More and more tourists are flocking to Antarctica. Let’s stop it from being loved to death

The number of tourists heading towards Antarctica has shown up. From less than 8,000 per year ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the frozen continent in 2023-2024. The trend should continue in the long term.

Und controlled tourism growth in Antarctica is likely to undermine the very environment that attracts visitors. It would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica and the planet.

Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are authorized in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group which aims to solve tourist problems.

It is not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond the control of a country. So how can we prevent Antarctica from being loved to death? The answer can reside in economics.

Future trends of visitors

We have recently modeled future trends of visitors to Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033-34, the number of visitors could reach around 285,000. In the least conservative scenario, the figures could reach 450,000 – but this figure includes the repressed request for the hairstyle that will probably decrease.

The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry includes cruise tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors go to the Ross Sea region and in certain parts of the interior of the continent.

Tourism in Antarctica is managed by an international set of agreements known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as by the International Association of Antarctic Verse (IAATO).

The treated system is notoriously slow and torn by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap the numbers of visitors.

Pressure on a fragile continent

About two thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. Visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by:

• compact floors
• trample
• Introduce non -native microbes and plant species
• Disturbing the reproductive colonies of birds and seals.

Even when cruise ships do not dare to dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution, as well as the anchoring that can damage the seabed.

Then there are carbon shows. Each traveler of cruise ships in Antarctica generally produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, without traveling to the departure port. This is similar to carbon emissions that an average person produces in one year.

The global warming caused by carbon emissions damages the Antarctica. In the region of the peninsula, the glaciers and the ice sheets withdraw and the sea ice shrink, affecting fauna and vegetation.

Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of global emissions. However, industry has the moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can worsen the damage caused by climate change, based on delicate declining ecosystems.

Some operators use less polluting hybrid ships and fuel compensates for emissions to provide neutral carbon trips.

IAATO is committed to half of the emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but below the zero net objectives set by the international maritime organization.

Can economy protect Antarctica?

Market -based tools, such as taxes, ceiling and exchange and certification diets – have been used in environmental management in the world. Research shows that these tools could also prevent the tourist numbers of Antarctica from becoming uncontrollable.

An option is obliging visitors to pay a tourist tax. This would help increase income to support monitoring and application of the environment in Antarctica, as well as fundraising.

Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US $ 100 ($ 152) per night. But although a tax may dissuade the budget concerned about the budget, it would probably not dissuade high -income tourists and experience focused.

Alternatively, a ceiling and exchange system would create a limited number of antarctic visitors permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among operators or tourism countries, via negotiation, auction or the lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, which makes them quite precious.

The ceilings have managed to manage tourist impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no businesses allowed in this system.

Any ceiling on tourist figures in Antarctica and trading rules must be based on evidence of what the environment can manage. But there is a precise lack of data on the load capacity of Antarctica. And permit allowances between operators and nations should be fair and inclusive.

Alternatively, existing industry standards could be increased by independent regimes certifying particular practices – for example, the reduction of carbon footprints. This could be supported by robust monitoring and application to avoid greenwashing.

Ahead

Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research reveals that the most feasible solution is a combination of these market -based options, as well as other regulatory measures.

Until now, the parties to the Antarctic treaty have established very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market -based levers will be more acceptable to parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution.

This article is republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.