No Job Name


Guest editorial—the ballyhoo over polar bearspor_137 323..326

doi:10.1111/j.1751-8369.2009.00137.x

Critics have said that there’s little or no justification for
the focus that polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have received
as a threatened species. Recent studies project dramatic
reductions in polar bear numbers in just a few decades, in
concert with the equally dramatic reduction in critical
sea-ice habitat, yet there are undoubtedly ecologically
more “important” species in tropical and temperate lati-
tudes that are facing equal or more urgent problems at
present.

However, there is hardly any other species that has
the potential to capture people’s attention more effec-
tively than the “king of the Arctic”. This is a large part
of the picture when trying to get a grip on the ruckus
that has been going on in some Arctic countries after
the turn of the millennium, and especially since 2005.
Here, I draw upon insights gained in my capacity as
senior adviser to the Norwegian Ministry of the Envi-
ronment in Arctic matters, and as a member of the
Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), to reflect on recent
important events in the international conservation of
polar bears.

Polar bears, as reviewed by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Com-
mission (SSC) PBSG, are divided into 19 populations
inhabiting various parts of the circumpolar Arctic (Aars
et al. 2006; see also PBSG 2009). Although there are huge
knowledge gaps, especially in Russia, eastern Greenland
and in the Arctic Basin, the world population of polar
bears is estimated to be about 20 000–25 000.

Polar bear populations in this context are not really
true populations in the strict biological sense. Polar bears
seem to be genetically similar around the Arctic, which
means that the animals are mating across the boundaries
of the so-called populations at a rate high enough to
prevent genetic distinctions from arising between popu-
lations. However, decades of data on movement and
migration patterns—thanks in very large part to satellite
telemetry technology—have given some support to the
current delineation of populations, and as these units
have been helpful as management units, the population
delineations have been kept. Except in Norway and in
Russia, where they are totally protected, polar bears are
harvested throughout the species’ range. The establish-

ment of management units, or “populations”, has proven
to be helpful when developing and implementing man-
agement regimes.

Although there are polar bears in the Arctic Basin, the
basin is not regarded as a separate management unit or
population. The densities of polar bears there are
expected to be low, and as jurisdictional and cost issues
are problematic, there is, and will be, little or no knowl-
edge collected about bears in this part of the species’
range.

One of the really troublesome facts that causes a lot of
bad publicity for polar bear scientists and management
authorities around the Arctic is that the bear’s status as a
threatened species doesn’t jibe with the fact that most
polar bear populations have appeared to be in good shape
for a while. And the problems that have been observed in
some populations have essentially been caused by over-
harvesting, not climate change, although it’s the latter
that has been putting polar bears on the front pages of
newspapers and magazines lately.

Over-harvesting has been the obvious culprit for almost
a century (see “From the institute’s Photo Library”, at the
end of this issue). Concern about harvest levels led to
initial talks between the Arctic nations in 1965, which
culminated in the signing of the Agreement on the conser-
vation of polar bears in 1973. The signatories were Canada,
Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA. All five polar
bear nations were on board.

The climate threat that is now making headlines isn’t
really like any other threat we have dealt with (although
polar bears may have experienced marked climate change
many thousands of years ago; see Ingólfsson & Wiig 2009
[this issue]). In the past, relatively high thresholds for
agreeing on and implementing management actions to
mitigate the impacts of threat factors have always allowed
the effects of threats to manifest in the populations in
question before management has acted upon it. However,
the projected scale and speed of climate warming, and
the incredibly dramatic consequences that are predicted,
force us to act largely before we have seen clear and
undisputable effects of climate change manifest in most
populations.

Global awareness about climate change exploded at the
turn of the new century, based on a long-term scientific
modelling and documentation effort, as presented in the
third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (Houghton et al. 2001). As the impact
global warming would have on the frozen expanses of the
North, and consequently on polar bear habitat, began to

Correspondence
Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute, Polar Environmental Centre,

NO-9296 Tromsø, Norway. E-mail: vongraven@npolar.no

Polar Research 28 2009 323–326 © 2009 the author, journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 323

mailto:vongraven@npolar.no


be understood, the fate of polar bears was suddenly
brought front and centre.

This rapidly emerging awareness prompted the IUCN
to commission an assessment of the projected status of
polar bears from their dedicated specialist group, the
PBSG. This assessment, first presented at the 14th
meeting of the PBSG in Seattle in 2005 (Aars et al. 2006;
see also IUCN 2009), concluded that there was a real risk
that the world’s populations of polar bears could be
reduced by 30% or more within three polar bear genera-
tions, i.e., within 45 years. It was therefore suggested to
“upgrade” U. maritimus from the IUCN’s Red List of
Threatened Species category of Least Concern (LC),
which in practice means no additional conservation
actions are necessary, to Vulnerable (more precisely, VU
A3c), where the need for actions starts to kick in.

All the polar bear countries are members of the IUCN,
and thus they are obliged to “support and facilitate the
objectives, activities and governance of the IUCN” (IUCN
2008). Russia has its own Red List classification,
unchanged for many years, but polar bears have been
protected in Russian territories since 1956. Norway
acknowledged the polar bear’s new IUCN Red List status
in its updated national Red List published in 2006; in
2007, so did Denmark/Greenland. That left only the USA
and Canada.

In the USA, a petition to list the polar bear as a threat-
ened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
was submitted in February 2005, giving the management
authorities—the US Department of the Interior and its
environmental directorate, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS)—a period of up to two years to finally
decide whether polar bears should be listed. After being
sued for slow progress in December 2005, the FWS stated
that protection of polar bears “may be warranted”, and a
full status review was initiated. The FWS proposed listing
the species as threatened in January 2007, leaving them
until January 2008 to make a final decision. As part of
this full status review, a set of reports was commissioned
from the US Geological Survey. One of the general con-
clusions of these reports was that “Projected changes in
future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of
approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear
population by the mid 21st century” (USGS 2008: 2; see
also Amstrup et al. 2007).

Still not meeting their deadline, which was January
2008, the US government was sued again, before a final
decision was made on 15 May 2008 to classify the polar
bear as a threatened species.

Canada has still not met its obligations as an IUCN
member. The “Red List instrument” in Canada is the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC). Thirteen of the 19 globally recog-

nized populations of polar bear are partly or fully under
Canadian jurisdiction, and they comprise about two-
thirds of the world’s number of polar bears. All Canadian
populations are harvested, and subsistence hunting in
local Inuit communities is a strong incentive to maintain-
ing the status quo. This may also have encouraged the
Canadian government to give the most eager climate-
sceptic among experienced polar bear scientists the task
of assessing the status of polar bears for COSEWIC in
2008. Not surprisingly, the assessment concluded that the
polar bear in Canada—all 13 populations were treated
as one—was to be considered as a species of “Special
Concern”. This is the same status polar bears have had in
Canada since 1991. In practice, it means that the species
might become threatened in the future, but for now we
can go on with business as usual. In Canada, species of
special concern should be reassessed within 10 years, but
10 years is a long time, especially in a country where
pressure from harvesting is quite high and out of control
in some areas, as is the case with the populations shared

Polar bear and seagull. (Photo by Morten Ekker.)

Polar bear tracks, Barents Sea. (Photo by Sebastian Gerland; courtesy of

the Norwegian Polar Institute Photo Library.)

Guest editorial

Polar Research 28 2009 323–326 © 2009 the author, journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd324



between Canada and Greenland. Has Canada replaced
the USA as the “bad guy”?

The USA process was watched closely throughout the
circumpolar Arctic. It was obvious that this was a big issue
in the USA, with many real and perceived consequences.
The FWS didn’t find it easy either, and in spring 2007 the
agency sent an e-mail to high-ranking environmental
officials in the Norwegian government exploring the
possibility of arranging a meeting in Shepherdstown,
West Virginia, in June 2007. The FWS was in need of
some help and advice from the other polar bear nations
on what to do. The FWS was very careful to call it a
meeting of the “polar bear range states” or a “technical
meeting”, as opposed to a meeting of the parties of the
1973 agreement: the US agency had no interest in
opening discussions on the whole range of issues covered
by the agreement.

Two of the thorniest problems that the FWS grappled
with were trophy hunting and recovery plans.

Trophy hunting: until 1994, the US Marine Mammal
Protection Act prohibited Americans from importing
polar bear trophies into the USA. However, in 1994, as a
result of pressure from the hunting lobby, amendments to
the law made it possible for Americans to pay for the right
to hunt “quota bears” in “approved” Canadian polar bear
populations, and to bring the hides back to the USA.
Listing polar bears as a threatened species under the ESA
would reverse this.

Recovery plans: the ESA requires that plans for the
conservation and survival of threatened species are devel-
oped and implemented. In the polar bear case, such
recovery plans would have to deal with a fast reduction of
Arctic sea-ice cover, as a projected reduction in sea-ice
habitat was the reason for the petition in the first place.
Recovery plans involving sea ice would imply a substan-
tial change in the level of acceptance of climate change by
the Bush administration. In short, if the US government
classified polar bears as threatened, it would be on the
grounds of climate change projections, which the nation’s
leadership had been refuting.

The Shepherdstown meeting was a success, not least in
convincing the other nations that the USA didn’t have
any hidden agenda. There were no written and signed
statements from the meeting in which US authorities
could find authoritative support for going on with “busi-
ness as usual”, as was the fear of some of the attendees.

One of the outcomes of the Shepherdstown meeting
was that Norway was asked to host a new meeting of the
parties to the 1973 agreement. Representatives of the
signatory nations met in Tromsø in March 2009. There was
still some reluctance on the part of some delegations to
call this a “meeting of the parties”—some kept referring to
the meeting as a “range states meeting” or a “technical

meeting on polar bears”. This reluctance was rooted in the
USA and Canadian administrations’ fear of a full-scale and
public discussion of the wide range of political issues
relevant to polar bear conservation at the time. This and
other controversies, such as the absolute refusal by Green-
land and Canada to have an open meeting that would
include the press and other media, surfaced the week
before the meeting, almost derailing the entire event
before it even took place. Norway’s intense diplomatic
efforts during the last week before the meeting got things
back on track. As a compromise, Norway gave in to Green-
land’s and Canada’s insistence on barring the media from
parts of the meeting.

Contrary to many of the sceptics’ predictions, the
outcome of the meeting was perceived as being positive.
In the final statement, climate change was stated as being
the most important threat to polar bear conservation.
The work carried out by the PBSG in taking care of the
agreement during the years after 1981 was also formally
recognized, and the PBSG was consequently asked to
serve as a scientific adviser to future regular meetings of
the parties. Specifically, the PBSG was asked to give input
to a circumpolar action plan for the conservation of polar
bears. Even the PBSG delegates themselves were content
with the meeting outcome, surprised as they were.

When the PBSG met for its 15th meeting in Copen-
hagen a few months ago, in the summer of 2009, the
backdrop was quite different than for most meetings since
the beginning of the 1980s. For the first time since 1981
the parties to the 1973 agreement had met, revitalizing
international cooperation on polar bear management.
Although matters pertaining to the agreement have been
diligently looked after by the PBSG in the meantime,
most people involved believe it is a good thing that the
parties become more engaged in polar bear conservation.
This will probably introduce more politics into polar bear
management, but it is hoped that, on balance, greater
involvement by the polar bear nations will benefit
polar bears.

Although media coverage about a supposed “banning”
of a climate-sceptic and previous long-time member of
the PBSG, now without affiliation to any jurisdiction,
made some noise at the meeting, the meeting was pro-
ductive in responding to the nations as an authoritative
and scientifically independent group.

The new review of the 19 populations currently rec-
ognized shows that of the 12 populations on which
there are sufficient data, one population is increasing,
three are stable and eight are decreasing in size. The
previous review, made in 2005, was that of these same
12 populations: two were increasing, five were stable
and five were decreasing. There has been a change for
the worse. Even though over-harvesting is still the main

Guest editorial

Polar Research 28 2009 323–326 © 2009 the author, journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 325



culprit, there are more and more indications that
climate warming is starting to have consequences for
the condition and well-being of polar bears, and that
climate change is the single greatest challenge to the
species in the near future. Another notable threat, espe-
cially pronounced in some areas, is the effects of
ecotoxins that are transported to the Arctic by air and
sea currents, and that build up in the food chain, in
which the polar bear is at the top (see, for example,
Horton et al. 2009 [this issue]).

In spite of the steps forward taken this year, the future
of polar bears is still looking grim. Even so, there is a
sentiment among the majority of the members of the
polar bear scientific community that however dark things
might look there is still time to reverse the situation, or at
least to ameliorate it. Mitigations to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases will still work to the benefit of polar
bears. Scientific work being carried out now shows this
beyond doubt.

References

Aars J., Lunn N.J. & Derocher A.E. (eds.) 2006. Polar bears.
Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar
Bear Specialist Group, 20–24 June 2005, Seattle, Washington,
USA. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission
32. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources.

Amstrup S.C., Marcot B.G. & Douglas D.C. 2007. Forecasting
the range-wide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st

century. Administrative report. Reston, VA: US Department of
the Interior and US Geological Survey.

Horton T.W., Blum J.D., Xie Z., Hren M. & Chamberlain C.P.
2009. Stable isotope food-web analysis and mercury
biomagnification in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Polar
Research 28, 443–454.

Houghton J.T., Ding Y., Griggs D.J., Noguer M., van der
Linden P.J., Dai X., Maskell K. & Johnson C.A. (eds.)
2001. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Ingólfsson Ó. & Wiig Ø. 2009. Late Pleistocene fossil find
in Svalbard: the oldest remains of a polar bear (Ursus
maritimus Phipps, 1744) ever discovered. Polar Research 28,
455–462.

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)
2008. Statutes, including rules of procedure of the World
Conservation Congress, and regulations. Gland: International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)
2009. IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2009.1.
Accessed on the internet at http://www.iucnredlist.org on
25 September 2009.

PBSG (Polar Bear Specialist Group) 2009. Population status
reviews. Accessed on the internet at http://pbsg.npolar.no
on 25 September 2009.

USGS (US Geological Survey) 2008. USGS science to inform
US Fish and Wildlife Service decision making on polar
bears. Executive summary. Accessed on the internet at
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/ on 25
September 2009.

Guest editorial

Polar Research 28 2009 323–326 © 2009 the author, journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd326

http://www.iucnredlist.org
http://pbsg.npolar.no
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears