to authorise commercial trade in polar bears, but equally not to “limit the ability of
native people [. . .] to create, sell, and use traditional articles associated with native
harvest of polar bears.”
22
The primacy of native involvement is furthermore underlined in the US-Russia
Polar Bear Commission, which is established under the Agreement. The fourmember commission consists of two members of each country, one of which is to
be an Alaskan and Chukotkan native. A rather long catalogue of tasks is allocated to
the Joint Commission. Broadly summarised, the Joint Commission facilitates the
communication and cooperation between governmental bodies and native peoples
on both sides of the border concerning the conservation and use of polar bears. The
Commission furthermore sets the annual sustainable harvest level and associated
limits for the annual take. This occurs not only based on scientific data, but takes
equally into account the traditional knowledge of native peoples. Although the
subsistence use of polar bears is explicitly fostered in the agreement, the Commission has the mandate to limit subsistence takes of polar bears in case of conservation
concerns.
Relatively little information is available on both the history and the functioning of
both the agreement and the Joint Commission. However, apart from the ACPB, the
Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Agreement is the only legally-binding bilateral polar
bear agreement. The overall population status of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear
population is unknown. While it is likely that illegal takes by the local population
have dropped since the 1990s, it can be assumed that the combination of legal and
illegal takes, paired with other threats may put this subpopulation under pressure.
The increased presence of polar bears on land may point to increasing impacts of
climate change. However, it also appears that polar bears have, in spite of decreasing
sea ice, not changed their habitat preferences, which might indicate that the AlaskaChuktokan polar bear population might be increasing,
23 possibly also as a result
from this agreement.
7.7
Uplisting the Polar Bear Under CITES
When the Polar Bear Agreement was concluded in 1973, it was not the only
international agreement that year which would consider the conservation status of
polar bears. In 1973, CITES was adopted, which we already got to know in Chap. 4.
To recapitulate, CITES works to protect species from unsustainable trade and has
therefore put in place three Appendices, based on which trade is regulated. Species
listed on Appendix I cannot be traded in, unless under very exceptional
circumstances. Species listed under Appendix II can be used for limited international
trade; Species listed under Appendix III may be subject to national trade measures
and further international cooperation is needed to avoid unsustainable trade.
22 Ibid., Art VII.1.
23 PBSB (undated).
7.7 Uplisting the Polar Bear Under CITES
169
native people [. . .] to create, sell, and use traditional articles associated with native
harvest of polar bears.”
22
The primacy of native involvement is furthermore underlined in the US-Russia
Polar Bear Commission, which is established under the Agreement. The fourmember commission consists of two members of each country, one of which is to
be an Alaskan and Chukotkan native. A rather long catalogue of tasks is allocated to
the Joint Commission. Broadly summarised, the Joint Commission facilitates the
communication and cooperation between governmental bodies and native peoples
on both sides of the border concerning the conservation and use of polar bears. The
Commission furthermore sets the annual sustainable harvest level and associated
limits for the annual take. This occurs not only based on scientific data, but takes
equally into account the traditional knowledge of native peoples. Although the
subsistence use of polar bears is explicitly fostered in the agreement, the Commission has the mandate to limit subsistence takes of polar bears in case of conservation
concerns.
Relatively little information is available on both the history and the functioning of
both the agreement and the Joint Commission. However, apart from the ACPB, the
Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Agreement is the only legally-binding bilateral polar
bear agreement. The overall population status of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear
population is unknown. While it is likely that illegal takes by the local population
have dropped since the 1990s, it can be assumed that the combination of legal and
illegal takes, paired with other threats may put this subpopulation under pressure.
The increased presence of polar bears on land may point to increasing impacts of
climate change. However, it also appears that polar bears have, in spite of decreasing
sea ice, not changed their habitat preferences, which might indicate that the AlaskaChuktokan polar bear population might be increasing,
23 possibly also as a result
from this agreement.
7.7
Uplisting the Polar Bear Under CITES
When the Polar Bear Agreement was concluded in 1973, it was not the only
international agreement that year which would consider the conservation status of
polar bears. In 1973, CITES was adopted, which we already got to know in Chap. 4.
To recapitulate, CITES works to protect species from unsustainable trade and has
therefore put in place three Appendices, based on which trade is regulated. Species
listed on Appendix I cannot be traded in, unless under very exceptional
circumstances. Species listed under Appendix II can be used for limited international
trade; Species listed under Appendix III may be subject to national trade measures
and further international cooperation is needed to avoid unsustainable trade.
22 Ibid., Art VII.1.
23 PBSB (undated).
7.7 Uplisting the Polar Bear Under CITES
169