Environmental Law and Policy of Polar Bear, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Polar bears have long been an object of increased public attention. During the last decades, the number of polar bears in the world rapidly decreased. Environmental pollution, global warming, the lack of natural food resources, and human factors contributed to the difficult situation and turned polar bears into an endangered species. In 2008, the government finally took a step to protect polar bears from the risks of extinction and included them in the endangered species list. However, this step alone cannot guarantee effective protection and support to polar bears. Polar bears face numerous environmental and human threats. Therefore, only a comprehensive global polar bear policy that addresses the most serious causes of polar bear extinction (including global warming and the lack of food) can give polar bears a chance to survive and secure them from the risks of extinction.

Polar bears have long been an object of increased public attention. This attention was partially due to a better understanding of the global ecology, increased concerns for the changes in the Arctic environments, and the issues of climate change (Schliebe). Stocks of polar bears are unevenly distributed throughout the Arctic, and the current research allows evaluating various aspects of life of polar bears in the Arctic region. That polar bears are an endangered species is difficult to deny, because their populations steadily decline. In Hudson Bay alone, the population of polar bears is down more than 20 percent, compared with the number of polar bears 20 years ago (National Wildlife Federation). Global warming is responsible for the rapid melting of Arctic ices; the latter does not let polar bears hunt during the summer period (National Wildlife Federation). As a result of those changes, the average weight of polar bears has dropped by 15 percent, causing a significant decline in reproduction rates (National Wildlife Federation). Retreating sea platforms threaten the lives and health of polar bears and make them increasingly sensitive to the risks of drowning and starvation (National Wildlife Federation). Food scarcity is the direct consequence of the reduction and retreat of the ice platforms near the most productive fish areas; it affects polar bears’ nutritional and reproductive status (National Wildlife Federation). The destruction of polar bears by humans adds to the difficult situation and confirms the need to protect polar bear populations in the Arctic.

Whether or not to include polar bears in the endangered species list had long been the subject of public discussion. At the beginning of 2008, Congress was considering a decision to give polar bears the status of an endangered species, based on the belief that the next 50 years could have led to a decline in the polar bear populations by nearly two thirds (Udenans). It was not before the middle of March 2008, that the mass media announced polar bears included in the Endangered Species Act (Udenans). The history of endangered species in the United States dates back to the beginning of the 1800’s, when the earliest public concern about the future of animal and plant species became evident (Czech & Krausman 8). At that time, Bison were hunted to release the grasslands for agriculture, and the rapid destruction of the buffalo herds became a national issue (Czech & Krausman 8). While the American East was suffering from the mass buffalo extinctions, the Southwest was growing concerned about elks that had been excessively used for canine ivory and food (Czech & Krausman 9). However, it was not before the end of the 19^th century that the American population grew aware of the fact that many animal species were gradually disappearing from the planet.

Until the beginning of the 20^th century, the protection of wildlife had been totally a state government function (Czech & Krausman 15). Between 1850 and 1900, the United States witnessed rapid evolution of administrative structures responsible for fish and wildlife affairs (Czech & Krausman 16). In the meantime, the Federal Government was becoming more interested in wildlife extinction issues – as a result of the federal efforts, the U.S. Fish Commission and the Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy were created, to lay the administrative foundation for the development of more sophisticated federal wildlife administrative mechanisms (Czech & Krausman 16). The Yellowstone Park Protection Act and the Lacey Act that followed marked the beginning of the federal movement toward the implementation of sound wildlife protection policies. The Act itself was signed on December 28, 1973, to provide and ensure conservation to the species that are considered threatened or endangered, and to conserve the ecosystems in which they live (Office of Protected Resources). The Act was designed to replace previously enacted Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 and until present, had been amended several times (Office of Protected Resources). The Act defined and distinguished “endangered” from “threatened”, made plant species eligible for legal protection and conservation, applied broad prohibitions to all threatened and endangered species, and put a ban on any Federal agencies’ actions that could harm the listed species or their habitat (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). As of today, the ESA lists approximately 2,000 endangered species (Office of Protected Resources).

The ESA is unique in the sense that it was designed to “protect a set of unconventional and poorly understood values – species, biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity” (Baur & Irvin 416). More often than not, individuals and groups treat the ESA as an instrument of protecting endangered species from the risks of extinction. In reality, however, the ESA provides a more sophisticated understanding of the limits and uses of law (Baur & Irvin 416). It would be fair to say that the ESA is a national legal strategy that leads the nation to make moral choices based on its human and legal history in terms of what species it will protect (Baur & Irvin 416). In no way does the ESA seek to guarantee that future species and ecosystems will not disappear from the face of the planet. The Act simply creates conditions needed to take reasonable and grounded decisions about the future of the eco-stability in America and beyond (Baur & Irvin 416). In simple terms, the Act helps the public to take informed and conscious choices regarding the risks and opportunities of various species’ extinction or survival. Unfortunately, the Act is not without its problems – in 2007, the “significant portion of its range” concept of the ESA became the issue of the increased legal concern. Actually, how to determine the species under the threat of extinction had long been discussed by scholars. For many years, the relevance and need for such listing had been solely the function of scientists (OSU). Yet, it is still unclear what a significant portion of range is and what criteria scientists and legal professionals must follow to include animal species in the ESA. Given the seriousness of the ecological and natural changes in the national and international ecosystems, this topic will require detailed examination and increased attention in the nearest future.

The history of the polar bears’ listing in the ESA started back in 2006, when the World Wildlife Fund sent a letter to Scott Schliebe, the leader of the Polar Bear Project launched by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The letter outlined a list of reasons to support and enforce the decision to list polar bears as “endangered” under the ESA (WWF). According to the WWF, the three most important listing evaluation criteria included: the present destruction of the polar bears’ habitat and range; the inadequacy of the current regulatory mechanisms; and a variety of manmade and natural factors influencing polar bears’ continued existence (WWF). The decision to list polar bears as “endangered” species was based on the fact that the shrinking of the polar bears’ sea habitat would continue and that, by 2050, the sea ice would, most probably, decrease by 30 percent (Greenemeier). Bearing in mind that sea ice is vital for the survival of polar bears, such reduction in the sea ice will inevitably lead to the reduction of the polar bears’ habitat and put them under the risks of extinction. That polar bears are included in the list of endangered species means that the public recognizes them as the species in danger of extinction (Greenemeier). Notably, polar bears were the first to be listed as an endangered species on the basis of computer model predictions (Greenemeier). Meanwhile, the fact of listing polar bears as endangered species alone cannot protect them from the risks of extinction.

The “endangered” status of polar bears is not enough to raise their nutritional and reproductive status. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 poses more problems than it can successfully solve. First and foremost, “the listing does not protect the polar bear from being hunted by natives for food and other resources” (Greenemeier). Polar bears continue to be an attractive and, most often, the only source of food and non-food resources for the Arctic populations. Second, the listing does not require that federal authorities address and solve the issues responsible for the rapid decline in polar bear populations. Simply stated, the Endangered Species Act cannot and will not be used to regulate and prevent the climate change (Greenemeier). The Interior Secretary made an explicit remark that the ESA would not be used to manage and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are believed to be responsible for global warming (Greenemeier). Finally, Congress and environmental authorities in the United States are willing to protect polar bears from the risks of extinction only to the degree, which does not hurt the development and profitability of the oil and gas industries in the Arctic (Greenemeier). The listing does recognize the negative effects of the sea ice loss on polar bear populations, but ignores the effects of the economic and industrial development of the Arctic region on their well being. The current system of polar bear protection has too many blank spots. Undoubtedly, the ESA cannot serve a reliable protection against environmental and human factors that threaten polar bears. A more comprehensive policy must be developed, to increase the scope and coverage of environmental protection in the Arctic region.

Effective polar bear policies must cover and address all factors responsible for the rapid decline in polar bear populations in the Arctic. Such policies must work to reduce the negative influence of global warming, industrial development, and hunting on polar bears. For a polar bear protection policy to be effective, it must include several important elements. First, global populations need better awareness of the polar bear protection issues. To include or not to include polar bears in the endangered species list continues to be the object of the active public debate. Some environmental groups believe that listing polar bears as an endangered species is nothing but a charismatic policy step. This step will put the Arctic region off the limits of mineral exploration and open a new line of attack on the governments and companies that engage in activities considered harmful for polar bears (Greene 1-2). Others claim the absence of the direct connection between fewer polar bears and less ice (Greene 3). Global awareness and reliable scientific evidence will drive the development of comprehensive policy solutions and justify their relevance.

Second, additional policies must be developed and implemented, to address the issues that directly affect polar bear populations in the Arctic. Some of these issues include global warming, hunting, and industrial development. A serious change in policy approaches to polar bears will provide better opportunities to preserve and expand this species. New policies must regulate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and the number of polar bears killed by the Arctic populations, to meet their basic life needs. Industrial development in the Arctic region must be reduced to the extent, which does not threaten polar bears and their reproductive status. Future laws and policies must regulate the creation and distribution of the financial resources needed to support environmental research. Third, international collaboration is an important element of successful polar bear protection. Future policies must encourage all countries to participate in the development and implementation of environmental protection policies aimed to protect polar bear populations from the risks of extinction. Finally, the policy must have a set of the clear “survival-extinction” criteria, to monitor the state of the polar bear populations in the Arctic and their listing in the ESA. ESA listing is the first step in the development of global environmental policies, but there is still a long road ahead for those, who fight to protect polar bears from extinction. Obviously, much time will pass before polar bears cease being an endangered species.

Conclusion

Polar bears have long been an object of increased public attention. The past 20 years have been marked with a rapid decrease in polar bear populations. The average weight of polar bears has dropped by 15 percent, causing a significant decline in reproduction rates. Food scarcity, melting of the Arctic ices, hunting, global warming, and industrial development affect polar bears’ nutritional and reproductive status. In 2008, polar bears were included in the endangered species list, but ESA listing alone cannot guarantee sound and effective protection of polar bears from the risks of extinction. A comprehensive policy must work to develop global awareness of the polar bear issue, cover and address all factors responsible for polar bears extinction, regulate and allocate resources to support continuous environmental research, and engage all countries in the development of environmental protection policies aimed to secure polar bears from the risks of extinction. ESA listing is just the first step toward the development effective policy solutions. Most probably, years will pass before polar bears cease being an endangered species.

Works Cited

Baur, D.C. & W.R. Irvin. The Endangered Species Act: Law, Policy and Perspectives. American Bar Association, 2002.

Czech, B. & P.R. Krausman. The Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation Biology, and Public Policy. JHU Press, 2001.

Greene, K.P. “Is the Polar Bear Endangered, or Just Conveniently Charismatic?” American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, May 2008. Web. 16 October 2010.

Greenmeier, L. “U.S. Protests Polar Bears Under Endangered Species Act.” Scientific American, 14 May 2008. Web. 16 October 2010.

National Wildlife Federation. “Global Warming and Polar Bears.” NWF, n.d. Web. 16 October 2010.

Office of Protected Resources. “Endangered Species Act (ESA).” Office of Protected Resources, n.d. Web. 17 October 2010.

OSU. “Analysis: 2007 Legal Opinion Is a Threat to Imperiled Species.” The Ohio State University, 2007. Web. 24 October 2010.

Schliebe, S.L. “What Has Been Happening to Polar Bears in Recent Decades?” Arctic Theme Page, n.d. Web. 16 October 2010.

Udenans, V. “Congress Asks: Why Isn’t Polar Bear Endangered?” ABC News, January 17, Web. 16 October 2010.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. “A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” FWS.gov, April 2008. Web. 17 October 2010.

WWF. “Polar Bear 90-day petition finding.” The World Wildlife Fund, 10 April 2006. Web. 24 October 2010.