inclusive since they are considered user-to-user agreements that take into account the
views and practices of polar bear hunting communities. The fact that two are in any
way legally non-binding may be seen as a weakness of these agreements, but as the
other example in the Arctic of a non-binding form of cooperation, the Arctic
Council, shows, legal non-bindingness may raise the legitimacy amongst Arctic
peoples especially when the decisions that are made take into account their interests.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find recent studies (or even studies in the first place)
that trace the efficacy and effectiveness of the different polar bear agreements.
Therefore I am unable to comment on whether polar bear conservation has benefited
from them. But irrespective of this, we can conclude that any cooperative agreement
is better than no agreement at all.
Questions and Research Tasks
• How effective have the polar bear agreements been? Have polar bear
populations benefitted from their conclusion?
• Does the way polar bear management has been approached serve as a ‘blueprint’ for other species elsewhere in the world?
• If it turns out that all polar bear populations are after all declining, should the
polar bear agreement and the different management agreements be voided or
amended to a degree that makes polar bear utilisation no longer possible?
References
Brower CD, Carpenter A, Branigan ML, Calvert W, Evans T, Fischbach AS, Nagy JA, Schliebe S,
Stirling I (2002) The polar bear management agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea: an
evaluation of the first ten years of a unique conservation agreement. Arctic 55(4):362–372
Greenemaier L (2008, May 14) U.S. Protects Polar Bears Under Endangered Species Act. Scientific
American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polar-bears-threatened/.
Accessed
16 May 2019
Keskitalo ECH (2004) Negotiating the Arctic. The construction of an international region.
Routledge, New York
Meltofte H (ed) (2013) Arctic biodiversity assessment. Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity.
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri
PBSG (1972a) Res#1-1972: Protection of polar bears on the high seas. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/
meetings/resolutions/03.html#1-1972. Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSG (1972b) Proceedings of the Third Working Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group,
Supplementary Paper No 35. http://pbsg.npolar.no/export/sites/pbsg/en/docs/PBSG03proc.pdf.
Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSG (1972c) Res#4-1972: Seal protection and research. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/
resolutions/03.html#1-1972. Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSG (2009) 1st Scientific Meeting on the Polar Bear, Fairbanks, Alaska 1965, Statement of
Accord Approved by the Delegates. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/00Fairbanks.html. Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSB (Undated) Chukchi Sea (CS). http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/populations/chukchi-sea.html.
Accessed 16 May 2019
172
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears
views and practices of polar bear hunting communities. The fact that two are in any
way legally non-binding may be seen as a weakness of these agreements, but as the
other example in the Arctic of a non-binding form of cooperation, the Arctic
Council, shows, legal non-bindingness may raise the legitimacy amongst Arctic
peoples especially when the decisions that are made take into account their interests.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find recent studies (or even studies in the first place)
that trace the efficacy and effectiveness of the different polar bear agreements.
Therefore I am unable to comment on whether polar bear conservation has benefited
from them. But irrespective of this, we can conclude that any cooperative agreement
is better than no agreement at all.
Questions and Research Tasks
• How effective have the polar bear agreements been? Have polar bear
populations benefitted from their conclusion?
• Does the way polar bear management has been approached serve as a ‘blueprint’ for other species elsewhere in the world?
• If it turns out that all polar bear populations are after all declining, should the
polar bear agreement and the different management agreements be voided or
amended to a degree that makes polar bear utilisation no longer possible?
References
Brower CD, Carpenter A, Branigan ML, Calvert W, Evans T, Fischbach AS, Nagy JA, Schliebe S,
Stirling I (2002) The polar bear management agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea: an
evaluation of the first ten years of a unique conservation agreement. Arctic 55(4):362–372
Greenemaier L (2008, May 14) U.S. Protects Polar Bears Under Endangered Species Act. Scientific
American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polar-bears-threatened/.
Accessed
16 May 2019
Keskitalo ECH (2004) Negotiating the Arctic. The construction of an international region.
Routledge, New York
Meltofte H (ed) (2013) Arctic biodiversity assessment. Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity.
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri
PBSG (1972a) Res#1-1972: Protection of polar bears on the high seas. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/
meetings/resolutions/03.html#1-1972. Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSG (1972b) Proceedings of the Third Working Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group,
Supplementary Paper No 35. http://pbsg.npolar.no/export/sites/pbsg/en/docs/PBSG03proc.pdf.
Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSG (1972c) Res#4-1972: Seal protection and research. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/
resolutions/03.html#1-1972. Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSG (2009) 1st Scientific Meeting on the Polar Bear, Fairbanks, Alaska 1965, Statement of
Accord Approved by the Delegates. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/00Fairbanks.html. Accessed 8 May 2019
PBSB (Undated) Chukchi Sea (CS). http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/populations/chukchi-sea.html.
Accessed 16 May 2019
172
7 The International Legal Framework for Polar Bears