Presentations and Meeting Documents

Presentation Title: Harvest risk assessment for polar bears: a state-dependent approach that considers climate change and data quality
Summary: The conservation of many wildlife species requires understanding the demographic effects of climate change, including interactions between climate change and harvest, which can provide cultural, nutritional or economic value to humans. We present a demographic model that is based on the polar bear Ursus maritimus life cycle and includes density-dependent relationships linking vital rates to environmental carrying capacity (K). Using this model, we develop a state-dependent management framework to calculate a harvest level that (i) maintains a population above its maximum net productivity level (MNPL; the population size that produces the greatest net increment in abundance) relative to a changing K, and (ii) has a limited negative effect on population persistence. Our findings indicate that it is possible to minimize the demographic risks of harvest under climate change, including the risk that harvest will accelerate population declines driven by loss of the polar bear’s sea-ice habitat. This requires that (i) the harvest rate – which could be 0 in some situations – accounts for a population’s intrinsic growth rate, (ii) the harvest rate accounts for the quality of population data (e.g. lower harvest when uncertainty is large), and (iii) the harvest level is obtained by multiplying the harvest rate by an updated estimate of population size. Environmental variability, the sex and age of removed animals and risk tolerance can also affect the harvest rate.
We demonstrate application of the state-dependent approach to the Baffin Bay and Kane Basin subpopulations, using estimates of demographic parameters and other biological information from recent subpopulation assessments. Harvest strategies were defined in terms of key elements that can be managed, including harvest rate and level, the sex and age composition of removed bears, the management interval (i.e., number of years elapsed between management changes based on updated subpopulation data), and the precision of available data. Harvest strategies were evaluated over three polar bear generations (approx. 35 years) against management objectives and risk tolerances provided by the authorizing agencies. For both subpopulations, we included projected trends in K based on remote-sensing sea-ice data and other ecological information. Multiple scenarios were considered for survival rates, due to uncertainty and potential bias in the available estimates of survival. The demographic model was able to reproduce plausible trends for the recent histories of both subpopulations. The state-dependent management approach was able to identify harvest strategies that met management objectives while considering the effect of climate change and data quality. Our findings were conditional on the existence of a coupled research-management system, and on the assumption that climate change would not have negative impacts above and beyond the projected trends in K.

Presentation Title: Polar Bear Boundaries: Updated methodology for delineating sub-populations
Summary: We present on a new method that is currently being developed to estimate the boundaries between polar bear sub-populations. The method makes significant improvements over earlier methods. In particular, it incorporates information on sea ice movement to help inform boundary delineations. It allows all location data to be incorporated into the model by actively taking into account the uncertainty of locations. The model is capable of jointly estimates boundaries between sub-populations, and presents an estimate of the uncertainty in the estimated boundary. We present preliminary results of the model for delineating the boundary between the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea sub-populations. We also discuss the potential applications of this model to be used in jointly estimating boundaries between >2 sub-populations, or in estimating boundaries of polar bear ecoregions.

Presentation Title: The co-management decision-making process in Canada as a best management practice – An overview of management processes and legal context for wildlife management in the Canadian North
Summary: The management of polar bear in Canada is shared between Wildlife Co-management boards (WMBs) and provincial/territorial and federal governments, with the former two having the primary responsibility. This presentation provides an overview of the roles that governments take as it relates to harvest management, human-bear conflicts, domestic and international obligations, etc. One of the strengths of the Canadian systems can be attributed to the co-management system that exists under the various Land Claims Agreements (LCA). Under the LCAs, which are treaties that have been negotiated between the federal and/or provincial/territorial governments and Indigenous peoples, WMBs play a vital role in species management. Such management is based upon both scientific information as well as Indigenous Traditional Knowledge. Management processes, as established under the LCAs, are described in detail, as are the similarities and differences between the various jurisdictions. The presentation ends with highlights of the co-management process and an explanation of why this system can be viewed as a Best Management Practice.

Presentation Title: Detecting Dens and Mapping Den Habitat in Alaska: Approaches and Limitations
Summary: In Alaska’s Beaufort Sea region, approximately 55% of all pregnant polar bears come ashore each autumn to construct dens in snow drifts. During winter, industrial activities in Alaska, such as seismic surveys and construction of ice roads and drill pads, are at their highest level. These activities coincide with the time when denning polar bears are giving birth or nurturing neonates and thus vulnerable to disturbances that may cause the abandonment of dens. Mitigating potential conflicts between human activities and denning bears may be reduced by avoiding habitats bears prefer. Locating dens and mapping terrestrial denning habitat is possible using a variety of methods. This presentation will describe some of those methods and their limitations.

Presentation Title: Polar bear plasticity in a changing Arctic: dimensions and limits
Summary: Polar bears live only in areas that have sea ice cover for a significant part of the year. Although this suggests they will not be able to occupy areas where sea ice habitats no longer exist in the future, the fact that they occupy areas with a large range of ecological conditions at least on a seasonal basis today, indicates that this species does have a high degree of behavioral plasticity. The important questions is can this plasticity allow polar bears to survive in the conditions that will exist in the Arctic in the future, based on climate change predictions.. This presentation focuses on relevant knowledge gained from Svalbard, Norway, in recent years.

The Barents Sea subpopulation of polar bears occupies the area from Svalbard, Norway, in the west to Franz Josef Land (FJL), Russia, in the east, as well as the ice covered areas around these archipelagos and the sea ice north of the islands. This area has experienced sea ice losses at a rate higher than any other part of the Arctic, with a reduction of about 4 months of sea ice cover in the last three decades.

Although there are considerable amounts of data on various negative effects of habitat loss on polar bears in Svalbard (and elsewhere), population numbers indicate that this particular population has been increasing until recent, in response to protection from hunting that started in 1973. A fast losses of sea ice in traditionally important denning areas in eastern Svalbard have led to a large shift in where denning occurs. It is thought that a larger proportion of denning now occurs in FJL, compared to a decade ago. Females show impressive abilities to cross long stretches of open water. However, they do not do this to get to small isolated islands to den in the late autumn. It is perhaps too costly energetically for pregnant bears to do this sort of swimming, or females might avoid such areas because of the risk that such islands will be surrounded by open water when she must leave the den with small cubs the following spring. Most bears do follow the sea ice when it retreats northward in summer, and polar bears now occupy areas with deeper water, further offshore, which are assumed to be less productive. This results in longer distances to swim to reach land again after summer foraging. However, bears that undertake such “migrations” still seem to be in good condition most years in Svalbard.

Some polar bears stay in Svalbard year round, and hunt locally on the sea ice when it is available. Most of these bears live in the eastern parts of the archipelago where water masses are colder and sea ice is more extensive compared to fjords in the west, which are more heavily influenced by Atlantic Water that comes up the coast from the south. In western Svalbard, some polar bears do live year round in areas that frequently have sea ice only from a few weeks to a few months per year. These bears spend more time on land, and prey more on ground-nesting birds in summer. Some individual bears hunt harbor seals, and there are increasing numbers of reports of polar bears hunting reindeer successfully. These west coast bears do manage to survive and some produce cubs successfully. However, bears in NW Svalbard where loss of sea ice has been greatest are leaner than elsewhere in the archipelago, suggesting that a threshold might have been reached in this area.

In eastern Svalbard, polar bears used to spend a lot of time in front of glaciers both during the spring and summer - up until the early 2000s. In recent years, when sea ice has often been absent, the bears have shifted their summer foraging into terrestrial areas, and similar to west coast bears, they spend more time in ground-nesting bird colonies. This has occurred despite the fact that ringed seals have not changed their behavior with respect to glacier fronts; these areas are still preferred habitat. This infers a shift in this traditional Arctic predator-prey relationship.

The mating season for polar bears occurs in spring, but one observation of copulation in late June indicates some degree of plasticity that may be important in a changing Arctic. If females can become pregnant via late season breeding if they lose their cubs, it would shorten the period when she was without young, increasing reproductive potential of the population. Large variability in time of den entrance and den emergence documented recently, also indicates plasticity that may allow for fast changes in timing for when bears will find ringed seal pups in spring, if changes in sea ice conditions infer significant changes in reproductive timing of this important polar bear prey species.

In conclusion, data from Svalbard indicate a high level of plasticity in polar bears that will likely be important in a fast-changing environment. However, it is difficult to envisage stable polar bear population numbers in an Arctic with less sea ice. It will be important to study demography and behavior in different areas, across a wide range of conditions to increase our understanding of the conditions that might allow for polar bears survival in the future. Forward-looking planning of protected areas for polar bears in areas that are likely to maintain suitable habitat should already be under consideration based on climate change projections.

Presentation Title: Northern Wildlife Enforcement Network – Background, Challenges, Opportunities and Next Steps
Summary: The Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) is a regional, intergovernmental law-enforcement network designed to combat illegal wildlife trade. The WEN facilitates a proactive, collective response by countries to wildlife crime, providing a mechanism for countries to share experience and intelligence, best practices, and a means to collectively build capacity and coordinate joint enforcement operations. A background on the Northern WEN is provided from its beginnings in 2013 until today. Similar issues and challenges of Arctic countries are: increasing tourism with cruise ships; north-south trade routes; “Northern” issues in common that go beyond “Arctic” (e.g., species smuggling, illegal harvesting of timber and poaching); invasive species; and a lack of communication and coordination to effectively investigate and prosecute offenders. Opportunities include: expanding the scope beyond Arctic species; encouraging and enhancing the transmission of law enforcement information between parties; improving traceability of Northern species in trade; and sharing of best practices. Examples of information that could be shared are: enforcement information to support wildlife enforcement operations; key points of contact for each country; legislation related to Arctic species and best practices documents. The next Northern WEN discussion/ meeting may be planned during the 70th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in Sochi, Russia in October 2018. In the meantime discussions, among law enforcement authorities should continue and it may be interesting to include other agencies such as customs.

Presentation Title: Traditional Ecological Knowledge inclusion in Management and Research in Canada
Summary: This presentation discusses the inclusion of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in polar bear management and research in Canada. Inuit Traditional Knowledge (ITK) has a long history of being used by Inuit to successfully manage and conserve wildlife, including polar bears, and is used by Inuit to carry out various aspects of their livelihoods, such as acquiring food. Traditional Knowledge (TK), working in parallel with scientific information (together they are known as the ‘best available information’), is both vital and beneficial to inform wildlife management decisions. In 2013, a need was identified for the Range States to develop a common understanding of how TK can be defined and how it should be used in Polar Bear Management Decisions. The Circumpolar Action Plan TEK Working Group and the Canadian Polar Bear Technical Committee (PBTC) have arrived at different definitions of TEK, and multiple other definitions exist. While there are some differences, many TK definitions share common elements. In Canada, Land Claims Agreements often establish legal requirements to include TEK in decision-making. Four examples of TEK studies relating to polar bear in Canada are highlighted.

Rules of Procedure for Contracting Parties, adopted in Fairbanks, Alaska, USA, February 4, 2018, revised March 12, 2019. This document appears in the Meeting Outcome Report as Appendix II.

Memorandum re: Cooperation between Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) and the Polar Bear Range States (PBRS)

CMS Proposal for Hosting the Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears

A draft Request for Scientific Advice from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission Polar Bear Specialist Group (IUCN/SSC PBSG) was presented for consideration in Fairbanks, Alaska, USA, February 4, 2018. The Range States and PBSG continued to refine the Terms of Reference through correspondence until offical adoption on March 12, 2019.

2-Year Implementation Plan of Circumpolar Action Plan 10-Year Actions, 2018-2020, adopted in Fairbanks, Alaska, USA, February 4, 2018. This document appears in the Meeting Outcome Report as Appendix I.

Written records of oral statements made by Observers at the Range States meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska, on February 4. These, and written comments recceived prior to the meeting, appear in the Meeting Outcome Report as Appendix III. All written records were provided by the Observers.