nomic Zones and enhanced control over continental Antarctic: tourism expansion
shelves in the Arctic Basin. These jurisdictional issues
will require resolution under the terms of Parts V (Exclu- Antarctic annual sea-ice extent is projected to decrease
sive Economic Zone) and VI (Outer Continental Shelf) by 25 per cent by 2100 (Chapter 5), and this will bring
of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), easier access to the Antarctic continent by ship. This is
even though the United States has never formally rati- likely to affect not only research, which is a main activity
fied UNCLOS. Article 234 on “ice-covered areas” may in a continent designated as a “natural reserve devoted
provide a point of departure for some initiatives relating to peace and science”, but also commercial activities,
to these matters. One option that may prove attractive is such as tourism.
an agreement on jurisdiction in the Arctic Basin settling
competing claims among the five littoral states, grant- Tourism activities are expanding tremendously with
ing primacy in the region to these states, and making the number of shipborne tourists increasing by 430
some provision for navigation in Arctic waters on the per cent in 14 years and land-based tourists by 757 per
part of others. cent in 10 years (Figure 9.1). The majority of the sea-
borne voyages are to the Antarctic Peninsula region
The second set of issues concerns rules governing ship- where the open sea condition in the summer season
ping and oil and gas development. The creation of regu- makes those voyages feasible and safer. Parallel to the
latory regimes will be the first order of business. Some growth in tourism is a substantial increase in tour-
existing agreements, such as the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MAR-
POL), already apply to the Arctic Basin. Designation of
Shipborne Tourist ships and
tourists sailing vessels
the Arctic as a Special Area under MARPOL was pro-
40 000 60
posed by the Arctic Council’s working group on the Pro-
tection of the Arctic Marine Environment several years
ago, but the proposal did not receive the necessary con-
30 000
sensus from the eight Arctic nations. 40
Other potential mechanisms include the development of a
20 000
regional regime intended to articulate and codify standards
for environmental protection in the Arctic under UNEP’s
20
Regional Seas Programme. The US and probably Russia
10 000
are likely to oppose such a move. To the extent that oil and
gas development occurs in areas under coastal state ju-
0 0
risdiction, national regimes governing such activities will
9
3
95 99 01
3
-0
0
5
0
7
apply. Even so, the fact that the Arctic Basin is a single 9
4-
02 04- 0
6-
1
9
9
2-
19 1
9
9
6
-
9
7
9
8-
19 2000- 2
0
2
0
20
system with its own biophysical dynamics will almost cer-
tainly stimulate efforts on the part of some coastal states to
Tourist season
develop a regional regime to minimize adverse impacts of
Figure 9.1: Growth of tourism in Antarctica.
oil and gas development on Arctic ecosystems. Source: IAATO 2007
6
CHAPTER 9 POLICY AND PERSPECTIVES 221