As you can see from Fig.2 the activities that actually cause damage (climbing, skiing, helicopter flights E.t.c) are very minimal, and the activities that are controlled and regulated by IAATO, and those that cause the least environmental damage are the ones most in action (small boat cruising, small boat landings, ship cruise). This means that the damage will be minimised, obviously. As such many studies have reported that no physical damage can be seen, and tourism has been operating for years, should not something have happened? Some say that the tourists affect the wildlife in some obscure way, however our strict policy is that you must stand at least a certain distance away from an animal, and only ever go nearer if the animal comes up to you.
It is also our firm belief that these visits raise awareness massively. These trips can contribute to a larger, more important cause, that of global warming, I defy you to find someone who can visit such a beautiful place, and not return and believe that this place needs to be saved at all costs, from the teeth of global warming.
The last untouched wilderness
Antarctica is a vast, endless sheet of ice and snow, most of which man has never set foot on. Should we not fight with all our strength to keep such a beautiful landscape, to keep this untouched land, untouched?
They say that you will not find any physical evidence of any harm done by tourist, however this study shows that German researchers found that a single person, standing at a 20m distance from penguins going back and forth on a well-used trail to the sea, caused the indigenous birds to deviate from their path by 70m, even hours after that person had left. In one example, the human observer over a 10 hour period caused an estimated 11,934 penguins (such as that in Fig.1) to deviate from their path (resulting in an extra 835 kilometres being walked by the birds). So you can see that although no physical damage can be seen, even standing there, seemingly a responsible 20m away from the penguins can have a serious affect on these penguins lives.
The fact that most of Antarctica has never been explored by man does not help as the places these tourists go are the most populated with the wildlife, the most scenic places, the places that need be protected the most.
The IAATO claim that they genuinely want to help the Antarctic, to ‘save it’, although if you look at it, why are any tour operators really out there? They are all there only to make money, so why should we put the fait of a whole continent on the shoulders of an organisation that only what to exploit this continent.
Knowing the rate of damage that tourist now do, you can see that (in Fig.2) the rate of tourists is sloping up at an alarming rate. Tourism here must be stopped before it reaches completely unsustainable rates. The rate of acceleration is unsustainable to the Antarctic landscape; the wildlife will be destroyed by foreign animals. As has happened in South Georgia
Any mishaps out at sea in this barren place result in total disaster, there are no emergency services able to reach them and they increasingly rely on ‘humanitarian’ support from nearby stations. Another worry is non-IAATO ships shipping many tourists in and ignoring IAATO regulations, seriously damaging the Antarctic ecosystem, bringing far too many tourists into the area.
My own Opinion
It is obvious that Antarctica is beautiful. It is also obvious that the non-IAATO ships will cause a massive problem, if allowed to spread. However I do not believe that banning tourism altogether is the answer. The situation in Antarctica is very serious, given the unforgiving nature and money-grabbing nature of the tourist industry. Soon Antarctic trip will become, not unusual, then common, then a hotel will be built, and then it will become like any other holiday resort, and will be slowly ruined.
However banning tourism completely is ruining a perfectly good money-making enterprise, ruining a fantastic holiday destination and amazing experience and it is also ruining the chance to show the world what needs to be saved from global warming, showing how dire the need is to save habitats like this from global warming. The fact that it is so epic does help kick people into realising that it does, in fact, need to be saved.
An obvious mid-road would then be to restrict tourism, meaning some people should come to the Antarctic, keeping the negative environmental effects minimal but still allowing for the benefits of awareness and money making potential to be made the most of.
However given that Antarctica does not actually have any permanent inhabitants and is owned by no one country enforcing this rule will be incredibly difficult. Who would make sure the rules are obeyed, and what motivation would they have to do so?
One suggestion could be that the country of the ports these ships set sail from should be responsible for the limitations. However why should the said country limit the amount of ships set sail to Antarctica? They stand to gain from the tourism and there fore have no motive to enforce it.
Another option is that the IOOTA should enforce these rules; however, again they only stand to gain for letting themselves send more tourists there than properly agreed. And how could they stop any one company from taking a tour, considering they have no form of enforcement, such as a police, being only an organisation.
My suggestion, although costly, may be a solution, let the IAATO take control of the limitations, however have a team of investigators to monthly review the limitations and how well they are working, the team should be comprised of some environmentalists, some representatives from the various companies and various representatives from the countries that own land in the Antarctic, to limit bias.
