www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (2006) 357–358

Editorial

Antarctica

As a retirement present to myself this northern winter, Ibooked onto a three-week expedition-style voyage to thesub Antarctic islands of the Falkland’s, South Georgiaand the South Shetlands and the Antarctic Peninsula onboard a leased Russian cold-water research boat. On the13 November, just a day before I left to join the expedi-tion, the Australian Sunday Times reported upon nineplayful and clearly inquisitive Humpback whales (Megap-

tera novaeangliae) continuously circling a whale watchingboat full of tourists – to everyone’s delight. The shelfwaters off Western Australia are a highway for Hump-back’s linking their northern breeding grounds inExmouth Gulf and a return in around November to thefood rich waters of Antarctica. Passing such localities asFreemantle and Rockingham, some 40,000 tourists spendan estimated A$ 20 million (�US$ 14 million), includingA$3 million (�US$ 2 million) in direct boat ticket sales,each year to see the whales. My departure for and thewhale’s return to Antarctica matched the leaving on 8November 2005 of the Japanese whaling fleet to the con-tinent with a plan to virtually double last season’s catchof 440 and kill 850 (since upgraded to 935) Minke whales(Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and to, for the first time sincethe species was almost driven to extinction, expand thehunt for ten Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus). The Jap-anese plan is also to expand the hunt in 2007–2008 for 50Humpbacks. My departure for Ushuaia on the southerntip of South America to join the tour vessel also coincidedwith the signing, at an International Whaling Commissionmeeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, of a declaration ledby long-time anti-whaling nations Australia, New Zealandand South Africa but now joined by Spain and ten SouthAmerican countries, for an end to special permit whalingfor ‘‘scientific’’ purposes and the establishment of whalesanctuaries in the South Atlantic and South Pacific. Inleading the anti-whaling bloc of countries, Australia hasresisted calls by the Humane Society International to takethe issue of the whalers hunting in Australian sectorAntarctic waters to the Federal Court and, instead, prefersdiplomatic means to influence the Japanese government inparticular.

0025-326X/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.02.003

In a previous editorial (Morton, 2004), I reported uponthe annual death of an estimated 100,000 albatrosses plus,according to Birdlife International, another 200,000 seabirds in the waters around Antarctica as a result of long-line fishermen. Conservationist’s efforts to reduce the tollby persuading such fishermen to put deterrent streamerson their long lines, bigger weights (so the bait sinks quick-er), and dying the bait blue (so that the birds cannot see it)are fine examples of constructive action to slow down anAntarctic fisheries by-catch death toll. As one traversessub Antarctic waters, the paths of albatrosses, petrels andskuas are crossed and one has a sense of them travelingwith you. The reality is that they are not, fellow travelerssimply being replaced by conspecifics as new flight pathsare crossed. But there are thus, clearly, many such seabirdsand the richness, in terms of productivity, of these upsidedown pyramid biomass waters is all too obvious.

The birds naturally feed on krill, fish and squid and oneof the most famous fisheries for cephalopods is the 70,000square miles Falkland’s Economic Exclusion Zone. Estab-lished and enforced since 1986, a maximum of 200 foreignvessels, notably from Taiwan and Korea, pay the Falk-land’s Government license fees hitherto valued at £23 mil-lion (�US$ 40 million) per annum to jig for the Argentineshort-finned squid Illex argentinus and the smaller, moreinshore Loligo gahi. The 200,000 tonnes of squid, half theFalkland’s annual total fisheries catch, has made the self-governing British overseas territory wealthy although inboth 2004 and 2005 the fishery for I. argentinus failed,possibly either because of over-fishing or unusual oceano-graphic conditions.

In my visit to Antarctia I was interested, however, in theenvironmental protection issues adopted by the boat oper-ators. Boat tours are regulated by a protocol created by theInternational Association of Antarctica Tour Operators(IAATO). This organization tries to abide by environmen-tal principles, procedures and obligations for the compre-hensive protection of the Antarctic environment and itsdependent and associated ecosystems as set out andadopted in the Protocol on Environmental Protection tothe Antarctic Treaty in 1991. The Environmental Protocol

358 Editorial / Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (2006) 357–358

was ratified in 1998 and essentially, therefore, Antarctica isa natural reserve. Hence, the tour boats throw no garbageoverboard and no sewage is discharged south of latitude60� South. Tourists on the boat are briefed comprehen-sively on safety issues, but also on a code of behaviourashore. Prior to going ashore, boots are disinfected as theyare on return to limit inter-site microbial contamination.Onshore, nothing is to be discarded or collected and heri-tage areas, that is, usually either whaling stations or emer-gency refuges, are not to be touched. Animals always haveright of way and close proximity to them is discouraged butwith high-powered photographic lenses and the curiosityshown by the penguins, especially, this is not a problem.I found the company, crew and expedition staff of the smallboat I was on to be very environmentally aware. They, inturn, transferred that awareness to us as visitors and, asa consequence, our impact on Antarctica was minimal.Further, in order to give the impression of isolation, thevarious tour operators pre-submit their itineraries and co-ordinate their activities such that one rarely sees anothervessel and, more importantly, impacts on individual land-ing sites are minimized. Since the tourist season is alsoshort – November to March — the onset of winter willobliterate our summer presence. There are a large numberof vessels now taking tourists of all categories, from thosethat land and those that do not, to Antarctica. If all thevessels follow the IAATO rules (and I have no way ofknowing if they do), then the future for Antarctic tourismseems assured.

But, this brings me back to my earlier observationabout the Humpback whale tourism industry not just inWestern Australia but elsewhere. Along their Australianmigration routes, Humpback whales with no memory ofthe 19th and 20th century slaughter of their ancestorsare becoming what many Antarctic animals are – unrec-ognizing of and unintimidated by Man. Today, they inter-act with whale watching cruises. In the southern summerof 2007–2008, however, they will, it is planned, be migrat-ing south towards the guns of the Japanese whalers. InAntarctic waters, we boat tourists saw whales of numer-ous species – indeed they were one of the highlights ofthe trip – and although we never saw whaling vessels, I

think if I had I would have cursed them, as would haveevery other person on board. On return to Western Aus-tralia, the local newspaper, the Western Australian, hadfront-page photographs of Greenpeace activists in inflat-able boats, just like the ones I had been transported on,only a week previously, to scenes of land- and seascapebeauty with a wildlife spectacle of such magnificence,attempting to get between the whaler’s boats and theirMinke whale quarry. I consider myself to be, in thebroadest sense, a conservationist but not an activist inthe model of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. Indeed, Iwould not have the courage to do what these conserva-tion organization’s people were daring to do in the icywaters of Antarctica. On this issue at least, however, theynow have my total support. Such wilderness, such magnif-icent beauty, such an exuberance of marine life. But,although the old shore-based whaling stations are rustingpiles, Antarctica is still tainted by human greed andbutchery, but for what purpose I cannot understand.When will such slaughter end so that more and more peo-ple can enjoy this continent of rock and ice without asthey do sensing the dark shadow of a black blot of inhu-manity still being acted out in Antarctica? As the newyear of 2006 approaches, many newspapers have createdlists of 2005’s winners and losers. In Antarctica it is clearto me, in terms of the whales, just who is who. It is simplythat the Japanese Government fails to realize that it is stillsupporting, in the world view, environmental losers.

Reference

Morton, B., 2004. Editorial: and they call such pillage ‘‘fishing’’. MarinePollution Bulletin 49, 881–882.

Brian MortonDepartment of Zoology,

The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,London SW7 5BD,

UK

E-mail address: prof_bsmorton@hotmail.com