The Politics of International Environmental Issues - Case Study Example

THE POLITICS OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: KNOWLEDGE, POWER AND INTERESTS By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date The Politics of International Environmental Issues: Knowledge, Power and Interests Executive Summary Populations of Polar bear are spread across five countries in the Arctic (Denmark Canada, the United States, Russia, and Norway). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) estimates polar bear to be between 20000 and 25000 in population, and that they are not evenly distributed across the Arctic. Moreover, there are nineteen comparatively distinct populations of polar bears, and fourteen are in Canada and the remaining are distributed in the remaining four countries. Almost 70% of the total populations of polar bears are found in Canada. In the arctic, polar bears are the top predators, and in consequence, they are vulnerable to high levels of obstinate organic contaminants that accrue as well as increase in all steps up the food chain. The contaminants levels inside the tissue of the polar bear may adversely have an effect on the hormone regulation, immune system, ability to reproduce, as well as overall rates of survival. Furthermore, development of oil and gas poses numerous threats to polar bears ranging from increased interactions between human and bears to oil spills and noise pollution. For this reason, a number of international agreements concerning polar bears have been created. But the essay focuses mainly on the 1973, Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears that was signed by five nations (the US, Norway, Denmark, Canada, as well as Russia). The agreement has been successful in protecting polar bears, since it prohibits the killing, hunting or seizing of polar bears bound by certain exclusions for indigenous survival needs. The essay discusses on the Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears in terms of why it was formed, the extent to which knowledge claims as well as political values shaped policy making in that regime. Introduction Without a doubt, polar bears are unique species to the Arctic given that they have lived together through time with the Arctic’s indigenous population. As mentioned by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994, p.1), conservation of polar bear is imperative because polar bears are late maturing, enduring carnivores having moderately low reproduction rates. Moreover, polar bears are vulnerable to human and natural-caused influences or disturbances, which include habitat change, climatic change, hunting, as well as related pestering or disturbance (Karleskint et al., 2012, p.318). Currently, they are the largest non-aquatic carnivore in the world, and their nomadic way of life, the unforgiving Arctic climatic condition, and renowned strength, has made polar bears the most perceptible emblem of the Arctic. Prior to the the 1973 Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears, unregulated sport and commercial hunting posed a key threat to polar bears. According to Kerttula (2000, p.159), the pressure bought forth by commercial hunters who were utilizing light aircraft as well as other contemporary techniques to hunt polar bears was so immense, to the degree that the five polar bear countries agreed to control such practices as well as protect polar bears in spite of the Cold War tensions. Therefore, the five nations signed the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in Oslo, and this was the first time the five polar bears countries had congregated to solve an issue together Burnett (2011, p.113). As argued by Polar Bears International (2015), the congregation by the five nations to sign the agreement in 1973 is the strongest multilateral agreement on environment issue to ever been signed. Nowadays, the polar bears primary conservation concerns is rooted in loss of habitat as well as abridged ability to access their main prey because of global warming and climate change. Other issues as highlighted in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994) study includes high pollution, insufficient protection of the habitat, disease, as well as overharvest possibility in declining or smaller sub-populations in the artic. The Regime formation There was an increasing international concern on the polar bear populations’ welfare during the 1950s as well as 1960s, and the main concern was increasing number of bears killed, through commercial purposes and hunting that resulted in populations’ endangerment. Moreover, bears’ harvests in Canada was 700 annually, 300 to 400 bears in Alaska for a number of years; while in Norway (Spitsbergen area, high seas expeditions as well as trappers were taking over 300 bears annually; and Greenland harvest by hunters was constantly between100 and 200 bears annually. Besides that, harvests in Russia between 1940s as well as early 1950s were vastly reduced to almost 100 bears (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994, p.6). A collective concern with regard to polar bears well-being was the motivation behind the circumpolar Arctic nations meeting in 1965 in Alaska to talk about the status of polar bears as well as the need for mechanisms of conservation. It is during this meeting, the Polar Bear Specialist Group that was created, and it included environmentalists from the five polar nations all under the umbrella of the IUCN (IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group et al., 1998, p.23). Partly, this group was in charge of the creation as well as the approval of the Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears. Basically, the Agreement was initially discussed by five polar bear nations in 1973 and was fully implemented in1976 for a period of five years. Five years later, in 1981, the agreement was reapproved unanimously for an unlimited period. Politically, the Agreement was crucial for the reason that it united countries interested in the Arctic environment in backing polar bears’ conservation program that is scientifically as well as biologically comprehensive (Struzik, 2015, p.93). As pointed out by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994, p.6), the Agreement is a tool of conservation; it permits appropriately regulated utilisations of polar bears as well as permits for scientific capture, hunting, in addition to life defence. The Agreement allow for polar bears hunting through utilisation of aircraft or big motor-powered vessels. According to the Agreement, that signatory states are allowed to protect the polar bears ecosystems, and stresses on the need for habitat components protection like areas of feeding and denning as well a migration routes. The Agreement resolution required the governments to create an international system for hides’ identifications so as to successfully control illegal polar bears’ hide trafficking (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994, p.7). Besides that, the Agreement need all signatory nations to carry out research as well as coordinate research and management activities for populations overlapping jurisdictional confines. The Value of the Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears Since the beginning of 21st century, the 1973 Agreement that appeared stable for decades in conservation of polar bears has been diluted profoundly by debates concerning the climate change impacts as well as the best way of managing bear populations regardless of such impacts. As pointed out by Clark et al. (2007, p.347), such controversies resolution, if certainly are possible, will need wide-ranging, sensitive cross-cultural, and interdisciplinary analysis of the multifaceted policy process, which is currently exceedingly politicised. Luckily, there are approaches for these analyses, which have demonstrated to be successful in managing conservation-related conflicts that involve different species. The five polar bear nations can use such techniques so as to gain understanding into the developing challenges of polar bear conservation in their countries (Clark & Slocombe, 2005, p.34). To some extent, the Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears has been valuable in protecting and increasing the population of polar bears, but polar bear conservation at national level should not just be based on the principles as well as goals of the 1973 Agreement. Rather as suggested by Berkes et al. (2005, p.226), the countries should implement measures at territorial and provincial level, together with indigenous co-management groups, by means of a cross-scale, coordinated, organisational network. The measures should be in accordance with the 1973 Agreement that offers protection to the habitat of the polar bears. Nations like the United States have established strong conservation goals statement, which is in line with the 1973 agreement, and that purposely serves the interest of the polar bear populations and the indigenous people within the arctic coast in the Alaska (Clark et al., 2007, p.348). Basically, the Agreement offers for signatory nations to allow for polar bears’ harvest through aboriginal as well as local populations practicing their traditional rights. Such conservation themes as well as wildlife consumptive use are as well manifested in Canadian Arctic’s indigenous land-claim settlements like the 1993 Nunavut Final Agreement as well as 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement (Campbell et al., 2011, p.32). Since the 1973 agreement, conservation of polar bears with regimes provision co-managing the harvest of polar bears have turned out to be an recognised and extensively shared policy goal. Still, latest happenings are increasing concerns regarding the polar bear conservations as well as whether the goals stipulated in the 1973 Agreement can be realised. Conflicting viewpoints on contentious issues like the impacts of hunting as well as climate change have surfaced lately and have grown to be the public conflicts bases. According to Clark et al. (2007, p.378), this quarrelsome state may considerably diminish the efficiency of polar bears conservation efforts; thus, rendering the 1973 Agreement invaluable (Clark et al., 2007, p.348). Furthermore, the co-management regimes have failed to resolve differing demands founded on competing viewpoints, and so conservation initiatives rooted in the extensive scientific research as required by the 1973 Agreement has collapsed. Currently, the Arctic is facing a number of ecological and social changes, and scholars have questioned the capability of present polar bear management systems to acclimatise to different ecological and social changes. For instance, existence of indigenous people in the artic has deeply changed the relationships amongst institutions managing polar bears, and changing weather patterns has made the present research methods on polar bears much more expensive (Berkes et al., 2005; Derocher et al., 2004). The Regime Success Currently, it is 41 years since the polar bear conservation milestone, the signed agreement by five countries so as to protect them all through its Arctic range from various threats ranging from commercial harvesting to sport hunting. This visionary Agreement according to WWF (2013) enshrined polar bears protection together with its prey as well as every needed habitat. Since the agreement, IUCN argued that the number of polar bears have increased to approximately 20000 to 25000 bears. Basically, the latest alterations in the polar bear conservation as well as management of all through the Arctic offer an evidence of close collaboration between legislators as well as scientists from the five nations with polar bear populations. Without a doubt, the 1973 agreement steered by IUCN created an effective platform for nation’s cooperation through the creation of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, wherein coordination as well as discussions occurred. Majority of the group members had close connection with politicians as well as legislators in their own nations, and this allowed for realistic as well as effective approaches. Without a doubt, the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears is the most successful initiatives for species conservation across the globe, and this can be evidenced by the increased number of the polar bear subpopulations as well as the continuing joint action by member states (Peacock et al., 2011, p.381). Until now, the situation of polar bears have significantly changed; and polar bears harvest is no more the main threat while hunting has completely stopped in Norway and tremendously declined in the United States as well as Russia. Canada and Greenland have espoused sustainable systems for harvest management. However, rooted in the recapture/mark studies conducted between 2001 and 2006, the polar bear population in the Southern Beaufort Sea was found to be 1500 bears, and is presently believed to be reducing. Even though correct estimates of polar bear population are not available, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) posit that the polar bear population is not increasing in all artic (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013). Prior to the 1973 agreement, hunting and harvesting was considered the main reason behind the decline of polar bears, and enactment of co-management regimes arguably saw the increase of polar bear population according to IUCN. The Agreement allows the indigenous to harvest polar bears for purposes of subsistence and traditional practices, but this according to Peacock et al. (2011, p.381) should have also be banned to save the declining population of this species. Coupled with contemporary problems such as climate change the management action for polar bears need restructuring, and so climate change should not be politicized, rather countries should come together like in 1973 and come up with measures that will see polar bears being protected. Therefore, the 1973 agreement has partially been successful, but has failed to help mitigate the present surfacing issues, particularly the climate change. Conclusion In conclusion, rooted in the 1973 Agreement on Polar Bears amongst the five countries with polar bear populations, it is evident that this arrangement has promoted collaboration in sustainable polar bears management. As mentioned in the essay, population that have lived together with polar bears for centuries and whose livelihoods are indistinguishably related to them. Besides that, polar bears are crucial part of the artic ecosystem, but they facing increased pressure from commercial hunters, high sea explores, and currently climate change. The past threats to polar bears like oil and gas development and pollution have been eliminated, but climate change in addition to the associated increase in human activities with the Arctic region pose more challenges. Basically, as stated in the essay, the 1973 agreement came as an action plan signed by the five nations with polar bear population for managing, researching, as well as conserving polar bears all through their territory. Bearing in mind, the international attention that is directed towards polar bears, institutions for managing these species may be compelled to act in response to the unexpected environmental conditions changes, which adversely affect polar bears. Presently, there are scores of threats facing polar bears together with their habitat, and this include development of oil and gas, climate change tourism, and over-harvesting. Undoubtedly, the Arctic is exceedingly exposed to climate change, and given that polar bears completely rely on sea ice as their main environment, as argued in the essay, climate change is posing continuous adverse effects on the polar bears. References Berkes, F. et al., 2005. Cross-scale Institutions and Building Resilience in the Canadian North. In Berkes, F. et al. Breaking ice: Renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian North. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press. pp.225–48. Burnett, J.A., 2011. A Passion for Wildlife: The History of the Canadian Wildlife Service. Vancouver: UBC Press. Campbell, A., Fenge, T. & Hanson, U., 2011. Implementing the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.25–51. Clark, D.A., Lee, D.S., Freeman, M.M.R. & Clark, S.G., 2007. Polar Bear Conservation in Canada: Defining the Policy Problems. ARCTIC, vol. 61, no. 4, pp.347– 360. Clark, D. & Slocombe, S., 2005. Re-Negotiating Science in Protected Areas: Grizzly Bear Conservation in the Southwest Yukon. In Humphrys, G. & Williams, M. Presenting and Representing Environments. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. pp.33-53. Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J. & Stirling, I., 2004. Polar Bears in a Warming Climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology: Oxford Journals, vol. 44, no. 2, pp.163-76. IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Derocher, A.E., International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources & Species Survival Commission, 1998. Polar Bears. In roceedings of the Twelfth Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. Oslo, Norway, 1998. IUCN. Karleskint, G., Turner, R. & Small, J., 2012. Introduction to Marine Biology. New York: Cengage Learning. Kerttula, A.M., 2000. Antler on the Sea: The Yup'ik and Chukchi of the Russian Far East. New York: Cornell University Press. Peacock, E., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W. & Stirling, I., 2011. Conservation and management of Canada’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in a changing Arctic. Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 89, pp.371–85. Polar Bears International, 2015. Status and Threats. [Online] Available at: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/status-and-threats [Accessed 30 April 2015]. Struzik, E., 2015. Future Arctic: Field Notes from a World on the Edge. Washington, D.C: Island Press. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. Conservation Plan For The Polar Bear In Alaska. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Polar Bear: Conservation Issues. [Online] Available at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm [Accessed 30 April 2015]. WWF, 2013. Beyond 40 years of successful polar bear conservation. [Online] Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/?209004/Beyond-40-years-of-successful-polar-bear-conservation [Accessed 30 April 2915]. Read More