Given that polar bears were, at the time of CITES’ conclusion, considered to be
under threat from overexploitation, it is no surprise that the negotiation of CITES
also considered polar bears from the very beginning. When CITES entered into force
on 1 July 1975, polar bears were one of the first species to be listed on CITES
Appendix II. This meant that apart from the ACPB, a second regime, this time
geographically much more far-reaching than the Polar Bear Agreement, was in place
that would regulate the international trade in polar bear products. Since the ACPB is
not open to other parties than the five polar bear range states, the CITES listing made
the trade conducted by non-ACPB members significantly more difficult. How large
the trade by non-range states is, is difficult to assess. John E. Scanlon, former
Secretary General of CITES, noted in 2013 that “[a]round 80% of all such exports
[of polar bear products] originate from one range State.”
24
Be that as it may, official CITES documentation does not make reference to the
polar bear up until the 15th Conference of the Parties (CoP) in 2010. Here, the
United States tabled a proposal to uplist the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix
I. The aim was to ban international trade in polar bear products altogether. This
would have meant that the cross-border trade which had been established between
Canada and the United States as well as the Russian Federation and the United States
would have come to an end. The proposal was based on the domestic US
Endangered Species Act under which in May 2008 the polar bear had been listed
as ‘threatened’. This listing meant that it was listed as being closer to reach the status
of ‘endangered’ and thus under threat of extinction. Once listed, any other lethal take
of polar bears apart from aboriginal subsistence hunts would be illegal. This also
included cross-border movement of polar bear products.
The listing as ‘threatened’ did not make reference to international trade as one of
the threats to the species. Instead, climate change and associated habitat loss was
named as the primary cause for this listing. Interestingly, Interior Secretary Dirk
Kempthorne, the Minister responsible for making such decision, noted that the
Endangered Species Act would “not be used as a tool for trying to regulate the
greenhouse gas emissions blamed for creating climate change.”
25 Also when the US
presented the proposal at the CoP in 2010, habitat loss and not international trade
was named as the primary cause for polar bear population decline. However, the US
was concerned that if polar bears continued to be listed on Appendix II, international
trade as well as the sports and trophy hunts, particularly in the Russian Federation,
may have a detrimental effect on the polar bear population.
Although some countries and NGOs were in support of the proposal, not surprisingly, Canada, Greenland and Norway, supported by Iceland and the European
Union, opposed the proposal, stating that the trade in polar bear products was not
market-driven, but based on adaptive co-management systems fulfilling subsistence
needs. Reference was, of course, indirectly made to the different polar bear
agreements and MoUs in place. Additionally, both Greenland and Canada had put
24 Scanlon (2013).
25 Greenemaier (2008).
170
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears
under threat from overexploitation, it is no surprise that the negotiation of CITES
also considered polar bears from the very beginning. When CITES entered into force
on 1 July 1975, polar bears were one of the first species to be listed on CITES
Appendix II. This meant that apart from the ACPB, a second regime, this time
geographically much more far-reaching than the Polar Bear Agreement, was in place
that would regulate the international trade in polar bear products. Since the ACPB is
not open to other parties than the five polar bear range states, the CITES listing made
the trade conducted by non-ACPB members significantly more difficult. How large
the trade by non-range states is, is difficult to assess. John E. Scanlon, former
Secretary General of CITES, noted in 2013 that “[a]round 80% of all such exports
[of polar bear products] originate from one range State.”
24
Be that as it may, official CITES documentation does not make reference to the
polar bear up until the 15th Conference of the Parties (CoP) in 2010. Here, the
United States tabled a proposal to uplist the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix
I. The aim was to ban international trade in polar bear products altogether. This
would have meant that the cross-border trade which had been established between
Canada and the United States as well as the Russian Federation and the United States
would have come to an end. The proposal was based on the domestic US
Endangered Species Act under which in May 2008 the polar bear had been listed
as ‘threatened’. This listing meant that it was listed as being closer to reach the status
of ‘endangered’ and thus under threat of extinction. Once listed, any other lethal take
of polar bears apart from aboriginal subsistence hunts would be illegal. This also
included cross-border movement of polar bear products.
The listing as ‘threatened’ did not make reference to international trade as one of
the threats to the species. Instead, climate change and associated habitat loss was
named as the primary cause for this listing. Interestingly, Interior Secretary Dirk
Kempthorne, the Minister responsible for making such decision, noted that the
Endangered Species Act would “not be used as a tool for trying to regulate the
greenhouse gas emissions blamed for creating climate change.”
25 Also when the US
presented the proposal at the CoP in 2010, habitat loss and not international trade
was named as the primary cause for polar bear population decline. However, the US
was concerned that if polar bears continued to be listed on Appendix II, international
trade as well as the sports and trophy hunts, particularly in the Russian Federation,
may have a detrimental effect on the polar bear population.
Although some countries and NGOs were in support of the proposal, not surprisingly, Canada, Greenland and Norway, supported by Iceland and the European
Union, opposed the proposal, stating that the trade in polar bear products was not
market-driven, but based on adaptive co-management systems fulfilling subsistence
needs. Reference was, of course, indirectly made to the different polar bear
agreements and MoUs in place. Additionally, both Greenland and Canada had put
24 Scanlon (2013).
25 Greenemaier (2008).
170
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears