Antarctic tourism is a rapidly growing industry. From 1958 until 1987, an average of fewer than 1000 tourists visited Antarctica each season. In the 1993-1994 season, the tourists visiting Antarctica outnumbered the scientists for the first time. In recent years (1999-2003), between 13,000 and 15,000 tourists made landings in Antarctica, and during the last season (2003-2004) this number increased by 45 percent to more than 19,500 (see figure 1, p. 764). The estimate of total passengers for the 2003-2004 season, including those not landing, is over 27,000.

Two approaches to achieve conservation objectives in Natura 2000 sites have recently received much attention from the Dutch government. The first approach applies to Natura 2000-sites where active investments in the site's conservation objectives are stimulated by combining economic development and ecological restoration. The second approach relates to providing space for natural processes or restoration projects with a focus on the functioning of the ecosystem, rather than only species or habitat type specific approaches. While the Ministry of Economic Affairs considers both approaches very promising for speeding up the process towards achieving the Natura 2000 conservation objectives, the approaches can turn into dilemma's because at least some characteristics of the approaches appear to be problematic in view of the European case law relating to article 6 of the Habitats Directive. The aim of the research was to investigate whether the two dilemmas are also experienced in Austria, England and Flanders and, if so, how they address the legal challenges. This report first discussed the legal framework of article 6 of the Habitats Directive, with special attention for the terms 'deterioration' and 'integrity of the site', and the precautionary principle. Next, the outcomes of the comparative research are described. In the final part of the report, the main findings have been summarised and the spotlight is turned on the Netherlands again: What could we learn from views and approaches in other Member States and could these lessons learned limit or solve the dilemmas in the Netherlands?

No abstract

This paper examines the role of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty in relation to marine spatial protection, with a focus on the designation of marine or partially marine areas as Antarctic Specially Protected or Managed Areas (ASPAs and ASMAs). For an improved understanding of this ASPA and ASMA practice, the competence arrangements between the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) are also examined. Five categories of ASPAs and ASMAs are identified according to their location and values relative to marine environments and ecosystems. A series of maps illustrate the outcomes of this inventory. The analysis and maps show that the use of ASPAs and ASMAs in marine or partially marine areas has been limited, although such protection is clearly within the mandate and competence of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. In part to explain these outcomes, the paper examines some recent ATCM discussions on marine protection issues. It is concluded that stronger spatial marine protection through ASPAs and ASMAs, as well as a strengthened integrated protection of the marine environment, requires stronger collaboration between the ATCM and CCAMLR, as well as mutual respect between these bodies.