sign in sign up
<<
Home , Habitat conservation

DRAFT – NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION

Aspen Dialogue and Commission on Arctic Working Session 1

Policy Briefing Paper

Current Framework for Species and Conservation in the Arctic

Prepared by Brooks Yeager, Climate Policy Center Prepared for The Aspen Institute and Environment Program April 2007

Introduction

The present framework for species and habitat conservation in the Arctic reflects the history of exploitation in the region. Arctic traditional peoples had made use of local wildlife for thousands of years before commercial operations in the 18 th and 19 th centuries led to the of some species (Steller’s Sea Cow) and the decline of many others (whales, sea otters, etc.). Reacting to this , governments instituted species protection measures that often, ironically, limited traditional as well as commercial harvests. The present framework consists, broadly, of three types of measures, which conserve species subject to or other exploitation, species that are considered threatened or endangered, and habitat. Although virtually all regulation is focused on the national level, there are a number of regional agreements affecting , as well as a number of global agreements with implications for in the Arctic.

Conserving Species Subject to Exploitation

The first wildlife management regimes in the Arctic were devoted to species subject to hunting pressure. These early regimes included the 1911 North Pacific Sealing Convention for fur seals and the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain (for Canada). A later generation of agreements included the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (U.S., Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway), and the 1987 bilateral Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd (U.S.- Canada). The U.S. has enacted migratory bird treaties with Japan and Russia, as well as Canada. Over time, U.S. efforts at wildlife conservation have been supplemented through co-management approaches with traditional communities, through such institutions as the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the U.S.-Canada Porcupine Caribou Management Board among others.

There are also a number of global agreements with important implications for Arctic conservation, including the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (IWC), which provides for a limited and controlled subsistence whaling harvest. Dissatisfaction with the lack of commercial quotas under the IWC led some Arctic nations to jointly develop an alternative institution, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, or NAMMCO (Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faeroes), which includes management of small cetaceans as well.

Conserving Threatened and Endangered Species

The conservation needs of threatened and endangered species came to prominence much later than the need for rules to prevent overharvesting. But with the passage of the U.S. Endangered Species Act in (1966, 1973) and the evolution of such tools as the International Union of Conservation of (IUCN) Red List, more attention has been given to this problem. Among global efforts to address the issue, the 1973 Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species have significant implications for Arctic conservation, although only two Arctic nations (Norway and Sweden) are current parties to the latter.

A more recent global agreement with potentially significant implications for the Arctic is the 1992 Convention on (CBD), which recognizes the intrinsic value of biodiversity under three overriding themes: the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of biological resources, and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of biological resources.

Habitat Conservation

As of 2000, there existed 405 identified protected areas in the Arctic region, protecting approximately 17 percent of the area of the Arctic, or 2.5 million square kilometers. Protected areas in the Arctic marine environment were much scarcer, with less than 2 percent coverage. Pioneering efforts include Russia’s Great Arctic Reserve (1993), which includes vast stretches of the Kara Sea, and Iceland’s Breidafjordur Area (1995).

Although a number of ecologically important areas, such as the Taimyr Peninsula in Russia and the Arctic National Wildlife in the U.S., have been given protection at the national level, the overall biological value of the current protected areas remains somewhat limited. Half the protected land in the region lies within a single national park, the North and East Greenland National Park, and much of what is protected elsewhere consists of glacial areas and polar deserts. According to the Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), less than 3 percent of the more productive coastal areas are currently subject to protection, by some estimates.

In addition to traditional strategies of designating protected areas, there have been recent efforts to conserve habitat through development-oriented ecosystem plans, such as the effort by Norway in its Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea and the Lofoten Islands. The Arctic Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)

2 Working Group has agreed on the delimitation of Large Marine Ecoregions (LMEs) in the Arctic Region; however, the Arctic nations have not yet begun to utilize these LMEs for management purposes.

Though most habitat protection is undertaken at the national level, there are several international agreements that give Arctic habitat protected status. These instruments include the RAMSAR Convention for the Protection of Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat and the World Heritage Convention. In addition, a number of Arctic sites important to birds have been designated as Important Bird Areas through Birdlife International, or as Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve sites under the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network collaboration. Under the CAFF working group of the Arctic Council, Arctic governments have tried to coordinate habitat conservation efforts through such means as the Circumpolar Arctic Protected Areas Network (CPAN).

A noteworthy trend in Arctic habitat protection is the recent move towards co- management, in which national governments share management responsibility with local and traditional communities. This represents a change in philosophy from earlier conceptions of ‘strict nature protection’ (as practiced in the Russian zapovedniks and U.S. national parks, which sometimes displaced or ignored traditional uses) to an approach in which traditional hunting and gathering practices are explicitly accommodated.

Issues for Future Conservation

The current framework for the conservation of wildlife and biological resources of the Arctic remains a patchwork of efforts, most undertaken at the national level, with a number of agreements governing conservation of particular species. Habitat protection efforts, though advanced, are uneven, and protection of marine habitat is minimal. Population stress and, in some cases, declines in -dependent species, point to the need for approaches for these populations. Efforts to move towards ecosystem management approaches have only just begun, and may be inhibited in some areas by lack of scientific data. International coordination of conservation efforts not covered by treaties has been weak, despite initial efforts at coordinating both species and habitat conservation under the Arctic Council’s CAFF working group.

Data sources: Arctic Fauna and Flora – Status and Conservation , CAFF, 2001; Protected Areas of the Arctic , CAFF, 2002; Baldursson, “Conservation in the Arctic,” University of the Arctic, www.uarctic.org ; Nowlan, Arctic Legal Regime for , IUCN 2001.

3