Étiquette : legislation

Catégories
Sustainable tourism Transportation

Understanding the dynamics of carbon credit purchasing from offsets when traveling carbon neutral

Voluntary carbon compensation, or carbon offsetting is applicable to anything that contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions1. It means paying an extra for buying carbon credits in offset projects, so that the emissions caused are balanced out. To be carbon neutral, the quantity of carbon credit purchased need to equal the quantity of emissions caused.

Being carbon neutral in tourism is mostly associated with the transport sector, but increasingly, hotels, events, and even car rental companies offer the possibility to neutralize their carbon footprint. Carbon neutrality is not yet mainstream, however, it is heading in that direction. For example, in 2005 0,5 % of British Airways passengers traveled carbon neutral and the figure is estimated to be 1 % presently. Some reports suggest the voluntary carbon market grew up to 1000 % between 2002 and 2005. However, as it is not regulated, a number of issues have emerged that require awareness.

Carbon compensation in context

The voluntary purchase of carbon credits is outside the Kyoto mechanism, and it represents an important part of climate change mitigation for individuals, as well as businesses. It is also an example of a voluntary application of the
polluter-payer principle. The Kyoto Protocol is a mandatory framework to signatory countriesand includes three principal mechanisms:

  1. Emission trading in pollution quotas
  2. Clean Development Mechanism projects (CDM)
  3. Joint implementation projects (JI)

Emission trading is an allowance-based measure that sets a limit on the amount of pollution permitted by Kyoto countries. Those emitting more than permitted must buy credits from those that pollute below limits on the carbon market, for example via the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. At present this affects mainly power companies and the manufacturing sector, and excludes tourism and the airline industry, although the latter is under significant pressure for inclusion.

Project-based measures include specific projects that will result in GHG reduction. Offset projects create new carbon credits and include renewable energy production, energy efficiency technology development and carbon sequestration. Kyoto-based projects are administered by signatory national governments and two types exist. « Clean Development Mechanism » (CDM) projects permit industrialized nations to invest in projects located in developing countries, to contribute to their sustainable development, while « Joint Implementation » (JI) includes projects between industrialized countries. When travelers purchase carbon credits to compensate or neutralize their activities, in general, they are not contributing to such projects. Exceptions include organizations such as « Atmosfair ».

Voluntary carbon credit purchasing does not equate to emission reduction in absolute terms, because the pollution still occurs. Thus, an effort is still required by everyone to reduce emission contributions. Researchers suggests that to achieve a 10 % reduction of GHG emissions from aviation, the purchase of voluntary carbon credits would need to increase by a factor of 400.

10 things to be aware of before choosing to be carbon neutral

1. Type of organizations selling carbon credits
Estimates indicate that more than 40 organizations sell carbon offsets and their growth and expansion has lead to certain transparency issues. Some are profit and others are non-profit organizations and they are all located in industrialized countries. They all verse a % of the money to offset projects that can be anything between 25 % and 90 %. Hence, some keep significant proportions for operating costs.

2. Variations in emission calculations
Recent research suggests significant differences (as much as a factor of 3) exist between the carbon calculators of individual offset organizations, thus, there is a need for standardization to improve credibility. Calculators need to be informative and accurate. The more parameters used, generally the more accurate the carbon calculation should be. In the case of emissions from flying, a good calculator will include the exact distance flown based on actual routes, take account of radiative forcing at different altitudes depending on the length of flight, occupancy rate, and the type of plane.

3. Cost of carbon credits
The price per ton of carbon offset is variable between organizations because the voluntary carbon market is outside the Kyoto mechanism and hence, it is not regulated, nor standardized. Buying carbon credits currently varies from $ CAD 3 to $ 43 per ton.

4. Type and quality of projects supported
Of the three main types of offset projects the most favorable include emission-free energy generation (wind, biomass, solar, geothermal) and new technology developments (any new products that use less energy such as hybrid vehicles).

When buying into these projects, the main issue relates to additionality; a debated concept in carbon accounting. What is important to know before purchasing carbon credits is whether the projects supported will genuinely result in GHG emission reductions. The question to ask is, if I did not finance this project, would it have occurred? If yes, then it is not a real reduction project, because its financing was not from carbon credit purchasing.

5. Beware of tree plantations
Intending carbon neutral travelers need to be well-informed about carbon credits that finance tree plantations. Evidence suggests problems and controversies surround such projects, and consequently some organizations do not even offer any carbon credits in them. The singular action of tree planting will not solve climate change problems for many reasons, notably because it does not lead to a reduction of fossil fuel reliance (Refer to next edition of the Globe-Veilleur on this subject).

6. Buying high-quality carbon credits
Voluntary offset companies can either operate in or outside (mostly) of the Kyoto framework. The advantage of buying credits from organizations associated with Kyoto, is that emission reductions are verified under a regulatory framework administered by national governments.

7. Project standard credit labels
Presently there are no standards to judge the performance of voluntary offset projects, although several are currently being developed. The Gold Standard Foundation offers a quality label to both Kyoto-based and to several voluntary based projects. Thus, it is currently the most reliable label. Such projects are rigorous, and tested for environmental quality by registered third parties. Gold standard projects exclusively focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

8. Buying future carbon credits: forward purchasing
Travelers also need to be aware that some organizations sell carbon credits in either already existing projects or in future projects. The purchase of future credits creates some risk, because the proposed project may not be realized and or under-perform. However, investing in projects upfront is important in generating funds to start new offset projects.

9. Location of offset projects
Some of the offset projects are located in developing countries and some have created a variety of environmental and social problems, such as people getting displaced from their land and losing access to resources on which their livelihood depends. Thus, it is important to check that the projects are verified and meet standards, so they deliver long-term benefits to the areas where they are developed.

10. Most credible offset organization?
Two recent studies evaluated offset organizations and the most recommended include « Atmosfair », « Climate friendly », « Myclimate » and « NativeEnergy ».

What next?

The above issues need to be addressed to ensure that additional expenditures by travelers and the tourism industry towards negating fossil fuel use are created with the desirable outcome for which they are intended.

Climate change is a global problem that needs global solutions. Thus, if the tourism industry is to keep its confidence in carbon compensation schemes, it needs a standardized method for carbon calculating and the projects it invests in need to be certified and accredited by a relevant global organization.

In the meantime, it is important to reduce GHG emissions and move away from the use of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. If going carbon neutral, we need to ensure that carbon credits are purchased in quality projects, preferably clean energy and energy efficiency.

1: Carbon refers to carbon dioxide as a gas. Carbon offset projects sometimes involve compensating for other greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes six gases as contributors to global warming, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Sources:
– Anonymous. The Economist (2007) Carbon offsets: ripping off would-be greens? The Economist, 382(8520) p.61.
– Anonymous. The New Internationalist (2006) Special report on carbon related issues. The New Internationalist. July. Issue no.391.
– Atmosfair website. Last visited 4 July, 2007.
– Climate Friendly website. Last visited 4 July, 2007.
– Heughebaert, A. (2006) Étude comparative des programmes de compensation volontaire des emissions de C02 par les passagers d’avions. Institut de Gestion de l’environnement et de l’aménagement du territoire. Université Libre de Bruxelles. 98 pp.
– International Civil Aviation Organization 2007. Presentations and statements from the ICAO Colloquium on Aviation Emissions with Exhibition, held in Montreal Canada 14 – 16 May 2007.
– Gold Standard Foundation website. Last visited June 11, 2007
– Gössling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Ceron, J., Dubois, G., Peeters, P. and Strasdas, W. (2007) Voluntary Carbon Offsetting Schemes for Aviation: Efficiency, Credibility and Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3) p.223-248.
– Kollmuss, A. and Bowell, B. (2007) Voluntary Offsets for Air-Travel Carbon Emissions. Evaluations and Recommendations of Voluntary Offset Companies. Tufts Climate Initiative. 53 pp.
-Luzadder, K. (2007) Agent Issues: Carbon-offset programs: a reality check. www.travelweekly.com. June 14, 2007. 5 pp.
– Myclimate website. Last visited 4 July, 2007
– NativeEnergy website. Last visited 4 July, 2007
-Tufts Climate Initiative (2006) A Consumer Handout. Flying Green. How to protect the Climate and Travel Responsibility. Tufts Climate Initiative. 5 pp.
– United Nations Framework on Climate Change website. Last visited 28 June 2007.

Catégories
Issues Sustainable tourism

Is flying really that sinful?

The tourism industry already has a plethora of environmental issues to address, but more than ever, flying is considered as the biggest sin. Travelers are increasingly preoccupied with the environmental and social ethics of their consumption patterns and some reports claim that more people choose not to travel, in an attempt to curb their contribution to anthropogenic climate change. For example, a recent bulletin of the Canadian Tourism Commission reported that 29 % of UK travelers confirm having already cut back on air travel because of environmental concerns. Thus, the travel and tourism sector need to demonstrate it is taking its share of responsibility towards sustainable development. If not, more consumers may continue to choose to avoid travel, which will adversely impact on the entire tourism sector.

Atmospheric pollution from aircrafts contributes 2 % to 3 % to global greenhouse gas emissions annually, which is less than other sectors, such as road transport, forestry, or agriculture. According to current scenarios of civil aviation carbon dioxide emissions, in 2050 they will increase by factors of 3.3 to 5. Thus, if aviation emissions continue to grow while other sectors reduce their emissions, the relative importance of tourism’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions will grow. Consequently, tourism involving flying will become a more significant contributor to environmental problems.

The problem

At least the airline industry is addressing the problem and it was the first sector to commission a special report to determine its baseline performance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1999. A recent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)1 conference, and first ever on aviation emissions, outlined the nature and magnitude of the current problem. Discussions also extended to mitigation measures, where the tourism sector has an important role to play. However, the near absence of tourism industry representatives at the conference is a clear sign that many opportunities remain for a cooperative approach to finding solutions to current problems.

Scientists today confirm that new aircrafts are more efficient than the average car on the road. Engine fuel consumption and aircraft fuel burn per seat improved 70% since the 1960s. Nonetheless, planes use non-renewable natural resources, and between 1990 and 2004, fuel consumption by the aviation sector increased by 2 to 3% per year. Despite alternative fuel technology developments, kerosene remains the primary fuel for planes in the short to medium term. Alternate fuel developments continue to deliver major advances, however fuel source and production raises other environmental issues. In addition, unlike conventional fuels, alternative fuels such as biofuels are currently not regulated nor standardized.

Aircraft emissions are complex and many scientific uncertainties remain. There is pollution from fossil fuel combustion on the ground and in the air at high altitudes. Besides the well-known carbon dioxide emissions, planes also emit water vapors, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, soot aerosols and metal particles. At high altitudes these gases behave differently and emissions also change the radiation balance of the troposphere. Planes also contribute to condensation trails that cause cirrus cloud formation, which is unique to aviation in the climate change debate.

Today the aviation sector’s target for 2020 is to reduce fuel burn and carbon dioxide emissions by 50%. It is currently estimated that technological improvements alone can bring more than 1% improvements per year. In order to achieve further engine innovations from technology development means environmental trade-off between low gas and noise emissions (especially nitrous oxides) and these also impact on operational costs. Thus powerful research and development advances are needed, coupled with appropriate programs and strong collaboration effort by stakeholders, such as airlines, airports, traffic managers, regulators and governments.

The ICAO conference also included discussions about local air quality and emission standards for aviation. Although standards exist for several gases2, presently there are none for particulate matter and carbon dioxide. The setting of standards is a very complex procedure. Current research is investigating how to enable appropriate monitoring and standard setting of aviation emissions.

At airports aircraft are responsible for about 50 % of the emissions produced on average. Other emissions result from ground transportation and use of support equipment. Airport efficiency is highly variable at different destinations, thus many opportunities exist to improve operations. For example, the time taken to taxi in and out, take-off climb and subsequent descent and landing procedures contributes very differently to emissions. For example, on average (all flights globally) it is estimated that 6.5 kg of carbon is emitted per passenger during take off and landing, compared to 0.02 kg per passenger at cruising level. There appears significant emission and fuel burn savings by optimally assign aircraft amongst available altitudes. Calculations also suggest that current traffic flow is inefficient and rerouting may improve emission performance as well prevent conflicts (with other planes, weather and on ground). Even a 2 km reduction in average distance flown by planes could lead to over 200 million km of travel per year, resulting in over 2 million tones of carbon dioxide savings.

Major issues remain

Although mitigation measures via technology and traffic management promise continued improvement in the future, market-based solutions are also part of the solution. However, questions still remain as to who is really accountable for aircraft emissions? Is it fuel suppliers, aircraft operators, airport and navigation service providers, or the manufacturers? Or is the end user, i.e. travelers? Or – the tourism industry responsible for destination marketing?

Current market-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions include taxes, carbon trading and voluntary reduction mechanisms, such as carbon compensation schemes. Environmental taxes are already part of tourism at several destinations in various forms and they are not generally popular with everyone. Since the early 1990s several European airports notably in Switzerland, France, Sweden, UK, Germany have implemented local air quality charges to respond to local air pollution problems.

Aviation fuel is currently exempt from taxes. Some transport research3 suggests that the potential impact of a carbon tax on international tourism would be small. Even if a very high global tax of $ 1000 per tone of carbon emitted were applied in the year 2010, it would not change travel behavior and only reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation by 0.8 %. Under such a scenario, tourist destinations on short haul flights may see a decline in international tourist numbers. Island destinations would be losers in general. Eastern and Central Europe and countries such as China and India would gain, while Western Europe, the Americas and Africa would lose. Modeling also suggests that a carbon tax on aviation fuel would affect medium distance flights least.

The ICAO conference also offered discussions about voluntary reduction mechanisms. There is a clear increase in carbon neutral travel and the carbon market is growing exponentially. However this raises new issue concerning the credibility and the effectiveness of carbon compensation mechanisms (the next topic to be covered by J.Priskin in a forthcoming Globeveilleur).

Where to next

The ICAO conference suggests the airline sector needs to be a part of post Kyoto (2012), thus it endorses development of an emission trading system for international civil aviation. Air transport is, and has been an enabler of economic growth and it is a catalyst for growth. ICAO believes that global problems need global solutions and we need a co-coordinated approach to problem solving. The airline industry also knows that it will take Promethean solutions to improve the sector’s environmental performance.

As global forecasts suggest a growth of international arrivals by air, averaging up to 5 % till 2015, the tourism industry cannot continue to hide behind its clean image because it is a part of the service sector. Nor can it conveniently stay focused on destinations, and ignore that travel to and from them is up to 90 % of environmental problems, such as contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news is that some segments of the tourism market are showing signs of willingness to pay, although attitudes are highly diverse (Figure 1). Last May, the Canadian Tourism Commission reported that nearly 70% of Canadians would be willing to pay an extra $ 10 or more for every $ 1000 they spend on air travel, if the funds collected were used to develop sustainable resources of energy (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Amount Canadians are willing to pay to offset carbon emissions when traveling by air

JP_2007-07_vol_avion_conf_grphq1

Source: Canadian Tourism Research Institute, The Conference board of Canada.

Notes:

1. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations created in 1944 by the Chicago Convention. It has 190 contracting States and one of its strategic objectives is to minimize the adverse effect of global civil aviation on the environment. ICAO has a Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), composed of public and private sector reps and NGOs representing the aviation industry.

2. At present emission standards exist for carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, unburned hydrocarbons and smoke.

3.. This research was on international tourism only and also excluded business travel for data reliability purposes concerning international arrivals by air.

Sources:
– Canadian Tourism Commission (2007) Travelers Keen on Going Green. Tourism Intelligence Bulletin Issue 39, May 2007. – Canadian Tourism Research Institute, The Conference board of Canada, Vancouver. 5 pp.
– International Civil Aviation Organization 2007. Presentations and statements from the ICAO Colloquium on Aviation Emissions with Exhibition, held in Montreal Canada 14 – 16 May 2007. [http://www.icao.int/EnvClq/CLQ07/Documentation.htm]
– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999) Special Report: Aviation and the global atmosphere. Summary for policy makers. Geneva. 23 pp.
– Tol, R. S. J. (2007) The impact of a carbon tax on international tourism. Transportation Research. Part D 12. p. 129-142.
– United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Aircraft Contrails Factsheet. EPA430-F-00-005. Washington DC. 6 pp.
– Weissman, A. (2007). Binge Flying, sinful travel and paranoia. [www. travelweekly.com] 21, 2007. 2 pp.

Catégories
Accommodation Issues

Restaurant industry in change: be proactive!

New regulations are being introduced in the restaurant industry. Now that consumers want to eat better and know more about the origins and composition of their food, some lawmakers are taking action. Not to be outdone, Canada will likely follow suit and pass its own new regulations in the near future. The hotel and food service industries can wait and then react to such legislation, or businesses can, as some chains have done, be proactive and take advantage of this trend to distinguish themselves from the competition.

New York City gets things started

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has unanimously voted to phase out the use of artificial trans fats* in the city’s 24,000 restaurants by July 2008. In another first, the same department has also adopted a measure requiring restaurants with standardized menus (in other words, approximately 10% of all restaurants) to post calorie information on menus or menu boards. Although New York is the first city to adopt such regulations, if the large number of states and municipalities currently considering such measures is any indication, this is indeed a growing restaurant industry trend.

Reactions to these measures have been varied, but the NYC health department maintains that 95% of the comments received during the public consultation process supported the proposal. Complying with these new regulations may be onerous and costly for many establishments. For major restaurant chains, changing a recipe is a major logistic challenge. In addition, posting the number of calories on menus not only involves research and printing costs, it can create a crowded display.

Three days after NYC’s announcement, the Loews hotel chain was the very first such chain to announce its intention to eliminate artificial trans fats from all restaurants, shops and mini-bars in its 18 US and Canadian properties by June 2007. Restaurant chains like Taco Bell and KFC are preparing similar strategies, while Wendy’s International has already phased out trans fats from its 6,300 restaurants. Marriott International will be the second hotel chain to follow suit by eliminating all trans fats from its 2,300 establishments in the US and Canada.

The sale and production of foie gras

In addition to trans fat bans and calorie labelling, there are other regulatory measures affecting food. For example, the production of foie gras is now prohibited in many countries (e.g., Germany, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland (the world’s 5th largest producer before the 1999 ban), the UK, Sweden and Switzerland) and Chicago has outlawed its sale. In this case, the goal is to discourage cruelty to animals. California will also outlaw the sale of foie gras as of 2012 and the city of York in Great Britain is considering adopting a similar measure. The restaurant industry is therefore being subjected to new standards that may, in some cases, be very restrictive.

Where does Canada stand on the issues?

When it comes to foie gras, Canada remains a country open to both its production and sale. However, the elimination of trans fat is another matter. Since November 2004, Health Canada has been working with the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada to develop recommendations and strategies for reducing trans fats in foods to the lowest level possible. Canada was also the first country in the world to make trans fat labelling mandatory (December 2005). A proposal to phase out trans fats was tabled, but in the fall of 2005, agro-food industry representatives successfully petitioned the federal government to postpone the measure to give them time to develop alternate solutions.

Nonetheless, Canadian lawmakers are very aware of the issue and will most likely move to outlaw or severely restrict the use of trans fats in the near future. Some establishments have already adapted their menus accordingly. As of December 2006, the Pacini restaurant chain was still the only Canadian chain to have completely eliminated all artificial trans fats from its menu. This change was made with the help of clinical nutrition and cardiology specialists from the Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) and is a concrete example of the feasibility of such adaptations. The A&W chain has significantly reduced the use of trans fats, while Starbucks has committed to eliminating them from its menu by the end of 2007, in both Canada and the US.

At the present time, there are no proposals in Canada to require calorie labelling for restaurants offering standardized menus. However, it will be interesting to follow the evolution of this awareness-building trend in other cities and states; we may be pulling out our calculators in restaurants sooner than we think!

A plus for tourism?

Although the regulations discussed here have been implemented for other reasons, their impact on tourism is also worthy of consideration. A key element in the tourist experience, food can even be the primary travel motivator. At the same time, consumers are increasingly health conscious, especially with the advent of more information about the dangers of trans fats, GMOs (genetically modified organisms), mad cow disease and the avian flu, in addition to being motivated by ethical or environmental considerations. As such, the number of regulations and incentives to reflect these consumer concerns are likely to increase.

The elimination of trans fats is part of this trend. Whether it is the subject of a municipal ordinance or simply a hotel or restaurant policy, it could be a differentiation strategy worth studying. Like the smoking ban enacted in bars and restaurants, it is attractive to many types of tourists. Although such changes can be costly, they will have to be made sooner or later. Be proactive and help your business take full advantage of its foresight!

Sources:
– The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Press releases of September 26 and December 5, 2006, [www.nyc.gov].
– Association des restaurateurs du Québec. Press releases of October 4, 2006, and September 8, 2005, [www.restaurateurs.ca].
– Boyd, Christopher. « Loews Hotels Set To Ban Trans Fat, » Orlando Sentinel, December 9, 2006.
– Rosolen, Deanna. « Marketing to Quebecers, » Food in Canada, June 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5.
– Quan, Shuai and Ning Wang. « Towards a Structural Model of the Tourist Experience: An Illustration from Food Experiences in Tourism, » Tourism Management, June 2004.
– Health Canada. [www.hc-sc.gc.ca].

Catégories
Facts and figures Geographic markets

Antarctica 2006-2007: Another record-breaking season ahead

A Tourism Intelligence Network expert specialized in polar tourism, Alain A. Grenier sketches an overview of the Antarctica tourism industry. A PhD in Sociology and formerly an associate professor at the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi, Finland, he is now a professor in the Department of Tourism and Urban Studies at the UQAM School of Business Administration.

With the arrival of the austral summer in November, tourists – more specifically, cruise passengers – are once again heading to Antarctica.

The majority of Antarctic cruises take place in the Peninsula area, which is blessed with a less severe climate and a greater diversity of attractions (i.e. fauna, flora and a large number of scientific bases and historic sites). In contrast, the other tourism area, the more remote Ross Sea region, features almost exclusively historic sites.

In addition to the more traditional cruise programs combining observation and hikes ashore, a variety of new activities have started to appear in recent years, including scuba diving, sea kayaking, rock climbing, skiing, snowboarding and camping. It is impossible to say, at this point, if these new activities are the result of the arrival of younger and more active visitors, or if the new tourism profile is emerging in response to the products offered by tour operators. What is certain, however, is that Antarctic tourism is growing.

Figures

Compared to the last austral summer (2005-2006), the number of cruise tourists has risen by 12%(4) . This year, the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO), which represents 95% of the organizers involved in Antarctic tourism, expects nearly 38,000 visitors to Antarctica from mid-November to early March(4):

  • 27,575 tourists will participate in an Antarctic cruise with shore excursions (mainly in the Peninsula area)
  • 7,500 tourists will take part in a cruise only (no shore excursion)
  • 1,050 tourists will purchase a land tour (skiing, alpinism, etc., in the Antarctic’s interior)
  • 1,600 tourists will participate in a sightseeing flight (these flights, generally based in Australia, do not land on the continent and involve large planes like the Boeing 737-200 and 747-400, flying at about 2000 feet (610 m) above the Antarctic coast)

More than any other, polar cruises continue to dominate the Antarctic tourism market, with the number of passengers increasing year after year (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Source: IAATO (2006b)

While polar cruise tourism will continue to increase in the Antarctic Peninsula during the 2006-2007 season, the number of visitors to the Ross Sea region is expected to decline slightly(4). Compared to the 42 million visitors who entered the United States in 2004(7), the data regarding tourism in Antarctica – a continent 30% larger than the surface of the USA, may appear insignificant. To understand the importance of the figures presented above, it is necessary to put them into the proper polar tourism context.

A sensitive continent

Antarctica is a continent like no other. This continent, the only one without an indigenous human population, also has extremely limited surface flora and fauna (in species diversity). In summer, when the seas surrounding the polar continent are free of ice, Antarctica and its Sub-Antarctic islands cover an area of 13.6 km2. More than 98% of the continent’s surface is permanently hidden under a cover of ice(1)(3). This ice sheet – the biggest on Earth – may reach a thickness of up to 4.7 km in certain areas and contains no less than 90% of the plant’s fresh water reserves(3).

Tourism, like most other human activities, takes place during the very brief polar summer. This is also the reproduction season for most of the continent’s animal species, which are very abundant at this time of year. As a result, the less than 2% of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic island lands free of ice and snow become very precious for both fauna and visitors (scientists and tourists alike). In such a context, there is a very good chance that fauna (and, to a lesser degree, flora) could be negatively impacted. The scientific community, however, remains divided over the extent of this impact.

Negative Impact

In addition to the pollutants released when tourism vehicles (ships, inflatable boats, helicopters, large and small airplanes) burn fossil fuel, the main disruptions directly attributed to tourism activities include soil disturbances (more limited in the Antarctic than in the Arctic) and fauna harassment (mainly birds). It is important to stress, however, that atmospheric pollution remains the biggest threat to polar ecosystems. Apart from the pollution caused by burning fuel to transport tourists, most of the air pollutants affecting Antarctica are produced outside area and can therefore not be attributed directly to tourism.

Trying to protect the very resources the industry depends upon, the IAATO has created a visitor’s code of conduct entitled « Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic. » This recommends, among other things, the distances one should respect when observing the various fauna species. In the past, some observers(2)(6) have stressed that the guidelines are not applied consistently. The problem is that the code is enforced by guides, who must also see to their customers’ satisfaction. Many of these customers have a hard time containing their enthusiasm once ashore. Other visitors, who have invested considerable sums of money to reach these natural areas, sometimes feel they have earned the right to approach wildlife beyond the distances allowed. According to IAATO(4), however, the activities of its members have « no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment. »(4)

The organization worries, however, about the 5% of Antarctic operators who have not joined IAATO and therefore do not apply the visitors’ code of conduct. During the 2005 2006 austral summer, 4,639 visitors and an unknown number of small boat passengers set foot on Antarctica with no public record of their visit (4). In its annual report, IAATO(4) expressed concern over two non-member vessels, each carrying 500 passengers, who made shore excursions in spite of the IAATO regulation limiting site access to ships carrying more than 200 passengers.

The tourism forecasts made by IAATO for the 2006-2007 austral summer indicate that the travelling public’s desire for Antarctic adventures knows no limits other than those imposed by the number of ships and places available for such journeys. Negative impacts, as well as incidents involving tourism activities such as the sinking of the Bahia Paraiso in 1989, remind us, however, that tourism growth in such a remote and isolated place as Antarctica requires safe, sustainable management approaches.

Sources:
(1) – Cessford, Gordon (1997) « Antarctic Tourism – A Frontier for Wilderness Management, » International Journal of Wilderness, Vol. 3, No. 3, USA, pp. 7-11.
(2) – GRENIER, Alain A. (1998) « Ship-Based Polar Tourism in the Northeast Passage: A Case Study,  » Publication in the social sciences, University of Lapland, Rovanieni, Finland.
(3) – HANSOM, James D. and GORDON, John E. (1998) « Antarctic Environments and Resources – A Geographical Perspective, » Longman: UK.
(4) – IAATO (2006a) « IP 86 IAATO Overview of Antarctic Tourism 2005-2006 Rev 1, » International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (Website), 21 p.[www.iaato.org/info.html]
(5) – IAATO (2006b) « Tourism Statistics, Trends 1992-2007, » International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators, [http://image.zenn.net/REPLACE/CLIENT/
1000037/1000116/application/msword/Trends1992-2007.doc]
(6) – VUILLEUMIER, François (1996) « Negative Impact of Tourism on Antarctic Animals and Plants, » Southern Connection Newsletter, July, No. 10.
(7) – WTO (2005) « Tourism Market Trends, 2005 Edition, Annex, » World Tourism Organisation. [http://www.unwto.org/facts/menu.html]