Lessons from a Tragedy

Last week a Norwegian ship called the Berserk went missing somewhere in the Ross Sea. Sea Shepherd, who has aided in the search for the missing ship, found a damaged liferaft about 70km north of the original location of the yacht’s stress beacon. 2 members of the crew had been dropped off near Scott Base, to undertake a trip to the South Pole on four-wheel-drive quad bikes, to mark the 100th anniversary of the Norwegian Roald Amundsen’s Antarctic expedition. When the pair learned of their yacht’s disappearance they went to the US base at McMurdo Sound and were then flown to New Zealand.

This trip is regarded as a significant break in protocol, considering that this is a rather poor time of the year to travel to the Antarctic, and the ship never gained permission from the Norwegian government. But, no laws were broken. Had there been a ‘Polar Code’ or a commonly agreed upon law that strictly governed Antarctic tourism, this boat may not have made its way to the Antarctic, and thus would not have met its dire fate. The tragedy of the Berserk is just the latest in a string of similar incidents. It shows how not only for the preservation of the Antarctic, but also for the safety of would-be explorers, there needs to be an internationally agreed upon, well enforced Polar Code.

Unparalleled - it doesn't mean what you think it means

The growing tourist industry in the Antarctic has been cause for concern for ASOC for some time. As an environmental organization, we naturally focus on the environmental impacts of tourism, particularly those from ships. And as a result, we're aware of all the accidents that happen down there. So when one of our campaigners saw this article, he was quick to note that the ship mentioned, the Ocean Nova, has a little bit of a history to it. While the article notes cheerfully that "The vessel has navigated Antarctic waters with unparalleled success, including the challenging Weddell Sea," I'd have to quibble with their definition of "unparalleled." The Ocean Nova ran aground in Antarctica about a year ago. Pretty low bar for unparalleled, unless Quark Expeditions is referring to the fact that the Ocean Nova was the only ship to run aground in Antarctica in 2009. No injuries occurred, but the incident reminded us that longtime tour operators aren't immune from accidents.

Though the ship is built for the ice, unlike some of the larger cruise ships that have been heading to Antarctica in recent years, accidents do happen. Even the more experienced companies don't have a perfect track record. So when you see these nice little press release-type articles touting the wonders of the latest Antarctic tour package, remember that no matter how safe, Antarctic travel always comes with extra risk.

Will High Fuel Costs Tamp Down Antarctic Tourism?

Moves to tighten restrictions on the type of fuel oil used by ships traveling through the Antarctic might have a chilling effect (apologies, couldn't resist) on the industry. According to a UK newspaper, some cruise lines would cancel their Antarctic tours if stricter IMO rules take effect. Currently, ships are not allowed to use so-called heavy fuel in the Antarctic (defined as south of 60 degrees latitude), but can carry it on board and use it when outside of the designated area. Marine gas oil is used within the area. This new rule, which would fall under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and would enter into force in 2011, will raise fuel costs for tour operators. It appears that larger vessels, those carrying more than 500 passengers, will be the ones most likely to cut out Antarctic cruises due to the higher costs of marine gas oil. A major reason for the ban is that an oil spill of heavy fuel oil would be much more hazardous to the environment than one of marine gas oil.

The sinking of the fairly small cruise ship the Explorer in 2007 made the international community all too aware of the possibility of fuel spills in the aftermath of shipping accidents. A similar incident involving one of the larger cruise vessels would be disastrous if onboard fuel were to leak into surrounding waters. Environmental concerns aside, the chances of rescuing passengers from a ship carrying more than 500 people in the Antarctic are not very good. The weather is too unpredictable and the areas too far from places with rescue capabilities. Overall, having fewer large ships in the Antarctic is probably safer for the environment and for people. Let's hope the rules do indeed take effect.

ATCM Update

The first week of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting has drawn to a close, with mixed results. Some promising steps were taken, namely the first joint meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection and the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources). The joint meeting was important because it offered both bodies the chance to discuss how they could cooperate to protect the Antarctic environment, even though their mandates are somewhat different. Discussions on Marine Protected Areas were also positive, with strong support shown in the joint meeting for some MPA papers that were submitted for consideration. Read our ECO Newspaper for more.

The ATCM additionally provided ASOC's (and everyone's) first look at the official report on the Explorer sinking from Liberia, under whose flag the ship was registered. The report was quite disturbing, with the investigator concluding that the ship had probably suffered substantial damage (initially reported as only a fist-sized hole) due to the ship Master's misjudgment of the thickness of the ice the ship was sailing through. The report seems to reinforce that there were some significant mistakes made, and that while the ship Master did make an excellent decision to abandon ship early, it was rather lucky that no loss of life occurred. ASOC looks forward to discussing the serious implications of this report next week.

New Zealand Calls for Greater Tourism Regulation

Following on the recent incident with the Ocean Nova, the Foreign Minister of New Zealand, Murray McCully, called for greater regulation of Antarctic shipping before a disaster occurs. He noted that the industry is growing rapidly but is not well-regulated, which could lead to accidents that harm both the environment and human life. Minister McCully also warned the cruise industry to keep in mind that the Southern Ocean is dangerous and difficult to reach in an emergency situation.

New Zealand's proactive position on Antarctic shipping is highly welcome. Currently, only the states who are party to the Antarctic Treaty have any authority to regulate tourism, but the Antarctic Treaty System does not have a comprehensive tourism policy. New Zealand is one of the 47 countries that have signed the Antarctic Treaty. At this year's Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, the United Kingdom will submit a paper that is a first step towards developing a more unified policy on tourism. Hopefully other treaty parties will heed New Zealand's warning that only stronger regulatory action can prevent a human and environmental tragedy.

The Ocean Nova Runs Aground in Antarctica

The cruise ship Ocean Nova has run aground near Debenham Island in the Antarctic. It is expected that the ship will be (or has been, by now) freed as soon as high tide arrives. All the passengers and crew are safe and probably have been picked up by another of Quark Expedition's (the operator of the Ocean Nova) ships while the captain waits for high tide.

New Zealand Tries to Avoid a Rescue Bill

Tourism in Antarctica isn't like tourism in other extreme environments - in some ways, it's much more dangerous. Take any indicator - temperature, ocean conditions, accessibility - and Antarctica in a sense wins because it is colder, icier, and more difficult to get to than anywhere else. So it makes sense that New Zealand would try to block an adventurous rower from his plans to row around Antarctica by himself. Maritime New Zealand (MNZ), the branch of government responsible for marine safety, would be responsible for rescuing the rower, Oliver Hicks, in case of an accident. MNZ believes that an accident is almost inevitable because of the harsh conditions on the Southern Ocean. Hicks will be using a boat that is powered by rowing but has cabins in which he can sleep, prepare food, and store supplies. The boat is also allegedly designed to withstand Southern Ocean conditions.

MNZ has great reason to be skeptical of Hicks' plans, however. Previous attempts have resulted in accidents requiring rescue, and in one case an adventurer drowned. Rescue missions are costly and put rescuers themselves in danger. Hicks' journey would take him 500 days and would cover 24,000 square kilometers, or just under 15,000 miles. He plans to halt for a few months during the brutal Antarctic winter on the island of South Georgia.

Hicks' response to New Zealand's refusal to let him set out on his journey was to travel to Australia. Australian officials are hardly excited about the project, but unlike their New Zealand counterparts cannot stop him from leaving. If he needs rescuing, MNZ will still be on the hook. Hicks has already accomplished some impressive feats of solo rowing - he is the only person to have rowed from America to the United Kingdom alone - and feels confident that he is capable of completing his mission and staying safe.

This incident underscores the need for special tourism policies for Antarctica. The human desire to undertake difficult and dangerous adventures is admirable, but is disregarding the wishes of those who would have to rescue you also admirable? It's not as if MNZ could just ignore Hicks in the event of an accident, even if he wanted them to do so. It seems a shame that governments are hamstrung in this way. While this type of tourism doesn't represent the kind of environmental threat that we at ASOC are most concerned about, it does point to the overall lack of regulation for Antarctic tourism that would protect both people and the environment. Laws and rules no doubt deaden the souls of expeditioners, but they keep people safe and prevent unnecessary crises.

MV Ushuaia Runs Aground

The MV Ushuaia, a tourist cruise ship, ran aground in Cape Anna, Antarctica on December 4. Fortunately, all the passengers are safe and are on their way home. It also appears that a small fuel spill has also been contained and won't harm nearby penguin and blue-eyed shags. But we don't really have any clear information on how much fuel has been spilled and what plans are in place to prevent more fuel from leaking.

The main problem, as ASOC sees it, is that tourism continues to grow in Antarctica with little oversight by the Antarctic Treaty Parties. The MV Ushuaia had an experienced crew and a ship in good condition, as well as favorable weather conditions. But as tourism expands, new companies lacking in experience will no doubt enter the industry. Tour operators are also trying to bring ships with thousands of passengers (many cruises now are in the hundreds, the Ushuaia had under 200 passengers) into the Antarctic. These ships carry heavy fuel oil that could be extremely harmful to marine life. More people, bigger ships, and less experience could create very serious problems in the event of an accident.

The treacherous Antarctic environment requires extreme caution from travelers. Now is the time for the Antarctic Treaty system and the International Maritime Organization to develop and enforce regulations that will protect humans and the environment.