1

Conservation status, monitoring, and information gaps

Andrew Derocher & Ian StirlingIUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

Overview

• IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group• Polar bear research• Conservation status• Circumpolar monitoring of polar bears• Information gaps

IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

• SSC – Species Survival Commission• PBSG is one of >100 Specialist Groups• science-based network of ca. 7,500 volunteer

experts• no budget

IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

• 20 members from the 5 Agreement nations• 3 members appointed by each nation• 5 members appointed by the Chair

– Russia 3– USA 4– Canada 5– Greenland/Denmark 4– Norway 4

IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

• Invited Specialists - 24 at Meeting in 2005– North Slope Borough, Alaska– Inuvialuit Game Council, Canada– Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Canada– Ministry of Fisheries and Hunting, Greenland– KNAPK, Greenland– State Veterinary Laboratories, Norway – TINRO, Russia

2005 IUCN/SSC PBSG Resolutions1. A precautionary approach when setting catch levels in a

warming Arctic• harvest increases only if supported by scientific

knowledge2. An international study on the effects of pollution on polar

bears3. Status of the Western Hudson Bay population analysis

• appropriate management required4. Implementation of the U.S.A./Russia bilateral agreement5. Wrangel Island nature reserve and other protected areas6. Risks to polar bears from Arctic shipping

• monitor, regulate and mitigate impacts on polar bears

2

Mining activity in central Nunavut

exploration

polar bearden areas

shippinglane

Polar bear researchers*8 people / 2 populations

9 people / 13 populations

4 people / 4 populations

4 people / 2 populations

4 people / 4 populations* primary employment relates to polar bears

Circumpolar concerns for polar bear research

• Under staffed• Under funded• Significant loss of expertise occurring

– retirements past and pending

Photos © G. ThiemannYear

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Num

ber o

f pee

r rev

iew

ed p

aper

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Source ISI Web of Science

Peer-reviewed publications on polar bears (1975-2008)

Publication topics (peer-reviewed)

Toxicology

Ecology& zoology

Disease, parasites & handling

Physiology & genetics

Habitat, policy& harvest

Current conservation status

Sea ice loss is the primary concern for polar bear conservation

3

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Minimum sea ice cover Arctic sea ice extent

Nat

. Sno

w &

Ice

Dat

a C

ente

r, C

O

lost ice area was 2 million km2

below “normal” in 2007 & 2008

Ext

ent (

mill

ions

of s

quar

e ki

lom

eter

s)Sea ice break-up date and body

condition in Western Hudson Bay

Sea Ice Break-up31 May15 Jun30 Jun15 Jul

Bod

y C

ondi

tion

Inde

x

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Males

Females

Stirling et al. 1999; Lunn & Stirling unpubl. data

Drowning bearsMore problem bears

Decline in condition

Population decline

Distribution shift

Shift to land densCannibalism

Changing diet

Symptoms of climate warming

Current conservation status• IUCN Red List – Vulnerable• Assessed in 2006• Unanimous decision

World

U.S.A. • Listed – Threatened• Assessed in 2008

Norway • Red List – Vulnerable• Assessed in 2006

Current conservation status

Russia • Red Data Book – Rare, Recovering, Uncertain• Assessed in 2001

Canada • COSEWIC – Special Concern• Assessed in 2008

• Red List – Vulnerable• Assessed in 2007

Greenland

4

The Precautionary Principle

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

“Where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat”

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

Status Report is inconsistent with findings of the PBSGConcerns:1. Status “Special Concern” since 19912. Does not account for the effects of climate change3. Lacks quantitative analysis of sea ice loss4. Single status assessment applied to 13 populations

• “one-size fits all” is inappropriate 5. Lack of a precautionary approach

Time frame for status assessment

• Generation length is the average age of parents of the current cohort

• Assessment period = 3 x generation length

Time frame for status assessment

3612Canada

4515Norway / Denmark & Greenland

4515USA

4515IUCN Red List

Assessment period (years)

Generation length (years)

Generation length inWestern Hudson Bay

Gen

erat

ion

leng

th (y

ears

)

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Year

PBSG

Canada

Population monitoring

5

Population monitoring

Data collected at a specific frequency across time

Baselineecological data

General populationassessment

Populationestimates

Other -demographics, body condition,pollution levels

Harvest monitoring& analysis

Population

E Greenland

BarentsKara

Laptev

Chukchi

S Beaufort

N Beaufort

Viscount M

elville

Norwegian Bay

Lancaste

r Snd

M'Clintock

Gulf of B

oothia

Foxe Basin

W Hudson Bay

S Hudson Bay

Kane Basin

Baffin Bay

Davis Stra

it

Arctic B

asin

Num

ber o

f yea

rs o

f res

earc

h

0

10

20

30

40

50

Conservation oriented research effort 1970-2008

Population

E Gree

nland

BarentsKara

Laptev

Chukchi

S Beaufort

N Beaufort

Viscoun

t Melv

ille

Norweg

ian Bay

Lanca

ster S

nd

M'Clintock

Gulf of

Boothia

Foxe Basin

W Hudson

Bay

S Hudson

Bay

Kane Basin

Baffin Bay

Davis S

trait

Arctic B

asin

Num

ber o

f pop

ulat

ion

estim

ates

(5 y

ears

apa

rt)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of population estimates(5 years apart)

Good trend data 10%

Fair trend data 32%

Poor trend data 58%

Populationtrenddata

GoodFair

Poor - None

Population monitoring

• Detecting important changes– population size is the key parameter– demographic changes

• Magnitude of change and direction of change– ecologically significant changes– conservation status changes

• Timeframe of change– dictates monitoring intensity

Population monitoring programmes

What to monitor? 1. Population size2. Demographic parameters

– survival and reproduction3. Ecological changes

– diet – body condition– movements – pollution load– distribution – behaviour– disease / parasites

6

Conservation challenges and knowledge gaps

• Climate warming effects• Habitat trends

– must be polar bear oriented• Need for alternative population estimation

methods– aerial surveys– DNA darting

Conservation challenges and knowledge gaps

• Establishment and continuation of focal monitored populations– Southern Beaufort Sea– Western Hudson Bay– Barents Sea– Chukchi Sea– High Arctic

– Baffin Bay– Southern Hudson Bay

Primary

Secondary

Proposed populationsfor monitoring International co-operation

• Increase co-operation across shared populations

• Standardization of methods• Consider international monitoring projects• Consult on harvest levels in shared

populations

Conservation challenges and knowledge gaps

• Effects of pollution• Traditional Ecological Knowledge - Science

integration– an emerging field– integration of perspectives where applicable– collection and documentation of TEK

• Harvest management– what data do we need– how should we use the data

Depleted populations

BB

WH

MC

KB

VM

7

Conservation challenges and knowledge gaps

• Cannot use historic data to project population trend in a warming climate– use of population projection models is inappropriate

unless ecosystem change is included• Population boundaries will be dynamic

– need to consider the ramifications of changing distributions

SB NBVM

MC

LSLS BB

WH

FB

SH

DS

GB

NW

Subpopulations KB

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

Russia

Russia

Inuvik

Barrow

Aklavik

PaulatukKaktovik

Tuktoyaktuk

Prudhoe Bay

100°W110°W120°W

130°W

130°W

140°W

140°W

150°W

150°W

160°W

160°W170°W180°170°E

75°N

75°N

70°N

70°N

65°N0 200100 Km

31% of movements outside SB

Updated: Feb 2009

AlaskaNWT

DavisStrait

HudsonBay

CentralArcticBeaufort

Sea

HighArctic

Proposed Units

Designatable units for polar bears

Thiemann et al. 2008

Sea ice ecoregions

Durner et al. 2009

Oil and gas preparedness

Despite rapid increase in exploration and development of oil and gas in polar bear habitat, there is little preparation for

1. Mapping critical polar bear habitats2. Monitoring the effects of development3. Creation of oil spill contingency plans

8

YukonNorthwestTerritories

Beaufort Sea

Oil and gas leases in the Beaufort Sea 20072008

YukonNorthwestTerritories

Contingency planning

To date, documented changes in polar bear populations have been gradual– body mass– reproduction– survival rates– population abundance

© D. Guravich

Contingency planning

We are not prepared for rapid ecological change and appropriate conservation responses– relocation of animals– increased problem bears– fostering of cubs– euthanasia of bears– supplemental feeding

© D. Guravich

The direction forward• Polar Bear Conservation Plan

– population monitoring– standardized methods– habitat assessment– protection of critical habitat– sudden change contingency planning– oil spill contingency planning– shipping traffic– problem bears

Longer term:reducing greenhouse gas production

is the only conservation “cure”