Jeff Reifman, Antarctic traveler 0

Friday, 10 Jan 2003

SEATTLE, Wash.

The 1959 Antarctic Treaty may represent one of humanity's most thoughtful and forward-looking documents, on par with the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. That treaty recognized that, "it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord."

Thereby, 45 nations, representing approximately two-thirds of the world's population, decided to peacefully protect, preserve, and study this magnificent continent. At least in Antarctica (and at least for now), profit-driven capitalist forces of exploitation do not drive policy. But the environmental protocols of the treaty will expire unless renewed in 2041. In the meantime, treaty provisions are voluntary, and there is no enforcement body to respond to violations. Nations that have signed the treaty aren't bound to its current provisions. And the treaty is not perfect, as is clear from the following passage:

The provisions of the present Treaty shall apply to the area south of 60 degrees South latitude, including all ice shelves, but nothing in the present Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard to the high seas within that area.

In other words, the treaty does not stop signatory nations from exploiting fishery stocks in the region. While Antarctica may appear pristine and unexploited, its oceans are being devastated.

One of the victims of that exploitation is one of the world's ugliest fish, the Patagonian toothfish, which was given the far sexier name of "Chilean Sea Bass" by marketing experts and has now been fished nearly to extinction. More than 400,000 tons of krill, the key component of the Antarctic food chain, is harvested each year for fish meal and pet food. As stated earlier, tuna fleets set more than 200 million hooks annually, killing unknown numbers of Albatross and depleting pelagic fish stocks. The Japanese continue to hunt Minke whales and reports indicate that they quietly kill other species, including the endangered blue whale, the largest animal ever known to man.

According to Greenpeace, "Antarctic fish are especially vulnerable to over-fishing because most species take a long time to become sexually mature and are long lived." They also report that the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, responsible for Southern Ocean fisheries management, has failed in limiting illegal pirate fishing, leaving many species vulnerable to extinction. Member nations wanting to protect their illegal fisheries block any real enforcement activity. "It appears that the E.U. and Spain are the main protectors of illegal fishing," says Greenpeace.

While our guides expressed their desire for passengers to return to their homes and become Antarctic ambassadors, the kitchen crew offered up a daily menu of meat and seafood. Global warming and ozone depletion are a major long-term threat to Antarctica, but I believe overfishing is a more immediate threat to the region. Most people just don't realize that their appetite for seafood is not sustainable.

In better news, the fur seal population has rebounded from presumed extinction to levels as high as any historically recorded. Some scientists theorize that the scarcity of whales may be allowing fur seals to benefit from the lack of competition for krill. Krill harvesting is likely retarding the recovery of endangered whale species, such as the blue whale and the right whale. Antarctic blue whale stocks have dropped from perhaps 200,000 in the era before the whaling industry to less than 1,000 today.

We have no way to measure how much krill exists worldwide, but we continue to harvest it for our own purposes, ignorant of the impact we may be having on the Antarctic environment. If you would like to protect Antarctica, stop eating seafood and be sure to vote for candidates willing to fight for environmental protections, especially in global trade agreements.

Before my trip, I worried that, as a tourist, I was also playing a role in spoiling the Antarctic. Although the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators has established its own voluntary guidelines to protect Antarctica, if everyone felt entitled to travel here, what would be left of the solemn, quiet beauty that I enjoyed?

On a small island, 90 eager tourists is a lot of people to put ashore. Most of the IAATO member ships travel to the same sites in the peninsula, agreeing to avoid and protect the most pristine locations. While we only occasionally saw other ships, their presence definitely lessened the experience. When we encountered wildlife, we were generally surrounded by three other zodiacs, usually from our own ship.

While our guides stayed a good distance behind the humpback whales, had another tourist ship been in the bay, it could have easily begun to look like the Northwest's summer orca hunt, where numerous whale-watching ships simultaneously converge on resident orca pods rather than observing from a reasonable distance.

Approximately 12,000 tourists visited Antarctica last year. Aside from the carbon dioxide emissions from my journey, I don't think my visit had an overly negative impact. The penguins, whales, seals, and birds seemed mostly unaffected by us. But the experience would have been more congested and less peaceful with 50,000 annual tourists, and the possible harm to wildlife and the terrain would increase.

If you have an interest in visiting Antarctica, ask yourself two questions: Would seeing this amazingly pristine environment and its wonderful animals be a powerful and meaningful life experience for you? And, would you be willing to advocate for its protection on your return? If not, please stay home; there are plenty of wonderful videos of Antarctic wildlife that show far more than you will ever see on a short trip.

• Next Page:
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
• View as Single Page
• Comments