Antarctica does not permit easy answers: IAATO Responds to “Guides Who Quit” Study

Antarctica does not permit easy answers.

It's a place of extraordinary beauty and scientific importance, but also a place experiencing profound and accelerating change. For anyone who works there, visits, or studies the human relationship with the region, that reality creates difficult questions about what it means to travel to Antarctica. Can we reconcile the desire to experience and understand this remote and remarkable place with our responsibility to protect it?

A new study, Mind the gaps: The moral journey of tour guides who quit, makes a valuable contribution to that conversation. Drawing on interviews with 25 former Antarctic tour guides who chose to leave the industry, the paper considers the internal tug-of-war some guides experienced between their environmental values and their participation in tourism. Its findings deserve to be acknowledged and considered.

The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) has long recognised that operating in a globally significant and exceptionally fragile environment requires continual evaluation of whether our actions remain aligned with our commitments to safety, environmental stewardship, education, and the protection of Antarctica. Healthy scrutiny is not a threat to responsible tourism. It is one of its essential safeguards.

IAATO was established in 1991 to advocate for and promote safe and environmentally responsible practices within the Antarctic tourism industry. Its members operate within the Antarctic Treaty System and relevant national and international laws and have committed to the principle that tourism activities should have no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment. Polar guides are at the coalface of that mission.

That commitment does not mean the questions raised by this research can be dismissed - quite the opposite.

The study provides an important window into the experiences of people who reached a point where they felt they could no longer reconcile their work with their personal understanding of environmental responsibility. Their experiences are valid. And the reasons behind the difficult choices they made deserve interest and respect. As we consider these conclusions, it is important to reflect on the complexities they reveal.

There is also an important nuance in how those findings should be interpreted.

The study deliberately focuses on a particular group: 25 former guides who had already left Antarctic tourism after experiencing moral conflict. That is a valuable and under-explored perspective, but it’s not synonymous with the experience of the Antarctic guiding community – all 6,605 of them – as a whole.

Many guides continue to work in Antarctica precisely because they believe responsible expedition tourism can contribute to conservation. We know this from conversations with guides in our committees and working groups, as well as at our Polar Field Staff Conference. They see their role not simply as facilitating a journey, but as helping visitors understand a place central to the global climate and protected under an extraordinary intergovernmental framework.

Their work encompasses education about Antarctic ecosystems, climate change, science, wildlife and the Antarctic Treaty System. It also involves translating robust environmental requirements into practical behaviour in the field - from wildlife interactions and biosecurity to site management and operational decision-making.

IAATO recognises that expedition staff play a key stewardship role, introducing, educating and informing visitors about Antarctica and its global importance. Member operators are required to provide educational programs to be granted a permit or authorisation to operate in Antarctica. At the same time, field staff are supported through training and assessments designed to reinforce the knowledge and practices required for safe and environmentally responsible operations, including Antarctic Treaty System requirements.

This does not resolve the fundamental paradox identified by the researchers: all travel to Antarctica can have environmental consequences, including emissions associated with reaching the continent. Nor should education be used as a convenient justification.

However, neither should the existence of that paradox lead us to overlook ways in which responsible tourism can evolve and contribute to Antarctic stewardship (and has already done so). Recognising these challenges, there remain opportunities for progress.

The Antarctic Treaty System provides the overarching framework, including as arbiters of the permitting and authorisation process. The Environmental Protocol establishes Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science and applies to all human activities there, including scientific, fishing, and tourism activities, as well as governmental activities. Antarctic activities are subject to environmental assessment and national permitting requirements. At the same time, the Treaty Parties’ general guidance for visitors is intended to ensure that visits do not adversely affect the environment, wildlife, ecosystems or Antarctica’s scientific, wilderness and aesthetic values.

IAATO members operate diligently within that framework - and have collectively developed additional standards, operational protocols and best practices through decades of experience.

None of this means the work is finished. On the contrary, Antarctica’s changing circumstances make complacency particularly dangerous and call for ongoing vigilance.

The most useful conclusion drawn from this research is therefore not that expedition guiding as a profession is incompatible with environmental care, but that the Antarctic tourism industry must never assume that today’s practices are necessarily sufficient for tomorrow’s challenges.

That is why the discussion should include a diverse range of voices.

Future research could usefully examine the experiences of guides with different backgrounds, employers, roles, nationalities and levels of Antarctic experience, including those who have chosen to remain in the profession, those who have moved between different roles within it, and those who have worked in other environmentally sensitive areas. Such research could help us understand not only why some people leave Antarctic guiding, but also how others address the same ethical tensions while continuing to work in the field.

That distinction matters because the guiding community is not a monolith.

Some professionals have concluded that the only responsible choice is to leave. Others conclude that the better choice is to stay involved and try to maintain or evolve systems from within. Both responses can arise from a genuine concern for Antarctica.

The research itself acknowledges this complexity. Among the participants were accounts from guides who saw value in remaining in the job, so that visitors could receive high-quality environmental education and experienced professionals could shape how tourism is conducted.

This is an important point. The ethical question is not simply whether someone stays or leaves. It’s what they do with their concern while they are there.

For those who remain, the responsibility is substantial.

It means challenging assumptions. It means listening when colleagues, scientists, conservation organisations, governments and communities identify risks. It means being willing to change established practices when evidence demands it - and then change them again, and again.

It means being transparent about the challenges and making sure that the experience offered to visitors strengthens, rather than reduces, their understanding of Antarctica and their responsibility towards it.

Antarctic tourism should also be judged by what happens beyond the continent.

A visitor who returns home with a deeper understanding of climate science, Antarctic ecosystems and the importance of the Treaty System may act differently in their professional, political or personal life. That potential should not be exaggerated or treated as a licence to ignore potential tourism impacts. But neither should it be dismissed simply because it is difficult to measure.

IAATO’s own mission recognises this responsibility: to provide opportunities for people to experience Antarctica while creating ambassadors for its continued protection, and to support science and cooperation within the Antarctic community.

Ultimately, the paper’s greatest contribution to responsible tourism is as a reminder that it must never become complacent. The balance between enabling people to experience Antarctica and protecting its environment is not fixed.

Climate change is altering the context in which all decisions are made. New evidence will emerge. Technology will change. Protocols will evolve. Visitor patterns will shift. Practices that are considered appropriate today may need to be reconsidered tomorrow.

That demands continual scrutiny, honest self-reflection and an eagerness to adapt.
Those are not values that belong to one side of the discussion. They are the foundation upon which IAATO was created, and are shared by many current Antarctic professionals, researchers, and former guides whose experiences have sparked this discussion.

The question facing the Antarctic tourism industry is not whether critique should be welcomed. It should.

The more important question is what we do with it.

If responsible Antarctic tourism best practices are to continue evolving, we must be prepared to listen to evidence, acknowledge contradictions and continue raising our standards.

Antarctica deserves nothing less.

And neither do the people who dedicate their careers to helping others understand why protecting it matters.