From May 11-21, 2026 in Hiroshima, Japan, the 48th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting failed to produce a finished regulatory regime for Antarctic tourism. However, it did clarify something important: tourism is no longer a peripheral issue for the Antarctic Treaty System.  Parties discussed concrete methods for the regulation, management, and monitoring of Antarctic tourism, and agreed to continue these discussions during the intercessional period. ATCM 48 therefore moved the debate beyond general concern and further into the language of governance.

That is real progress, but it should not be overstated. The meeting did not adopt a completed framework, establish binding visitor caps, agree on a tourism fee, or settle how cumulative impacts should be measured across operators, sites, and seasons, nor did it resolve how far Parties are prepared to move from a system that still relies heavily on national permitting and industry coordination toward stronger collective rules. Hiroshima mattered less in terms of solving the tourism question rather than narrowing the focus. The harder question now concerns the kind of governance the Treaty System is prepared to build, and how quickly it is willing to act.

This is where the idea of access governance becomes useful. The debate should not be framed only as visitor management, which asks whether tourists behave properly during a particular landing. The more important question is who may enter, under what conditions, how often, with what evidence of preparedness, and with what contribution to the long-term protection of the places being visited. A voyage can comply with site rules on the day and still add to cumulative pressure that the system is not yet measuring well. The move from visitor management to access governance changes the institutional question itself: from how visitors should behave once ashore to how access should be authorized, conditioned, monitored, and, where necessary, limited over time.

The diplomatic signal from ATCM 48 supports that shift. The same official account of ATCM 48 and CEP 28 placed tourism alongside environmental impact assessment, biosecurity, wildlife disease guidance, monitoring, and climate change. Tourism is no longer being treated as a narrow operational file. It is becoming part of the broader question of how the Antarctic Treaty System adapts to a faster-changing continent under mounting environmental and commercial pressure.

The pressure itself is measurable. According to IAATO’s latest figures, the 2025-26 season recorded 27,217 cruise-only visitors, 85,195 landed visits, and 1,106 deep-field visitors. These numbers remain modest compared with global tourism, but that is the wrong benchmark. Antarctica has a short operating season, limited landing windows, sparse emergency infrastructure, fragile ecosystems, and few sites that can absorb repeated visits without close monitoring. Ordinary tourism benchmarks tell us little. What matters is whether the governance system can identify where pressure is accumulating and respond before site-level vulnerability becomes visible damage.

Concentration matters more than aggregate volume. The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat notes that about 98 percent of tourism voyages occur in the Antarctic Peninsula during the austral summer and that more than twenty Antarctic sites frequently host over 15,000 visitors in a season. This creates an uneven geography of impact. A continent may appear vast and empty, while tourist activity is repeatedly channelled through a small number of landing sites, scenic routes, wildlife colonies, and historic places. The policy problem is therefore spatial and temporal: where visitors go, how often the same sites are used, what activities occur there, and whether repeated visits alter wildlife behaviour, vegetation, historic remains, or the operating environment for science.

This is also why the existing model should be defended and upgraded at the same time. Antarctic tourism is not a legal vacuum. Parties implement the Antarctic Treaty and the Environmental Protocol through domestic permitting systems. The ATCM has adopted measures, resolutions, manuals, and site-specific guidance; the Secretariat maintains official Visitor Site Guidelines; and IAATO has played an important role since 1991 in reporting, coordination, operating discipline, and environmental practice across much of the sector. Together, these arrangements make Antarctic tourism more transparent, more coordinated, and more open to scrutiny than it would otherwise be.

Their value, however, should not obscure their limits. Industry-led coordination, even when embedded in national permitting and Treaty guidance, works best when operators share similar incentives, reputational pressure is strong, activities are relatively predictable, and the scale of use remains manageable. Antarctic tourism is becoming more diverse, more commercially attractive, and more dependent on complex expedition logistics. A governance model built mainly around conduct during visits may not be enough for a sector whose impacts are cumulative and whose costs can fall on the wider Treaty System.

The MV Hondius outbreak offers a useful caution, even though it should not be treated as an Antarctic environmental incident. The outbreak was not caused by Antarctic tourism as such. Yet WHO and national public-health responses showed how a remote expedition itinerary can become a cross-jurisdictional challenge involving passengers, crew, medical evacuation, laboratory investigation, contact tracing, and post-disembarkation monitoring. Tourism can remain part of Antarctica’s human presence, but remote access should be treated as a governance issue in its own right. Once risks extend beyond the vessel, the landing site, or the permitting state, operator-level control is no longer enough.

Climate change compounds this challenge by making access conditions less stable. The Antarctic Peninsula and the surrounding Southern Ocean are not static operating environments. Changes in sea ice, weather, wildlife distribution, disease risk, and landing conditions can alter the vulnerability of a site from one season to the next. A site guideline that is adequate under one ecological or seasonal condition may be too permissive under another. Access governance therefore has to be adaptive. It should allow conditions of entry to tighten, pause, or shift as new monitoring data indicate changing risk.

A stronger framework should make access conditional, revisable, and dependent on demonstrated capacity.  At the site level, this could mean more dynamic site-specific caps, rotational closures, seasonal restrictions, and updated visitor guidelines linked to monitoring results rather than fixed assumptions about carrying capacity. At the operator level, it could mean clearer standards for biosecurity compliance, medical screening, onboard surveillance, evacuation planning, insurance, waste handling, and transparent incident reporting. At the system level, it could mean visitor fees or operator contributions dedicated to monitoring, conservation, emergency preparedness, and the maintenance of shared data systems. The common principle is simple: access should expand only when the capacity to govern its consequences expands with it.

This approach is more politically viable than a blanket anti-tourism position. Closing Antarctica to visitors would be difficult to justify, hard to implement, and unlikely to command consensus among Treaty Parties. Carefully managed visits can generate public awareness and support for Antarctic protection. But educational value cannot become a general exemption from governance. A more useful test asks whether each form of access remains consistent with the purposes of the Antarctic Treaty System: peace, science, cooperation, and environmental protection.

ATCM 48 did not solve the tourism question. But it did help redefine it. If the Treaty System can move from visitor management to conditional access, the discussions carried forward from Hiroshima may yet become the basis for a more concrete regulatory turn. If not, commercial momentum may quietly redefine access before Parties agree on what should be protected, who should pay for protection, and when access should be limited. Those questions should be answered before repeated access normalizes Antarctica as a destination, even while it remains exceptional in law. 

This issue’s Flagship Analysis was written by Nong Hong, Executive Director at ICAS.