Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Climate Change and the Regime for the Conservation of Polar Bears

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Governance in the Arctic

Part of the book series: Environment & Policy ((ENPO,volume 50))

  • 1787 Accesses

Abstract

In 1973 the polar bear range states agreed to conserve polar bears and the ecosystem of which polar bears are a part. Commentators generally regard that Agreement as a success. The Agreement protected polar bears principally by prohibiting the unsustainable harvest of bears. The bear has also been protected by its listing on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). However, it is now apparent that the principal threat to the polar bear is climate change rather than hunting or international trade in bears and bear products.

This chapter offers a critical analysis of the capacity of these two instruments to protect the bear and the ecosystem of which it forms a part from the effects of climate change. The paper deals with both the duty to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases and the opportunity to engage in adaptive measures. The chapter suggests that while there is evidence that the ACPB is adopting institutional measures to respond to the threats posed by climate change the CITES agreement and its institutions are largely unresponsive to the problems that climate change will pose to species of concern, vulnerable species or endangered species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the Final Rule concluding that listing the species as threatened is warranted see (2008) 73 Federal Register 28211 (May 15, 2008) http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_Final_Rule.pdf. The implications of this listing decision are beyond the scope of the present chapter. I have considered some of the implications of the listing (principally for the conservation of bears in Canada) in Bankes (2008).

  2. 2.

    A species is a species of Special Concern if it may become a Threatened or an Endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

  3. 3.

    The first version of this agreement was signed January 1988. The current agreement is dated March 4, 2004. There are no bilateral agreements in relation to other shared populations of bears although there are ongoing discussions between Canada and Greenland in relation to the three shared populations: Kane Basin, Baffin Bay and Davis Strait.

  4. 4.

    Doelle (2005) in his analysis of climate change and the Law of the Sea Convention emphasises the availability of compulsory dispute resolution under UNCLOS. The absence of a dispute resolution clause in the Agreement is however not conclusive of the possibility of mandatory dispute resolution. It might still be possible for some of the state parties to make use of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to the extent that this is not precluded by the various reservations that the state parties might have included in their optional clause declarations.

  5. 5.

    General terms in a treaty should be interpreted in light of the evolving content of international law unless the treaty shows a contrary intention: Case Concerning Gabcikovo Nagymoros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (1997 esp. paras. 109 and 138–142) and the Iron Rhine Arbitration (Belgium/Netherlands) (2005).

  6. 6.

    For support for this approach see Dispute Concerning Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention, Ireland v. United Kingdom, Final Award, 2 July 2003 at paras 129–130 noting that the framers of the OSPAR Convention “carefully applied differential language to provide for stipulated levels of engagement of treaty obligation to achieve these objectives. There is a cascading standard of expression providing for the particular obligations imposed on a Contracting Party.”

  7. 7.

    “Each Contracting Party shall take action, as appropriate to promote compliance with the provisions of this Agreement by nationals of States not party to this Agreement.”

  8. 8.

    See, for example the well known paragraph 8(j) of the CBD (1992) which commences with the words “subject to its national legislation …”.

  9. 9.

    On the use of traditional knowledge in domestic endangered species legislation see Species at Risk Act (2002, the Preamble and ss. 15 and 18). And see generally the Programme of Work under Article 8(j) of the CBD. But the point is contentious: see e.g. Resolution # 1 – 2005 passed at the most recent PBSG meeting Seattle (2005).

  10. 10.

    See ICJ (1996), Advisory Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons (Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf) at para. 99 dealing with the duty to negotiate but emphasising that the duty in that case was not simply a duty of conduct (i.e. to negotiate) but to achieve a particular result – in that case nuclear disarmament, here further protection to bears.

  11. 11.

    There appears to be some room for discussion about the status of the meeting. The meeting reports (US FWS 2007) suggest that the parties thought of it as the second meeting of the parties to the agreement but the Norwegian press release (Norway, 2007) announcing the 2009 meeting expressly refers to the last meeting as having occurred in Oslo in 1981 and refers to the 2007 meeting as an informal meeting of the Range States. The meeting report used the term “Range States” rather than Parties or Contracting Parties in response to an objection from the Greenlandic representatives.

  12. 12.

    An extract from the discussion as to the implications of a possible ESA listing emphasises that the disconnect is not confined to international law: “Canada asked if the polar bear is listed as threatened, what would be the possible recovery goals that could address ice-habitat and its change, and would these goals be legally binding. The United States responded that the ESA requires the agency to develop a recovery plan for listed species that includes measures that are reasonable and implementable. They noted that, in the face of habitat loss due to melting sea ice and global climate change, they were not sure what a recovery plan would look like. They added that a recovery plan does not have the weight of law and is only advisory.” (US FWS, 2007).

References

  • Agreement between the Inupiat in Alaska and the Inuvialuit in Canada with respect to the Southern Beaufort Sea populations of bears, 4 March 2004. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/I-I%20Agreemnt%20signed%20March% 202000.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreement on the conservation of polar bears, Oslo, 15 November 1973. Retrieved, August 10, 2008, from http://pbsg.npolar.no/

  • Anon. (2001). The CITES and Fort Lauderdale Criteria: The uses and limits of science in international conservation decision-making. Harvard Law Review, 114, 1769–1792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). (2004). Impacts of a warming Arctic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bankes, N. D. (2008). Polar bears: The implications of an ESA listing for the continuing conservation hunt of bears. Resources, 101, 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D. C. (1996). Reconciling polar bear protection under United States laws and the International Agreement for the conservation of polar bears. Animal Law, 2, 9–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia in relation to the Alaska-Chukotka Bear Population, Washington, October 16, 2000. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://pbsg.npolar.no/

  • Burns, W. C. G. (2001, Winter). From the harpoon to the heat: Climate change and the International Whaling Commission in the 21st century. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 13, 335–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case concerning Gabcikovo Nagymoros Project. Hungary vs. Slovakia. ICJ Reports 1997. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7375.pdf

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). (2008). Polar bear. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=167& StartRow=1&boxStatus=All&boxTaxonomic=All&location=All&change=All&board=All &commonName=polar%20bear&scienceName=&returnFlag=0&Page=1

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (1992). Rio de Janeiro, June 5, 1992. In force 29 December 1993. U.N. Doc. DPI/1307. 31 I.L.M., 818 (1992). Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.cbd.int/

  • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). (1973). Washington, 3 March 1973. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml

  • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). (1994). Resolution of the conference of the parties, 9.24, criteria for amendment of appendices I and II.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). (2000). Resolution of the conference of the parties 11.1, establishment of committees.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). (2002). Resolution of the conference of the parties 12.8, review of significant trade in specimens of Appendix-II species..

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). (2007a). Resolution of the conference of the parties 14.7, management of nationally established export quotas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). (2007b). Resolution of the conference of the parties 14.8, periodic review of the appendicies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansky, S. (1999). The CITES objective listing criteria: Are they objective enough to protect the African elephant. Tulane Law Review, 73, 961–979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, M. G. (2002). Protecting coral reefs: the principal national and international legal instruments. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 26, 499–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Interior. (2008, May 15). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for the polar bear. Final rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register, 73(95). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/ Polar_Bear_Final_Rule

    Google Scholar 

  • Derocher, A. R., Lunn, N. J., & Stirling, I. (2004). Polar bears in a warming climate. Integrative Comparative Biology, 14, 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, B. (1999). The precautionary principle in CITES: A critical assessment. Natural Resources Journal, 39, 211–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diduck, A., Bankes, N., Clark, C., & Armitage, A. (Eds.). (2005). Unpacking social learning in social-ecological systems: case studies of polar bear and narwhal management in northern Canada. In F. Berkes et al. (Eds.), Breaking ice: Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North (pp. 269–290). Calgary: The University of Calgary Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dispute concerning access to information under article 9 of the OSPAR Convention, Ireland v. United Kingdom. Final Award, 2 July 2003. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/OSPAR%20Award.pdf

  • Doelle, M. (2004). Linking the Kyoto Protocol and other multilateral environmental agreements: From fragmentation to integration? Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 14, 75–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doelle, M. (2005). From hot air to action: Climate change, compliance and the future of international environmental law. Toronto: Thomson, Carswell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endangered Species Act. 1973. United States. 16 U.S.C., 1531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favre, D. S. (1989). International trade in endangered species: a guide to CITES. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikkan, A., Osherenko, G., & Arikainen, A. (1993). Polar Bears the Importance of Simplicity. In O.R. Young & G. Osherenko (Eds.), Polar Politics: Creating International Environmental Regimes (pp. 96–151). Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, T. (1995). Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. M. R., Hudson, R. J., & Foote, L. (Eds.). (2005). Conservation hunting: People and wildlife in Canada’s North. Occasional Publication No. 56. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. M. R., & Wenzel, G. (2006). The nature and significance of polar bear conservation hunting in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 59, 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2001). IPCC 2001: Summary for policymakers. In J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K. S. White (Eds.), Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). IPCC 2007: Summary for policymakers. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 7–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1996, July 8). Advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf

  • Iron Rhine Arbitration. Belgium vs. Netherlands. (2005). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/BE-NL%20Award%20240505.pdf

  • Marine Mammal Protection Act. (1972). United States. 16 U.S.C., 1361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Memorandum of Understanding between Environment Canada and the United States Department of the Interior for the Conservation and Management of Shared Polar Bear Populations, 8 May 2008. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.doi.gov/issues/polar_ bears/MOU%20May%208-08.pdf

  • Nanoq. (2008). Temporary ban on exports of polar bear products from Greenland. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://uk.nanoq.gl/Emner/News/News_from_Parliament/2008/04/Temporary_ ban_on.aspx

  • Norway. (2007). Ministry of the Environment, climate change a threat to polar bears – Norway to host international meeting under the polar bear agreement, press release November 29, 2007. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2007/Climate-Change-a-Threat-to-Polar-Bears--.html?id=492880

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (1976). Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the polar bear specialists group. Morges, Switzerland, 7–10 December, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (1981). Proceedings of the eighth meeting of the polar bear specialists group. Oslo, Norway, 15–19 January, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (1993). Resolution # 2 – 1993, Participation of users as invited specialists …. In Proceedings of the eleventh meeting of the polar bear specialists group, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25–27 January, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (2001). Resolution # 1 – 2001, Effects of global warming on polar bears, Nuuk. Aars, J., Lunn, N. J., & Derocher, A. R. (Eds.). (2006). Polar bears: Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20–24 June 2005, Seattle, Washington, USA. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (2005a). Resolution # 1 – 2005, A precautionary approach when setting catch limits in a warming Arctic. Lunn, N. J., Schliebe, S., & Born, E. W. (Eds.). (2002). Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SCC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 23–28 June 2001, Nuuk, Greenland. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (2005b). Resolution # 2 – 2005, An international study of effects of pollution in polar bears. Lunn, N. J., Schliebe, S., & Born, E. W. (Eds.). (2002). Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SCC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 23–28 June 2001, Nuuk, Greenland. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (2005c). Resolution # 3 – 2005, Status of Western Hudson Bay (WH) population analysis. Lunn, N. J., Schliebe, S., & Born, E. W. (Eds.). (2002). Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SCC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 23–28 June 2001, Nuuk, Greenland. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). (2005d). Resolution # 4 – 2005, Risks to polar bears from Arctic ship traffic. Lunn, N. J., Schliebe, S., & Born, E. W. (Eds.). (2002). Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SCC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 23–28 June 2001, Nuuk, Greenland. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prestrud, P., & Stirling, I. (1994). The International Polar Bear Agreement and the current status of polar bear conservation. Aquatic Mammals, 20, 113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Programme of work under Article 8(j) of the CBD. (n.d.). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.cbd.int/traditional/pow.shtml

  • Ramsar. (2002). Climate change and wetlands. A document prepared for CoP 8. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.ramsar.org/cop8/cop8_doc_11_e.htm

  • Reeve, R. (2002). Policing international trade in endangered species: The CITES treaty and compliance. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs and Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sand, P. H. (1997). Whither CITES? The evolution of a treaty regime in the borderland between trade and the environment. European Journal of International Law, 8, 29–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schliebe, S., Wiig, Ø., Derocher, A,. & Lunn, N. (2006). Ursus maritimus. In 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.iucnredlist.org

  • Species at Risk Act. 2002. Canada. SC 2002, c.29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, I., & Taylor, M. (1999). Update COSEWIC Status report on the polar bear, Ursus Maritimus in Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2007). Case studies on climate change and world heritage. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_climatechange.pdf

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). (2007). Meeting of the polar bear range states in Shepherdstown, WV, June 26–28, 2007, Final meeting summary and plenary session summaries. Retrieved, July 3, 2008, from http://www.fws.gov/international/animals/polarbears/

  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

  • Welch, H. E. (1995). Marine conservation in the Canadian Arctic: A regional overview. Northern Perspectives, 23(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

My research on the legal regulation of conservation hunting has benefited from working with a research group coordinated by Dr. Milton Freeman Senior, Research Scholar, Canadian Circumpolar Institute, the University of Alberta: http://www.ualberta.ca/∼ccinst/ CH/index.htm. The work of the research group is supported by funding from ArcticNet Centres of Excellence Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

    Nigel Bankes

Authors
  1. Nigel Bankes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nigel Bankes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Lompolotie 10, Rovaniemi, 96500, Finland

    Timo Koivurova

  2. Dept. Social &, Umea University, Umea, 901 87, Sweden

    E. Carina H. Keskitalo

  3. Fac. Law, University of Calgary, University Drive NW. 2500, Calgary, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Nigel Bankes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bankes, N. (2009). Climate Change and the Regime for the Conservation of Polar Bears. In: Koivurova, T., Keskitalo, E., Bankes, N. (eds) Climate Governance in the Arctic. Environment & Policy, vol 50. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9542-9_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation