The detailed plans of each objective and associated actions in the 2023-2025 Implementation Plan are presented on this web-site and the relevant sub-sites. Progress of the Plan will be presented on these sites in due course. 

The overarching vision of the 2015-2025 Circumpolar Action Plan is:

To secure the long-term persistence of polar bears in the wild that represent the genetic, behavioral, life-history and ecological diversity of the species.

In order to realize the vision, the Range States have developed seven key objectives and actions designed to meet the key objectives. The 2023-2025 Implementation Plan addresses four of the seven objectives that will be met through the implementation of 10 actions.

List of Objectives and Actions of the CAP 2023 - 2025 Implementation Plan:

2023-2025 Implementation Plan Dashboard - Status overview of actions' deliverables and milestones (click on image below to access the dashboard view)

Manage human-bear interactions to ensure human safety and to minimize polar bear injury or mortality

This webpage is under construction

Objective Leads:  

TBD

Actions associated with Objective-5 in the 2023-2025 Implmentation Plan

(see top-left sidebar for further information on the actions)

HBC-A5: Report findings on human-bear conflicts which end in injury or death (to bears or humans) annually on the RS website for each country or subpopulation

HBC-A8: Template for site specific conflict mitigation plans

Implementation approach

TBD

Polar Bear threats linked to Objective:  

Human-bear conflicts

Levels of the Threats:    Medium 

Expected impact/ outcome of the Objective-5 workplan:   

The short-term impact of this objective is to provide a common understanding on the level and location of polar bear – human interactions and safety risks associated with such interactions through a standardized data collection approach and reporting. In the short- and medium-term, the public will be able to access the recommended best management practices to address increased bear -human interactions safely and to prevent an escalation of conflict.  In the long-term, these actions will provide the possibility to reduce bear-human interactions and negative outcomes to a level that does not threaten the long-term survival of polar bears driven by this possible threat.

How the progress toward Objective-5 will be evaluated:  

Performance metric-1: Change in the number of bears injured or killed in conflict situations and in the number of humans injured or killed by bears, compared to the baseline. (see PBRS website)   

1) Data from Russia not included
2) Data from Russia not included; Data provided by Canada is preliminary
3) Performance indicator 3 is not currently reported in all locations; however the required data are included in the minimum standards guidance agreed upon by the Range States. Several Range States have or are in the process of establishing systematic collection of the required information in remote communities and other locations where logistical or other challenges exist

Liaison with other CAP-Objectives:   

Objective 1:  Track and reduce emerging threats to polar bears – possibility of emerging threats that may bring with them increasing conflict level.

Objective-2: TBD

Liaison with external bodies

(i.e. organizations, communities, stakeholders, expert groups, etc.):   

TBD

Expected dissemination of Deliverables and Outcome to stakeholders

(public, policy makers, legislators etc.):   

Information will mainly be made available to the public and to the Range States through the Range States website.

Potential Challenges and how they will be addressed (mitigation actions) ^[1]:   

Lack of involvement from all Range States is a potentially severe challenge for several of the actions (specifically A3, A4 and A5 – baselines and reporting of performance metrics) that require involvement from all Range States. Likelihood (4) x Negative impact (5) = 20.  

Additionally, securing sufficient stakeholder involvement and making sure the work in Objective 5 makes a difference "on the ground". The CWG also faces the challenge of having high member participation to remain an active and relevant forum for information sharing and collaboration on all aspects of conflict, as the need arises.  

That output from the group is adapted by stakeholders, circulated and put to use in or by the Range States, is also a critical step for the work under Objective 5 to have real impact and to achieve the wanted outcome. Likelihood 3 x Negative impact (5) = 15 

^[1] The level of challenge may be estimated by multiplying the level of likelihood (scale 1-5) by the negative impact it may have (scale 1-5). Minor: 1-10, Moderate: 11-15; Severe: 16-25.

Inclusion of Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ITEK) in the PBRS as part of the ITEK WG

 ITEK Objective Leads

TBD

Caroline Ladanowski (Environment and Climate Change Canada, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
Amalie Jessen (Ministry of Fisheries and Hunting, Greenland, Amalie This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Actions associated with ITEK Objective in the 2023-2025 biennieal period

(see top-left sidebar for further information on the actions)

ITEK-1: Maintain a compendium and schedule of ITEK studies.

ITEK-2: Complete a review and analysis to identify potential approaches to enhance implementation of Polar Bear Range States commitments to inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and participation of Indigenous peoples and provide recommendations.

ITEK-3: Prepare an ITEK knowledge synthesis on recent ITEK research.

Polar Bear threats linked to the Objective and how the Objective’s Actions will address them: 

Seven key threats have been identified as already impacting, or most likely to have an impact on the polar bear and its habitat during the lifetime of the Range States Circumpolar Action Plan (2015-2025). These threats are: climate change, human-caused mortality, mineral and energy resource exploration and development, contaminants and pollution, shipping, tourism related activities, and diseases and parasites. The threats may interact and have compound effects, so consideration should also be given to the cumulative impacts. The 2013 Declaration of the Responsible Ministers of the Polar Bear Ranges States recognizes “the importance and value of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in informing management decisions and the need for the Range States to develop a common understanding of what constitutes Traditional Ecological Knowledge and how it should be used in polar bear management decisions.”  As such, it is expected that ITEK-1, ITEK-2 and ITEK-3 will contribute cross-cuttingly to addressing the threats.

Levels of the Threats: 

Threats to polar bears classified according to their likelihood of impacting the species during the lifetime of the CAP (2015-2025) are available online at Polar Bear Range States - Threats to Polar Bears (polarbearagreement.org).

Expected impact/ outcome of the ITEK workplan: 

ITEK- 1: Maintain a compendium and schedule of ITEK studies

The ITEK WG will maintain the Range States ITEK Compendium by compiling guidance on the use of Indigenous knowledge (IK) in decision-making (as well as best practices and research done related to ITEK), focusing specifically on wildlife management decision-making. The ITEK WG will maintain the Range States schedule of IK studies by compiling existing, in-progress and planned IK studies related to polar bears and polar bear habitat. Both documents are being updated in fall 2023 and planned to be published in winter 2024.  Both documents will also be updated in fall 2025.

ITEK-2: Complete a review and analysis to identify potential approaches to enhance implementation of Polar Bear Range States commitments to inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and participation of Indigenous peoples and provide recommendations

The ITEK Working Group will complete a review and analysis focused on identifying potential approaches to enhance the implementation of Polar Bear Range States commitments relating to the participation of Indigenous peoples and inclusion of IK in international polar bear conservation (e.g., statements made in the 1973 Agreement, the 2013 Ministerial Declaration, and the 2015 Circumpolar Action Plan). The review and analysis will consider the successes and challenges encountered to date by the Polar Bear Range States and informed by both the compendium of guidelines and schedule of studies. The ITEK WG will develop recommendations for the Head of Delegations related to enhancing the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and IK in implementing the CAP and 1973 Agreement. The recommendations may also consider planned future activities of the PBRS, if appropriate.

ITEK-3:  Prepare an ITEK knowledge synthesis on recent ITEK research.

The ITEK knowledge synthesis could take the form of an infographic or a series of infographics and could be shared on the Polar Bear Range States website. This will allow the HoDs and other CAP OTs and WGs to use what ITEK is available when undertaking their activities and actions. The knowledge synthesis may also help the HoDs identify gaps in ITEK of polar bears, which could in turn inform coordination and planning of research and monitoring.

How the progress toward the ITEK Objective will be evaluated

The finalization of the compendium, the creation of a draft report and the delivery of recommendations to the Head of Delegations, and knowledge synthesis will determine the progress towards achieving the goals of Inclusion of ITEK in the PBRS for the CAP 2023-2025 period.

Performance Metrics

1. Completion and publication of the updated Compendium and schedule of ITEK studies.
2. Provision of a draft report to the Heads of Delegation on the potential approaches to enhance implementation of Polar Bear Range States commitments to inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and participation of Indigenous peoples across all relevant objectives of the PBRS CAP 2023-2025 Implementation period. Provision of official recommendations to the Heads of Delegations on how to include Indigenous Peoples and IK in implementing the CAP and 1973 agreement.
3. Publication of knowledge synthesis infographic or a series of infographics
   
   

Baseline of Performance Metrics

1. A “Compendium of existing Guidelines for the Use of TEK in decision Making” was finalized and posted on the Range State website in 2018. The updated compendium and schedule of ITEK studies will be posted in winter 2023; and will be updated by the end of the 2023-2025 CAP implementation period.
2. No baseline, drafting has not begun as of start of 2023-2025 CAP implementation period.
3. No baseline, drafting has not begun as of start of 2023-2025 CAP implementation period.

Liaison with other CAP-Objectives

ITEK-1 through 3 will help enhance the consideration of IK across all CAP objectives.

Liaison with external bodies

(i.e. organizations, communities, stakeholders, expert groups, etc.)

The diversity of the membership on the ITEK WG will facilitate the liaison with a multitude of organizations, communities, stakeholder and expert groups across the Range States as needed in order to achieve ITEK-1, ITEK-2 and ITEK-3.

Expected dissemination of Deliverables and Outcome to stakeholders 

(public, policy makers, legislators etc.)

ITEK-1: Will be published online.

ITEK-2: Once finalized, may be published online.

ITEK-3: Once finalized, may be published online.

ITEK-1, ITEK-2 and ITEK-3 may be used by policy advisors to help inform policy decisions affecting polar bear management across the PBRS as applicable.

Potential Challenges and how they will be addressed (mitigation actions)  ^[1]

1 – There is a growing body of IK that is being shared. It may be challenging to keep an up-to-date compendium and schedule of studies.

Mitigation measures: ITEK WG can consider the compendium and schedule of studies an evergreen document and in conjunction develops a system to review & update the compendium on an annual basis.

2 – There is a variety of levels of engagement currently across the PBRS with regards to the inclusion of ITEK in polar bear issues.

Mitigation measures: Provide regular opportunities at Head of Delegation meetings for PBRS members to discuss their individual vs. collective successes and challenges in including ITEK in Polar Bear issues. Ensure engagement is inclusive of all voices.

3 – Accurate interpretation of knowledge may be a challenge.

Mitigation measures: Ensure study authors are engaged from start to finish in the creation of any product.

^[1] The level of challenge is estimated by multiplying the level of likelihood (scale 1-5) by the negative impact it may have (scale 1-5). Minor: 1-10, Moderate: 11-15; Severe: 16-25.

Ensure that harvest of polar bear subpopulations is managed in a biologically sustainable manner in accordance with sound conservation practices

Objective Leads

Caroline Ladanowski (Environment and Climate Change Canada, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
Dave Gustine (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Actions associated with Objective 4 in the 2020-2023 Implementation Plan

(see top-left sidebar for further information on the actions)

EH – A4: Submit a description of the harvest regime for each subpopulation.

EH – A6: Develop methods to collate available data from harvested bears and how to analyze that data.

Implementation approach

The suggested workplan for the upcoming CAP Implementation Plan is to:

• HM-A4: Submit a description of the harvest regime for each subpopulation.
• HM-A6: Develop methods to collate available data from harvested bears and how to analyze that data.
• Postpone “HM-A5: Compile an evaluation of Biologically Sustainable Harvest for each Polar Bear subpopulation, considering the influence of climate change” to beyond 2025, as it relies on HM-A4 and may require new analyses that take climate change into consideration.
  
  

Polar Bear threats linked to the Objective and how the Objective’s Actions will address them: 

• Human caused mortality.
• This objective is to ensure that harvest of polar bear subpopulations is managed in a biologically sustainable manner to ensure polar bear conservation and the opportunity for harvest of polar bears for future generations of Indigenous peoples living within the range of polar bears. Achievement of this objective will require the continued long-term, sustainable management of harvest by Arctic Indigenous peoples and domestic management agencies.
  
  

Levels of the Threats: 

Human caused mortality is considered a low/medium threat

Expected impact/ outcome of the Objective-4 workplan: 

An understanding of harvest regime for polar bear subpopulations will provide a framework to ensure that harvest is carried out in a biologically sustainable manner, and in accordance with sound conservation practices. A harvest managed sustainably will contribute directly to the vision of the CAP (to secure the long-term persistence of polar bears in the wild that represents the genetic, behavioral, life-history, and ecological diversity of the species).

How the progress toward Objective-4 will be evaluated

HM-A1, HM-A2, and HM-A3 provided the foundation for actions HM-A4 and HM-A6. Progress towards Objective 4 will be evaluated based on the comprehensive understanding of sustainable harvest systems contributing to the successful long-term persistence of polar bears in the wild.

Objective Performance Metrics

• The Range States will determine the proportion of subpopulations where harvest levels are biologically sustainable through the completion of actions HM-A4 and HM-A6. HM-A4 will provide a framework to evaluate sustainable harvest across the subpopulation. The completion of action HM-A5 is contingent on HM-A4, which is proposed to be completed in the action cycle ending in 2025.
• With HM-A4 the Range states will have a description of the harvest management regime for each subpopulation. This information can be used to determine the proportion of subpopulations where a demonstrated harvest management regime exists.
• With HM-A6 the Range states will have an understanding of how harvested bears can inform subpopulation status and provide recommendations for harvest data collection.
  

Liaison with other CAP-Objectives

TBD

Liaison with external bodies

(i.e. organizations, communities, stakeholders, expert groups, etc.)

TBD

Expected dissemination of Deliverables and Outcome to stakeholders 

(public, policy makers, legislators etc.)

Outcome reports to be published on the PBRS website.

Potential Challenges and how they will be addressed (mitigation actions) ^[1]

1. HM-A4: Action HM-4 will be time consuming, sensitive, and will require close collaboration between Range states as well as domestic consultation between experts with quantitative skills and local management authorities.

2.  HM-A6: Action HM-A6 is complex with varying management across Range States and domestically across jurisdictions (in Canada specifically). This action will require extensive consideration of the purpose/focus by an Operating Team prior to beginning drafting recommendations.
   
   

^[1] The level of challenge is estimated by multiplying the level of likelihood (scale 1-5) by the negative impact it may have (scale 1-5). Minor: 1-10, Moderate: 11-15; Severe: 16-25.