Highlights
- Antarctic expedition cruise operators face a regulatory paradox: The binding international regime for insurance and contingency planning, adopted more than 20 years ago, has never entered into force.
- Operators instead rely on a combination of nonbinding Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting guidance, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators' voluntary mutual support framework and passenger-purchased insurance.
- This Holland & Knight alert examines 1) the legal framework, 2) how mutual support has performed in practice, 3) the medical evacuation realities that drive insurance exposure, 4) how insurance allocates the cost of remote response and 5) the steps operators should take before the 2026-2027 season.
Editor's Note: The Antarctic tourist season currently runs from November through March, with demand for expedition cruises at an all-time high and travel to the Final Frontier continuing to grow at a remarkable pace. In advance of the kickoff of the 2026-2027 tourist season, Holland & Knight has developed a series of five targeted advisories, each addressing a distinct legal and operational consideration for Antarctic expedition cruising. Whether you are an operator preparing for the 2026-2027 season or laying the groundwork for the years ahead, the considerations outlined here will remain essential as the industry continues to grow. The alerts will be released weekly throughout October as we count down to opening day.
Antarctic expedition cruise operators face a regulatory paradox: The binding international regime for insurance and contingency planning, adopted more than 20 years ago, has never entered into force. Operators instead rely on a combination of nonbinding Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) guidance, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators' (IAATO) voluntary mutual support framework and passenger-purchased insurance. This Holland & Knight alert examines 1) the legal framework, 2) how mutual support has performed in practice, 3) the medical evacuation realities that drive insurance exposure, 4) how insurance allocates the cost of remote response and 5) the steps operators should take before the 2026-2027 season.
The Legal Framework: Binding in Theory, Voluntary in Practice
ATCM Measure 4, adopted in 2004 by the Consultative Parties under the Antarctic Treaty, imposed binding requirements on operators regarding insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities. Yet, more than 20 years after its adoption, Measure 4 has still not entered into effect because several Consultative Parties, including the U.S., have not completed domestic approval. If ratified by all Consultative Parties, Measure 4 would require all tour operators to establish appropriate contingency plans and sufficient arrangements for health and safety, search and rescue, and medical care and evacuation, as well as maintain adequate insurance or other arrangements to cover costs associated with those services.
In the interim, ATCM Resolution 6, adopted in 2017, provides nonbinding guidelines on contingency planning, insurance and related matters, recommending that operators ensure these plans and arrangements are in place before the activity begins and are not reliant on support from other operators or national programs without express written agreement. All IAATO operators are expected to prepare contingency plans addressing health, safety, medical care and evacuation, consistent with Measure 4 (2004), Resolution 4 (2004), Resolution 6 (2017) and Resolution 3 (2022), the last of which addresses air safety and is particularly relevant to fly-cruise contingency planning.
Mutual Support in Practice
IAATO's Emergency Contingency Plan provides a mutual support framework under which member vessels commit to rendering assistance to one another in emergencies. The system was tested in November 2007 when the Liberian-flagged MS Explorerstruck ice and sank in the Bransfield Strait near the South Shetland Islands. All 154 passengers and crew were rescued by another IAATO member vessel, the Nordnorge, demonstrating that coordinated industry response can work in practice. The rescue succeeded, but the aftermath revealed that onboard oil spill response equipment faced challenges in Antarctic conditions and raised matters concerning the crew's training. No civil liability claims or enforcement actions arising from pollution appear to have followed, illustrating the jurisdictional concerns that complicate environmental accountability in Antarctic waters – a gap with direct implications for how operators scope environmental-incident coverage.
From a risk management perspective, the question is whether these arrangements, which rely on voluntary industry cooperation and passenger self-insurance, are adequate for the scale of modern Antarctic tourism. When more than 20 vessels may be operating in the same region during peak season, the mutual support framework assumes a density of nearby responders that seasonal scheduling may not always guarantee.
Medical Self-Sufficiency and the Route to Care
Advanced medical treatment is not available in Antarctica. Expedition vessels carry shipboard physicians and basic medical facilities, and McMurdo General Hospital – the most advanced facility on the continent – lacks surgical capability. Therefore, serious cases require evacuation to Ushuaia in Argentina, Punta Arenas in Chile or another facility outside Antarctica.
Proximity to such care depends on the itinerary. On a Drake Passage crossing, a vessel may be approximately 48 hours from Ushuaia (weather permitting), while on a fly-cruise with King George Island's airstrip open, a patient can reach Punta Arenas in roughly three hours (weather permitting). If weather closes the strip, possibly for extended periods, vessel-based evacuation through the Drake Passage may be the only option and is also weather-dependent. IAATO's Emergency Medical Evacuation Response (EMER) system, coordinated through a 24-hour station in Punta Arenas, arranges air evacuations, but availability depends on weather, aircraft availability and the patient's condition. EMER support is therefore an important resource, not a substitute for vessel-level medical readiness and a realistic fallback plan. These route and resource realities are often reflected in operator medical, contractual and passenger communications planning.
Insurance: Allocating the Cost of Remote Response
Operators typically maintain protection and indemnity (P&I) coverage, passenger liability policies and passenger travel insurance requirements that account for realistic remote-area evacuation costs. Expedition operators commonly require passengers to carry travel insurance that includes evacuation and repatriation coverage, with published minimums typically ranging from US$100,000 to US$500,000 per person. These minimums are set by each operator rather than by IAATO, which recommends but does not mandate a specific level of coverage. A fixed-wing or helicopter evacuation can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and minimums at the lower end of that range may not cover the most complex scenarios.
The U.S. Department of State advises travelers to Antarctica to carry emergency medical evacuation insurance and be self-sufficient. Those recommendations are considerations that some operators incorporate into booking requirements, coverage reviews and emergency response plans. Where a passenger's coverage falls short, the operator is the most visible target for recovery, and the resulting claims may raise the forum and choice-of-law questions addressed in the multijurisdictional alert in this series.
Before the Season Starts: Audit Recommendations
Because no binding regime allocates these risks, operators bear responsibility for closing the gaps themselves. Before the season begins, operators should:
- Verify that P&I coverage, hull insurance and passenger liability policies reflect the specific risks of polar operations, including remote area evacuation, environmental incident liability and multijurisdictional claims.
- Stress-test evacuation and contingency plans against realistic worst-case scenarios, including simultaneous incidents, multiday weather holds and absence of nearby support vessels.
- Confirm that passenger travel insurance requirements meet or exceed the operator's own published minimums, reflect realistic evacuation costs for the itinerary, and are clearly communicated and documented at booking.
More Posts in This Series
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
