar developments may be recognised elsewhere.

Conclusion

This paper provided a comprehensive overview and contextualisation of Antarctic tourism diversification, underscoring that a holistic structural understanding of its scope is imperative for informing and shaping Antarctic tourism governance. Furthermore, it highlighted how uncoordinated individual market-based processes and a self-regulated market, coupled with governance indecisiveness, significantly advance diversification processes. Left to the market and the industry to decide, Antarctic tourism will keep growing and diversifying.

At least since 2001, Parties acknowledged the increase in the diversity of Antarctic tourism activities and the importance of appropriate tourism management. However, over 20 years later, policy discussions are still filled with disagreements over term definitions, diverse positions from Parties, and a lack of consensus and decision-making. Amidst the evolving landscape of Antarctic tourism, proactive and timely action by the ATCM in governance response is, thus, critical for upholding coherence and relevance in decision-making processes.

As a wicked problem, Antarctic tourism diversification will not have a unique resolution, relying thus on political judgement to address it. As such, decision-makers should understand that ‘this entails making a judgment on how to handle an issue, rather than pretending the decision can be “read off” or derived from a precise scientific estimate’.²²⁴ Agreement on the values and principles that should guide improvements, including consideration for those already assigned to Antarctica by the ATS, and on a vision for Antarctic tourism might assist decision-makers in their judgements. Those will be crucial if tourism is to recover ‘its focus on what Antarctica has to offer instead of expanding into all sorts of activities that can be conducted anywhere on the planet’.²²⁵

Future research may investigate and map perspectives held by different Parties and explore reasons for discrepancies. Moreover, there is scope for research on how IAATO policies tackle and inform Antarctic tourism diversification. More broadly, future studies could investigate the process of tourism diversification and product development in the Antarctic from the supply side.

Acknowledgments

The author is very grateful for the supervision and comments received from Edward Huijbens and Kees Bastmeijer.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2024.2342113.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work is part of the project Proactive Management of Antarctic Tourism: Exploring the Role of ATS Principles and Values and Best Practices Beyond the ATS (ProAct) (with project number ALWPP.2019.007) of the Netherlands Polar Programme, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

Notes

¹ ATCM XLV/IP056. Full reference to the ATCM documents can be found in Supplementary Material.

² ATCM XLII/IP145.

³ Antarctic Treaty, Washington D.C., 1 December 1959. In force 23 June 1961, 402 UNTS 71 [hereinafter Treaty].

⁴ See Molenaar, “Participation in the Antarctic Treaty”.

⁵ Secretariat of the AT, “ATCM and Other Meetings,” https://www.ats.aq/e/atcm.html.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ See ATCM Decision 1 (1995), “Recommendations divided into Measures, Decisions and Resolutions”.

⁸ SCAR, ”The Antarctic Treaty System,” https://www.scar.org/policy/antarctic-treaty-system/.

⁹ Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, 4 October 1991, 30 ILM 1455 [hereinafter Protocol].

¹⁰ Art. 2 of the Protocol.

¹¹ IAATO, “Membership Directory,” https://iaato.org/who-we-are/member-directory^/.

¹² ATCM XLII/IP026.

¹³ Bastmeijer, “Increasing diversity”.

¹⁴ Murray and Jabour, “Independent expeditions”.

¹⁵ Liggett et al., “Tourism hotspot”.

¹⁶ Lamers and Gelter, “Diversification of Antarctic tourism”.

¹⁷ See Schillat et al., “Multidisciplinary view”.

¹⁸ Bender et al., “Patterns of tourism”.

¹⁹ Student et al., “Towards a tipping point”.

²⁰ Cajiao et al., “Adaptive management”.

²¹ See Tejedo et al., “Environmental impacts” for a comprehensive review.

²² Liggett & Hemmings, “Antarctic values”.

²³ Molenaar, “Sea-borne tourism”.

²⁴ Liggett & Hemmings, ‘Antarctic values’.;Scott, ‘Precautionary principle’.

²⁵ Liggett et al., “Tourism hotspot”.

²⁶ Cajiao et al., “Adaptive management”.

²⁷ Haase et al., ‘Uncharted territory”.

²⁸ McGee and Haward, “Climate changed world”.

²⁹ Hemmings et al., “Politics of Antarctica”, 11.

³⁰ Bastmeijer, “The Madrid Protocol”.

³¹ Ibid.

³² See, for example, Bastmeijer and Roura, ‘Regulating Antarctic’; Amelung and Lamers, “Scenario development”; and Liggett et al., “Tourism hotspot.”

³³ Ansoff, “Strategies for diversification”. The four quadrants of the Ansoff Matrix are (1) market penetration: slight modifications of existing products to existing markets; (2) market development: existing products targeting new markets; (3) product development: new products and services for existing markets and; (4) diversification: new products and services for new markets.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Farmaki, “Coastal tourism diversification”.

³⁶ Weidenfeld, “Smart specialisation”.

³⁷ Benur and Bramwell, “Product diversification”.

³⁸ Farmaki, “Coastal tourism diversification”, 185. Policy discussions also do not differentiate between product and market development, only utilising the term “tourism diversification”. Therefore, this paper will employ the same terminology.

³⁹ Ganski et al., “Service packages”.

⁴⁰ Romão et al., “Territory”.

⁴¹ Hall and Jenkins, “Policy dimensions”.

⁴² Mahachi and Ketsabile, “Diamond mining”.

⁴³ Glaesser, “Crisis management”.

⁴⁴ Farmaki, “Coastal tourism diversification”.

⁴⁵ Benur and Bramwell, “Product diversification”.

⁴⁶ Ek et al., “Dynamic framework”.

⁴⁷ Urry, “Tourist gaze”.

⁴⁸ In Franklin, “Interview with Zygmunt Bauman”.

⁴⁹ Farmaki, “Coastal tourism diversification”.

⁵⁰ Sabatier, “Better theories”.

⁵¹ Hall, “Typology of governance”.

⁵² Rittel and Webber, “Dilemmas”.

⁵³ Alford and Head, “Wicked and less wicked problems”, 404.

⁵⁴ Dunn, “Public policy analysis”.

⁵⁵ Head, “Complex challenges”, 21.

⁵⁶ Head, “Public sector”.

⁵⁷ Alford and Head, “Wicked and less wicked problems”, 400.

⁵⁸ Head, “Complex challenges”, 18.

⁵⁹ Herweg et al., “Multiple streams”, 45.

⁶⁰ See Peters, “Policy problems”; Dunn, “Public policy analysis”.

⁶¹ Drisko and Maschi, “Content analysis”.

⁶² Moyle et al., “Concept of sustainability”.

⁶³ Heslinga et al., “Historical institutional context”.

⁶⁴ Secretariat of the AT, “Tools and Resources”, https://www.ats.aq/e/tools-and-resources.html.

⁶⁵ Drisko and Maschi, “Content analysis”.

⁶⁶ Heslinga et al., “Historical institutional context”.

⁶⁷ IAATO, “History of IAATO”, https://iaato.org/about-iaato/our-mission/history-of-iaato/.

⁶⁸ Reich, “Development”.

⁶⁹ Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Antarctic Yachting Guidelines”, https://www.highlatitudes.com/assets/Antarctic-Yachting-Guideline-2016.pdf.

⁷⁰ Headland, “Historical development”.

⁷¹ Splettstoesser, “Stewardship”.

⁷² Snyder, “Tourism in the Polar Regions”.

⁷³ Headland, “Historical development”.

⁷⁴ Reich, “Development”.

⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁷⁶ Ibid, 205.

⁷⁷ Final Report ATCM XII, 12, para 29.

⁷⁸ Final Report ATCM XIII, 25, para 68.

⁷⁹ ALE, “Our history”, https://antarctic-logistics.com/about-ale/our-history.

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ Final Report ATCM XIV.

⁸² Headland, “Historical development”.

⁸³ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Rule on Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica, 2011.

⁸⁴ ASOC (Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition) is an Observer to the ATS, invited annually to the ATCMs.

⁸⁵ ATCM XVI/IP077, 4, emphasis added. The excerpt can be found in the document section named “The Nature of Non-Governmental Activities”.

⁸⁶ Bastmeijer and Roura, “Regulating Antarctic”.

⁸⁷ Final Report ATCM XVIII, 14, para 59.

⁸⁸ Marathon Tours & Travel. “Antarctica Marathon & Half-Marathon Voyage 2”. https://www.marathontours.com/about.

⁸⁹ Final Report ATCM XX.

⁹⁰ Resolution 3, 1997.

⁹¹ Codes: small boat landing and cruising, aircraft landing and flight, helicopter landing and flight, station visit, and camping.

⁹² ATCM XXII/IP086.

⁹³ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Environmental Impact’; Aurora Expeditions, ‘Antarctica’s top 10 activities”, https://www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/blog/antarcticas-top-10-activities.

⁹⁴ ATCM XXI/IP075, 7.

⁹⁵ SATCM XII/IP033, 1, para 01.

⁹⁶ Ibid, 7, para 7.5, emphasis added.

⁹⁷ SATCM XII/IP032, 1, emphasis added.

⁹⁸ Guinness World Records, “Longest solo motorcycle journey (female)”, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-solo-motorcycle-journey-(female).

⁹⁹ British Balloon Museum & Library, “First Flight at South Pole”, https://www.bbml.org.uk/first-flight-at-south-pole/.

¹⁰⁰ Guinness World Records, “First unsupported snowkite crossing of East and West Antarctica”, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/663980-first-unsupported-snowkite%c2%a0crossing-of-east-and-west%c2%a0antarctica.

¹⁰¹ Final Report ATCM XXIV, 22, para 106, emphasis added.

¹⁰² Ibid, 23, para 109, emphasis added.

¹⁰³ ATCM XXV/IP073, 5, para 6, emphasis added. Categories were divided as: Modes of transport – Small Ship Traditional Tourism, Sailing Vessels, Yachts, Large Ships with Landing and Cruise Only, Overflights; Location – Peninsula, Continental, Ross Sea, Land-based Programs, no landings; Membership – IAATO or non-IAATO member.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid, 172, para 2.2.1. Clarification regarding which forms of tourism were not developed.

¹⁰⁵ Final Report ATCM XXV, 23, para 118.

¹⁰⁶ Final Report ATCM XXVI, 33 para 141.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid, 35, para 148.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid.

¹⁰⁹ Antarctica21, “The Antarctic Air-Cruise”, https://www.antarctica21.com/antarctic-air-cruises/.

¹¹⁰ ATME 2004/WP023, 5, emphasis added.

¹¹¹ ATCM XXVII/IP093, 4.

¹¹² Final Report ATCM XXVII, 30, para 195.

¹¹³ Final Report ATCM XXIX, 39, para 171.

¹¹⁴ Ibid, 35, para 145.

¹¹⁵ ATCM XXXI/WP51.

¹¹⁶ Final Report ATCM XXXI, 44, para 180.

¹¹⁷ Final Report ATCM XXXII, 53.

¹¹⁸ Final Report ATCM XXXII.

¹¹⁹ Final Report ATME 2009, 7, para 11. The sinking of the MV Explorer happened in 2007. The United States also observed the event as a ‘wake-up call’ in 2008 [Final Report ATCM XXXI, 46, para 197].

¹²⁰ Ibid, 9, para 21.

¹²¹ Final Report ATCM XXXIII, 61, para 256.

¹²² Ibid, 70, paras 296–305.

¹²³ Ibid, 70, para 305. The Final Report does not elaborate on the concern raised about the term.

¹²⁴ Final Report ATCM XXXI^, 49, para 216.

¹²⁵ Ibid, para 218.

¹²⁶ Ibid.

¹²⁷ Final Report ATCM XXXIII, 77, para 345.

¹²⁸ ATCM XXXI/IP85.

¹²⁹ ATCM XXXV/IP39.

¹³⁰ Gil-Alana and Huijbens, ‘Persistence and seasonality’.

¹³¹ Final Report ATCM XXXIV.

¹³² ATCM XXXV/WP027 rev.1.

¹³³ Final Report ATCM XXXV, 56, para 218.

¹³⁴ ATCM XXXVI/WP047.

¹³⁵ Guinness World Records “First musical act to perform a concert on every continent”, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/113181-first-musical-act-to-perform-a-concert-on-every-continent.

¹³⁶ ATCM XXXVII/IP045 rev.1.

¹³⁷ Final Report ATCM XXXV, 103, para 121.

¹³⁸ Final Report ATCM XXXVII, 65, para 234.

¹³⁹ Final Report ATCM XXXVII, 66, para 239.

¹⁴⁰ ATCM XXXVII/IP078, 4.

¹⁴¹ Final Report ATCM XXXVII, 66, para 241.

¹⁴² Ibid, 67, para 245.

¹⁴³ Ibid, 68, para 251.

¹⁴⁴ Red Bull, “Surfing Antarctica with Ramón Navarro”, https://www.redbull.com/int-en/films/surfing-antarctica

¹⁴⁵ ATCM XXVIII/IP088.

¹⁴⁶ Final Report ATCM XL, 60, para 207.

¹⁴⁷ Final Report ATCM XXXIX, 69, para 243.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid, 69, para 242.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid, 77, para 270.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid, 70, para 245.

¹⁵¹ Final Report ATCM XL paras 363–366.

¹⁵² ATCM XLII/IP026. The workshop was hosted in cooperation with the United Kingdom, France, USA, New Zealand, and IAATO.

¹⁵³ Final Report CEP 22, 124, para 8.

¹⁵⁴ ATCM XLII/IP145.

¹⁵⁵ ATCM XLIII/IP109.

¹⁵⁶ ATCM XLIV/IP042.

¹⁵⁷ Dennis, “Antarctica Luxury Cruise: Whales, penguins and a submarine”, https://www.smh.com.au/traveller/inspiration/antarctica-luxury-cruise-whales-penguins-and-a-submarine-20211122-h1zxcw.html.

¹⁵⁸ HiFly, “Hi fly lands first ever Airbus A340 in Antarctica”, https://hifly.aero/media-center/hi-fly-lands-first-ever-airbus-a340-in-antarctica/.

¹⁵⁹ IcelandAir, “Icelandair flies to Antarctica: putting the ice back in Icelandair” https://www.icelandair.com/blog/icelandair-flies-to-antarctica/.

¹⁶⁰ Final Report ATCM XLIII, para 154.

¹⁶¹ Final Report ATCM XLIV.

¹⁶² Resolution 6, 2022. These include recreational, science, transport, and logistical activities.

¹⁶³ Ponant. “Cruise on le commandant Charcot – Cruise Ship”, https://en.ponant.com/le-commandant-charcot.

¹⁶⁴ White Desert. “Sustainable Aviation Fuel in Antarctica”, https://white-desert.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel/.

¹⁶⁵ Quark Expeditions. “Ocean Explorer”, https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/gb/expedition-ships/ocean-explorer.

¹⁶⁶ Ponant. “Cruise on le commandant Charcot – Cruise Ship”, https://en.ponant.com/le-commandant-charcot. Le Commandant Charcot is the world’s first passenger ship assigned a Polar Class 2 (PC2) hull.

¹⁶⁷ ALE, “South Pole Flights”, https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/.

¹⁶⁸ For example, Sapphire Princess, M/V Norwegian Star.

¹⁶⁹ For example, Silversea.

¹⁷⁰ White Desert, “Our Aircraft”, https://white-desert.com/about-us/our-fleet/.

¹⁷¹ IAATO, “Yachting guidelines”, https://iaato.org/visiting-antarctica/information-for-yachts/yachting-guidelines/.

¹⁷² ATCM XLIII/IP054. Respectively, 16, 16, and 11 yachts were observed in the Antarctic.

¹⁷³ ATCM XXXVII/IP078.

¹⁷⁴ IAATO, “Membership Directory”, https://iaato.org/who-we-are/member-directory.

¹⁷⁵ Guinness World Records, “World Records”, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/.

¹⁷⁶ Valkyrie Racing, “Antarctica Ice Challenge”, https://www.valkyrieracing.com/project-356.

¹⁷⁷ Albatros Expeditions, “Padres Joe Musgrove throws record-setting pitch in Antarctica” https://albatros-expeditions.com/inspiration/padres-joe-musgrove-throws-record-setting-pitch-antarctica.

¹⁷⁸ MrBeast, “I Survived 50 Hours In Antarctica”, YouTube [video], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IKab3HcfFk&vl=en. MrBeast is a YouTuber with over 251 million subscribers.

¹⁷⁹ Natasha Travel [@theworldpursuit], “Mother Nature can be fun #DrakePassage #Antarctica”, TikTok [video], https://www.tiktok.com/@theworldpursuit/video/7179052414803250434?q=%22drake%20passage%22&t=1690187855901.

¹⁸⁰ Gross, “A new $250,000 wedding package in Antarctica is officially the coolest RSVP This Year”, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellegross/2022/08/02/a-new-250000-wedding-package-in-antarctica-is-officially-the-coolest-rsvp-this-year/.

¹⁸¹ Kosher Horizons, “Past trips: Antarctica”, https://www.kosherhorizons.com/past-trip-antarctica

¹⁸² Craftcruises, “22-Day South America and Antarctica Knitting Adventure with Lily Chin”, http://www.craftcruises.com/cruise.php?brand=Knitting+Cruises&cruise_name=South+America+and+Antarctica&cruise_line=Holland+America+Line&cruise_ship=ms+Oosterdam&dep_date=2023-02-02&cruise=196.

¹⁸³ Adventures By Disney, “Antarctica Expedition Cruise & Patagonia expedition cruise”, https://www.adventuresbydisney.com/central-south-america/antarctica-patagonia-expedition-cruise/.

¹⁸⁴ Aurora Expeditions, “Activities Guide, Activities to put you in the Action”, https://www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/brochures/.

¹⁸⁵ Hurtigruten, “9 reasons to travel to Antarctica”, https://www.hurtigruten.com/en-us/expeditions/stories/9-reasons-to-travel-to-antarctica/.

¹⁸⁶ Other activities in the PVR encompass logistical, transport and scientific activities (e.g. Medical Evacuation, Gear Depot, RPAS Navigation Assistance Flight).

¹⁸⁷ White Desert, “Owners Club”, https://white-desert.com/adventures/owners-club/.

¹⁸⁸ White Desert, “The Greatest Day”, https://white-desert.com/adventures/the-greatest-day/.

¹⁸⁹ ATCM XLII/IP145.

¹⁹⁰ World Marathon Challenge, “World Marathon Challenge”, https://www.worldmarathonchallenge.com/.

¹⁹¹ For example, Oceanwide, Swoop Antarctica.

¹⁹² See the Report of the ICG on infrastructure supporting tourism and other non-governmental activities in Antarctica, ATCM XLV, for an overview

¹⁹³ ALE, “Camp Services”, https://antarctic-logistics.com/services/camp-services/.

¹⁹⁴ White Desert, “Whichaway”, https://white-desert.com/whichaway.

¹⁹⁵ IAATO, “How to Join”, https://iaato.org/about-iaato/how-to-join/.

¹⁹⁶ Insider Expeditions, “DJ Diplo”, https://insiderexpeditions.com/diplo/.

¹⁹⁷ ATCM XLIV/IP043.

¹⁹⁸ For a comprehensive discussion on the legal status of recommendations, see Joyner, ”Recommended measures”.

¹⁹⁹ Art. IX(4) of the Antarctic Treaty.

²⁰⁰ Final Report ATCM XXXII, 53, para 186.

²⁰¹ Final Report ATCM XLIV, 66, para 320.

²⁰² Final Report ATCM XXVI, 33, para 137.

²⁰³ Final Report ATCM XXXII, 56–57, paras 208–209.

²⁰⁴ Final Report ATCM XXXIII, 59, para 246.

²⁰⁵ Final Report ATCM XXIX, 40, para 174.

²⁰⁶ Final Report ATCM XXXIX, 76, para 268.

²⁰⁷ By that time, negotiations were underway for both the Protocol and for CRAMRA (Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities).

²⁰⁸ For example, ICGs on voluntary onboard framework and updates on Site Guidelines.

²⁰⁹ For example, ICGs on database, accreditation scheme, and marathons.

²¹⁰ For example, on the proposals for camping and developing criteria to deny authorisation.

²¹¹ Hall, “Typology of governance”; Bastmeijer, “The Madrid Protocol”.

²¹² Rittel and Webber, ‘Dilemmas’; Alford and Head, ‘Wicked and less wicked problems’.

²¹³ Peters, “Policy problems”; Dunn, “Public policy analysis”.

²¹⁴ Amelung and Lamers, “Scenario development”; Student et al., “Towards a tipping point”.

²¹⁵ Molenaar, “Sea-borne tourism”.

²¹⁶ Ligget et al., “Future scenarios”.

²¹⁷ Final Report ATCM XVIII, 14, para 59.

²¹⁸ Young, “Institutional linkages”.

²¹⁹ Tejedo et al., “Environmental impacts”.

²²⁰ Bastmeijer and Roura, “Regulating Antarctic”; Liggett et al., “Tourism hotspot”;Tejedo et al., “Environmental impacts”.

²²¹ Farmaki, “Coastal tourism diversification”; Weidenfeld, “Smart specialisation”.

²²² Benur and Bramwell, “Product diversification”.

²²³ Ibid

²²⁴ Alford and Head, “Wicked and less wicked problems”, 409.

²²⁵ Liggett et al., “Tourism hotspot”, 363.