in place export bans for specific polar bear populations in order to provide for
sustainable population levels. These contexts, paired with the fact that the polar
bear populations by far exceed 5000 individuals and therefore cannot be considered
‘very small’—a precondition for Appendix I-listing—consequently did not correspond to the criteria for inclusion of species on Appendix I. When the proposal went
for a vote, it was defeated by 48 parties in favour, 62 against and 11 abstentions.
At the following CoP16 in 2013, the United States took a second attempt to uplist
the polar bear. Essentially using the same criteria, it now argued that a listing on
Appendix I would reduce the overall pressure on polar bears. The discussions that
ensued mirrored those from the previous CoP. The European Union proposed
several amendments to the US proposal, aiming to find a consensus amongst the
parties. These proposed amendments included, amongst others, the limitation of
trade to polar bear range states only, different means to trace polar bears, and to take
action against climate change in general. These proposed amendments were rejected
by the CoP. When the original proposal by the US went to a vote, it was also rejected
38 in favour, 42 against and 46 abstentions.
For the time being this has been the last attempt by a CITES party to uplist the
polar bear to Appendix I. With the ongoing decrease in Arctic sea ice, however, it
may not have been the last. Whether the ongoing trade in polar bear products is
indeed a significant factor for the protection of the species remains questionable.
7.8
Summary and Conclusion
Polar bears have found international attention as a powerful symbol of climate
change, both in the Arctic and elsewhere. The starving polar bear has become a
monument that transports a message of vulnerability and supports the discourse on
the dying-out species. As we have discussed in Chap. 3, the conservation status of
polar bears is far from clear. Moreover, what this discourse furthermore neglects is
the fact that international and regional cooperative regimes exist that aim to protect,
manage and utilise the polar bear.
The ACPB is indeed an important agreement both from a conservation perspective as well as from a perspective of geopolitics. It shows how in the Arctic the Arctic
states have already managed during the Cold War to get together and work towards a
common goal. In this case, the conservation of polar bears. But what the agreement
also shows is that legal instruments that are drafted and ultimately implement by the
nation states do not necessarily have to follow a top-down approach, but can also
take into account the interests of the local population. Still, as the discussions around
the uplisting of the polar bear from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I have shown,
also this cooperation is not immune from top-down challenges. The example shows
that although the US has been a party to the polar bear agreement and although local
voices were heard at the meeting, this does not automatically translate into a more
inclusive form of decision-making.
In order to alleviate problems related to polar bear management, the three
agreements to manage polar bears in the North American Arctic are inherently
7.8 Summary and Conclusion
171
sustainable population levels. These contexts, paired with the fact that the polar
bear populations by far exceed 5000 individuals and therefore cannot be considered
‘very small’—a precondition for Appendix I-listing—consequently did not correspond to the criteria for inclusion of species on Appendix I. When the proposal went
for a vote, it was defeated by 48 parties in favour, 62 against and 11 abstentions.
At the following CoP16 in 2013, the United States took a second attempt to uplist
the polar bear. Essentially using the same criteria, it now argued that a listing on
Appendix I would reduce the overall pressure on polar bears. The discussions that
ensued mirrored those from the previous CoP. The European Union proposed
several amendments to the US proposal, aiming to find a consensus amongst the
parties. These proposed amendments included, amongst others, the limitation of
trade to polar bear range states only, different means to trace polar bears, and to take
action against climate change in general. These proposed amendments were rejected
by the CoP. When the original proposal by the US went to a vote, it was also rejected
38 in favour, 42 against and 46 abstentions.
For the time being this has been the last attempt by a CITES party to uplist the
polar bear to Appendix I. With the ongoing decrease in Arctic sea ice, however, it
may not have been the last. Whether the ongoing trade in polar bear products is
indeed a significant factor for the protection of the species remains questionable.
7.8
Summary and Conclusion
Polar bears have found international attention as a powerful symbol of climate
change, both in the Arctic and elsewhere. The starving polar bear has become a
monument that transports a message of vulnerability and supports the discourse on
the dying-out species. As we have discussed in Chap. 3, the conservation status of
polar bears is far from clear. Moreover, what this discourse furthermore neglects is
the fact that international and regional cooperative regimes exist that aim to protect,
manage and utilise the polar bear.
The ACPB is indeed an important agreement both from a conservation perspective as well as from a perspective of geopolitics. It shows how in the Arctic the Arctic
states have already managed during the Cold War to get together and work towards a
common goal. In this case, the conservation of polar bears. But what the agreement
also shows is that legal instruments that are drafted and ultimately implement by the
nation states do not necessarily have to follow a top-down approach, but can also
take into account the interests of the local population. Still, as the discussions around
the uplisting of the polar bear from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I have shown,
also this cooperation is not immune from top-down challenges. The example shows
that although the US has been a party to the polar bear agreement and although local
voices were heard at the meeting, this does not automatically translate into a more
inclusive form of decision-making.
In order to alleviate problems related to polar bear management, the three
agreements to manage polar bears in the North American Arctic are inherently
7.8 Summary and Conclusion
171