Although the parties wished to have a temporary term for the agreement removed,
as we discussed above, initially it was to be in force only for five years. That meant,
by 1981 the parties had to decide whether or not the agreement was to continue. In
January 1982, the parties therefore met in Oslo to discuss its future. Norway,
inspired by article II of the agreement, once again sought to expand the purview of
the agreement to include other Arctic species. It therefore aimed to make the Polar
Bear Agreement the starting point for wider Arctic environmental cooperation. Both
the United States and Canada initially agreed that this might be an option, but in the
end show little interest to expand the agreement’s scope. Based on the tense
geopolitical environment that the Arctic represented, the Soviet Union did not
want a meddling in its Arctic affairs and rejected this effort altogether. Consequently, no amendments or expansions were undertaken at that meeting. While
that was the case, the parties agreed for the agreement to be in force indefinitely.
Wider Arctic environmental cooperation was not taken up by the parties. The
Cold War prevented effective cooperation in this regard. But the Polar Bear Agreement shows that despite wider geopolitical tensions, Arctic environmental cooperation is possible. The agreement was furthermore adopted in a precautionary manner,
meaning that polar bear populations were indeed in decline, but, contrary to other
species, not decimated upon the agreement’s adoption. Throughout the 1980s the
static borders between East and West slowly started to erode. For the Arctic, the
1987 speech by Soviet Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev in Murmansk marked
the beginning of a new era of cooperation. He envisioned the North Pole to be a ‘Pole
of Peace’ and the proposals he put forth in his speech included scientific exchange
and environmental exchange in the Arctic. As a result, Finland initiated the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) in 1992, which would transform into the
still-existing Arctic Council in 1996. Apart from the five polar bear range states, also
Finland, Sweden and Iceland as well as six Arctic indigenous organisations are
included in the working procedure of the Council.
13 Up until the time of writing in
the summer 2019, three legally binding agreements have been concluded under the
umbrella of the Arctic Council: on search and rescue (2011); on oil pollution
preparedness and response (2013); and on scientific cooperation (2017).
7.4
Polar Bear Management Agreement in the Southern
Beaufort Sea
With the Polar Bear Agreement in place, the protection of polar bears was not a
finalised endeavour. This soon became evident in the Southern Beaufort Sea, the
marine area between Northern Alaska and the Northwest Territories in Canada. Here
it was assumed that the abundant polar bear populations belonged to different
sub-populations and thus could be managed independently in the US and in
Canada. Throughout the 1980s it became clear, however, that the population was
13 Keskitalo (2004).
164
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears
as we discussed above, initially it was to be in force only for five years. That meant,
by 1981 the parties had to decide whether or not the agreement was to continue. In
January 1982, the parties therefore met in Oslo to discuss its future. Norway,
inspired by article II of the agreement, once again sought to expand the purview of
the agreement to include other Arctic species. It therefore aimed to make the Polar
Bear Agreement the starting point for wider Arctic environmental cooperation. Both
the United States and Canada initially agreed that this might be an option, but in the
end show little interest to expand the agreement’s scope. Based on the tense
geopolitical environment that the Arctic represented, the Soviet Union did not
want a meddling in its Arctic affairs and rejected this effort altogether. Consequently, no amendments or expansions were undertaken at that meeting. While
that was the case, the parties agreed for the agreement to be in force indefinitely.
Wider Arctic environmental cooperation was not taken up by the parties. The
Cold War prevented effective cooperation in this regard. But the Polar Bear Agreement shows that despite wider geopolitical tensions, Arctic environmental cooperation is possible. The agreement was furthermore adopted in a precautionary manner,
meaning that polar bear populations were indeed in decline, but, contrary to other
species, not decimated upon the agreement’s adoption. Throughout the 1980s the
static borders between East and West slowly started to erode. For the Arctic, the
1987 speech by Soviet Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev in Murmansk marked
the beginning of a new era of cooperation. He envisioned the North Pole to be a ‘Pole
of Peace’ and the proposals he put forth in his speech included scientific exchange
and environmental exchange in the Arctic. As a result, Finland initiated the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) in 1992, which would transform into the
still-existing Arctic Council in 1996. Apart from the five polar bear range states, also
Finland, Sweden and Iceland as well as six Arctic indigenous organisations are
included in the working procedure of the Council.
13 Up until the time of writing in
the summer 2019, three legally binding agreements have been concluded under the
umbrella of the Arctic Council: on search and rescue (2011); on oil pollution
preparedness and response (2013); and on scientific cooperation (2017).
7.4
Polar Bear Management Agreement in the Southern
Beaufort Sea
With the Polar Bear Agreement in place, the protection of polar bears was not a
finalised endeavour. This soon became evident in the Southern Beaufort Sea, the
marine area between Northern Alaska and the Northwest Territories in Canada. Here
it was assumed that the abundant polar bear populations belonged to different
sub-populations and thus could be managed independently in the US and in
Canada. Throughout the 1980s it became clear, however, that the population was
13 Keskitalo (2004).
164
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears