Antarctica's status as a unparalleled place of international scientific collaboration was entrenched in the Antarctic Treaty 1959, and its designation as a “natural reserve, devoted to peace and science” formally referenced in the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEPAT) 1991 (PEPAT 1991, Article 2). The continent's importance for maintenance of the global ecosphere has more recently been confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Anisimov et al., 2007). However, the expanded scale and scope of commercial tourism in Antarctica over the last quarter century raises issues about whether the laissez-faire approach to tourism management that has been taken under the auspices of Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) governance is sufficient to protect the Antarctic environment and its “wilderness” values from the negative impacts of tourism (PEPAT, Article 3(1)). This is an subject that has occupied a number of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), who form the decision-making group within the ATS, and resulted in a recent question by The Netherlands to fellow ATCPs as to whether “a system of obligatory or voluntary payments by individual tourists or tourist organizations (as a payment for ‘ecosystem services’)?” should be established within the ATS (The Netherlands, ATCM XI, 2012).

This paper considers the Dutch question about payment for ecosystem services in Antarctica as a potential tourism regulatory tool. It also examines the legal and related political issues that a proposal for introduction of ecosystem services would generate in an area of the earth which, de facto, is treated as an international commons, but is also the site of continuing contestation and challenge over abeyant claims to sovereignty by seven states within the ATCP group. Issues canvassed in this context include: the different political-philosophical approaches to tourism and the environment evinced by the ATCPs; the limited number of states signatory to the Treaty and the increase in non-state actor activity in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters, and concomitant difficulties of monitoring and compliance in a geographically expansive and remote area of the earth; and the potential of ecosystem services in Antarctica to help realise some of the United Nations’ post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

1959年《南极条约》确立了南极洲作为国际科学合作无与伦比的地位，并且在1991年《南极条约环境保护议定书》（PEPAT）中正式提到南极洲为“致力于和平与科学的自然保护区”（ PEPAT 1991，第2条）。政府间气候变化专门委员会最近确认了非洲大陆对维护全球生态圈的重要性（Anisimov等，2007）。然而，在过去的25年中，南极商业旅游的规模和范围不断扩大，这引发了以下问题：在南极条约体系（ATS）治理下采取的放任自由的旅游业管理方法是否足以保护南极环境和环境？其“荒野”价值来自旅游业的负面影响（PEPAT，第3（1）条）。这个问题已经由许多南极条约协商方（ATCP）占据，这些方组成了ATS内的决策小组，并引起了荷兰最近向ATCP的同僚们提出的一个问题，即“强制性系统还是由个人游客或游客组织自愿支付（作为“生态系统服务”的支付）？” 应在ATS内建立（荷兰，ATCM XI，2012年）。

本文认为，关于南极洲生态系统服务付款的荷兰问题是一种潜在的旅游监管工具。它还审查了引入生态系统服务的提案将在地球上产生的法律和相关政治问题，事实上，该地区实际上被视为国际公地，但它也是继续争论和质疑中止主张的场所由ATCP组内的七个州拥有主权。在这种情况下探讨的问题包括：ATCP提出的关于旅游业和环境的不同政治哲学方法；签署该条约的国家数量有限，并且在南大洋和南极水域中非国家行为者的活动有所增加，以及在地球上地理上偏远地区的监测和合规性的随之而来的困难；以及南极洲生态系统服务有助于实现联合国某些2015年后可持续发展目标的潜力。