PBSG decided to keep the meetings small and personal. In Norway and Canada,
support from the ministries was strong due the personal connections to the PBSG.
After the 1970 meeting, and with an eye on the subsequent meeting in 1972, IUCN
had officially started working on a draft for an international polar bear agreement.
At the 1972 meeting, finally, the PBSG confirmed that all governments of the
polar bear range states had informally voiced their support for a polar bear agreement. The main outcome of the 1972 meeting was therefore the call for the
conclusion of an international agreement on the conservation of polar bears. But
irrespective of the progress on this matter, the PBSG furthermore recommended a
full ban on the hunting of polar bears in the high seas from 1973 onwards. As in the
case of seals, pelagic hunting constituted a major threat to polar bear populations.
This recommendation also included the hunt on pack ice, but excluded those hunts
conducted by indigenous (local) populations. Interestingly, the recommendation
refers to the “traditional rights of local people who depend on this [sic] resources.”
4
Although neither ‘traditional rights’ nor ‘local people’ were more closely defined,
the meeting took as a point of departure that a convention on polar bears was to take
the socio-economic and cultural needs of local people into account.
5
Yet another important aspect was considered: the wider ecosystem approach of
polar bear management. The 1972 meeting also adopted a recommendation on the
protection of ringed seals, which had been identified as the main food source of polar
bears. In order to efficiently protect polar bears, also its main food source and its
main hunting grounds had to be protected. The result was a recommendation for the
advancement of studies and programmes on ringed seal management.
6 The 1972
meeting therefore ended with two recommendations which were rather far ahead of
its time since, first, the rights of indigenous peoples had not been established as a
principle in environmental decision-making and, second, that an ecosystem-based
approach was included in the overall management scheme of polar bears, which the
PBSG envisioned. At a second meeting, which took place during the IUCN General
Assembly in August 1972 in Banff, Canada, the PBSG discussed a revised draft of
the polar bear agreement. Although the meeting did not produce any minutes or other
documentation, its results were informally communicated to the five Arctic
governments. After all, neither the PBSG nor the IUCN could formally enter into
the agreement and it was in the hands of the governments to decide on how to
proceed.
Under the leadership of Norway, the draft provided by the IUCN was discussed in
more detail. Two particular issues played a role in this regard: on the one hand, the
recently adopted MMPA in the United States placed Canada in a difficult situation as
regards its own delegations since terrestrial mammals (which polar bears were
legally classified as) fell under the auspices of the territories and provinces and not
under federal control—unless when dealt with under international agreements. All
4 PBSG (1972a), Res#1-1972.
5 PBSG (1972b), p. 14.
6 PBSG (1972c) Res#4-1972.
160
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears
support from the ministries was strong due the personal connections to the PBSG.
After the 1970 meeting, and with an eye on the subsequent meeting in 1972, IUCN
had officially started working on a draft for an international polar bear agreement.
At the 1972 meeting, finally, the PBSG confirmed that all governments of the
polar bear range states had informally voiced their support for a polar bear agreement. The main outcome of the 1972 meeting was therefore the call for the
conclusion of an international agreement on the conservation of polar bears. But
irrespective of the progress on this matter, the PBSG furthermore recommended a
full ban on the hunting of polar bears in the high seas from 1973 onwards. As in the
case of seals, pelagic hunting constituted a major threat to polar bear populations.
This recommendation also included the hunt on pack ice, but excluded those hunts
conducted by indigenous (local) populations. Interestingly, the recommendation
refers to the “traditional rights of local people who depend on this [sic] resources.”
4
Although neither ‘traditional rights’ nor ‘local people’ were more closely defined,
the meeting took as a point of departure that a convention on polar bears was to take
the socio-economic and cultural needs of local people into account.
5
Yet another important aspect was considered: the wider ecosystem approach of
polar bear management. The 1972 meeting also adopted a recommendation on the
protection of ringed seals, which had been identified as the main food source of polar
bears. In order to efficiently protect polar bears, also its main food source and its
main hunting grounds had to be protected. The result was a recommendation for the
advancement of studies and programmes on ringed seal management.
6 The 1972
meeting therefore ended with two recommendations which were rather far ahead of
its time since, first, the rights of indigenous peoples had not been established as a
principle in environmental decision-making and, second, that an ecosystem-based
approach was included in the overall management scheme of polar bears, which the
PBSG envisioned. At a second meeting, which took place during the IUCN General
Assembly in August 1972 in Banff, Canada, the PBSG discussed a revised draft of
the polar bear agreement. Although the meeting did not produce any minutes or other
documentation, its results were informally communicated to the five Arctic
governments. After all, neither the PBSG nor the IUCN could formally enter into
the agreement and it was in the hands of the governments to decide on how to
proceed.
Under the leadership of Norway, the draft provided by the IUCN was discussed in
more detail. Two particular issues played a role in this regard: on the one hand, the
recently adopted MMPA in the United States placed Canada in a difficult situation as
regards its own delegations since terrestrial mammals (which polar bears were
legally classified as) fell under the auspices of the territories and provinces and not
under federal control—unless when dealt with under international agreements. All
4 PBSG (1972a), Res#1-1972.
5 PBSG (1972b), p. 14.
6 PBSG (1972c) Res#4-1972.
160
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears