April 2020 BBC Wildlife 51
million in 2009 to an estimated 30 million
in 2019 – is a key driver in the growth
in Arctic tourism. Total passengers on
expedition cruise ships in the Arctic nearly
trebled from 12,744 in 2009 to 32,356 in
2019, according to the Association of Arctic
Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO). And
that doesn’t include larger conventional
cruise vessels.
Could the Arctic be the next wildlife
tourism frontier – the new Maasai Mara?
There are, obviously, significant differences.
One is sun-drenched savannah, the other icy
ocean; the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem is a
30,000km sea of grass and scrub, while the
Arctic is 1,000 times larger, spanning 32.2
million square kilometres – slightly bigger
than the African continent. But nature-
lovers head to both regions to watch large,
charismatic creatures roam wild expanses:
lion, leopard, elephant and giraffe in East
Africa, polar bear, killer whale, beluga and
walrus in the Arctic, which hosts 34 species
of marine mammals. Could overtourism,
which some visitors bemoan in parts of the
Mara, also afflict the northern polar ocean?
Until now, the majority of Arctic
itineraries have focused on Svalbard,
which is easily accessible and has historically
offered ample sightings of polar bear,
walrus, whales and seabirds. In 2019, nearly
two-thirds of passengers on AECO member
vessels visited this Norwegian archipelago.
“One of the issues in the Arctic, like
the Antarctic, is there are certain hotspots
and best landing sites,” comments BBC
Wildlife columnist and conservationist
Mark Carwardine, who’s been visiting the
region for over three decades. “It’s not
like everybody spreads out – they all want
to go to particular seabird colonies, or
hotspots for bears, or whatever. Svalbard is
about three times the size of Wales, but if
everyone is aiming for the same few places,
it becomes a big issue.”T
here are attempts to tackle this
problem. Before the start of each
sailing season, AECO members- which represent the majority
of expedition cruise operators - submit sailing plans and book timeslots
to visit each site, to avoid two vessels
visiting at the same time. In Svalbard, this
is managed in collaboration with local
authorities, which can impose further
restrictions at vulnerable sites, for example
during bird mating or moulting seasons.
But there are big differences between the
impacts of, and experiences offered by,
expedition ships carrying between 30 and
500 passengers and conventional cruise
vessels, which may bring more than 2,000
people to Longyearbyen on Spitsbergen.
“Expedition ships are smaller, so less
reliant on port infrastructure,” says Edda
Falk, AECO communications manager.
“They can take passengers ashore in remote
areas that don’t have ports or settlements,
using tender boats or Zodiacs, so can access
sites that bigger vessels can’t.”
To an extent, though, boundaries are
becoming blurred. “Traditionally, expedition
cruising was defined by small groups of
relatively intrepid travellers exploring the
remote corners of the globe,” says Aaron
Russ, director of Heritage Expeditions.
“In recent years, a new version of the
‘expedition traveller’ is sailing on ships
carrying upwards of 500 guests. Aside from
their size and the logistics of taking larger
groups to the Arctic, in food, fuel and crew,
there is also the impact when landing and
interacting with wildlife. These guests all
still want to walk around, experience and
see everything – there are just a lot more
of them and, by default, this increases the
potential for impact.”
That impact comes in many forms, from
carbon emissions to the potential for spills
of oil, sewage and other wastewater, solid
rubbish and bilge water from engines
and other machinery. Emptying and
cleaning ballast tanks can also result in
the introduction of non-native, potentially
invasive species. There’s also the risk of
direct disturbance to sensitive wildlife,
plants and cultural remains.
Unlike the Antarctic, designated a natural
reserve dedicated to peace and science by
a 1959 treaty, the Arctic does not benefit
from internationally agreed legal protection
limiting mining or other exploitation.
Nonetheless, AECO operators adhere to an
extensive set of rigorous guidelines covering
safety, biosecurity, community interactions
and operations designed to minimise
disturbance (aeco.no/guidelines). And the
Arctic Marine Tourism Project, co-ordinated
by the Protection of the Arctic Marine
Environment (PAME) Working Group of
the intergovernmental Arctic Council, has
produced a set of best practice guidelines.U
nsurprisingly, as more ships
visit Svalbard, operators and
travellers look to farther-
flung destinations for wilder
experiences: Arctic Canada,
Greenland and Arctic Russia. AECO-
registered visitor numbers to Franz Josef
Land, a Russian archipelago east of Svalbard,
doubled from 500 in 2014 to 1,000 in 2019,
though for now bureaucracy limits numbers.
“Currently, visa clearance procedures have
to be conducted in Murmansk,” which adds
up to three days to the voyage from Svalbard,
explains Edda Falk. “It would be attractive for
operators to cross-sail direct, and there are
signals that visa/passport clearance will be
instituted in Franz Josef Land.”
Farther east still, Wrangel Island offers a
yet-more-remote and challenging destination.
“There’s more of everything, except people,”
says Mark Carwardine. “You just get into the
ice and look up, and there’s a bear – they’re
everywhere. You’ve also got more variety,“ A new version of
the ‘expedition
traveller’ is
sailing on ships
carrying upwards
of 500 guests.”