Melting Of Arctic Ice And Its Impact On Polar Bears

On Thin Ice: How Institutions Are Fighting to Save Polar Bears from Climate Change?

Introduction

Polar bears are one of the most iconic species of the Arctic, perfectly adapted to life on the sea ice. As apex predators, they rely on the ice to hunt seals, breed, and raise their young. However, climate change is causing the Arctic ice to melt at an alarming rate, threatening polar bears' habitats and food sources. With diminishing sea ice, polar bears are forced to travel greater distances in search of food, leading to lower survival rates, especially among cubs. As a result, polar bears have become a symbol of the devastating impacts of climate change on vulnerable species in the Arctic.


Literary Review

Institutions and Environmental Issues:

Institutions play a critical role in establishing frameworks for environmental decision-making. Ostrom’s theory of collective action highlights how institutions can effectively manage shared resources, such as Arctic ecosystems, when clear rules and enforcement mechanisms are in place (Ostrom, 1990). At the international level, the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (1973) exemplifies institutional collaboration between Arctic nations to regulate polar bear hunting and protect critical habitats. However, studies suggest that enforcement gaps and a lack of funding often limit the agreement’s effectiveness (Derocher et al., 2013). National institutions also contribute significantly to environmental governance. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforces the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect polar bears by designating critical habitats and regulating industrial activities. Similarly, the Canadian Wildlife Service has implemented monitoring programs to track polar bear populations. Despite these efforts, institutional effectiveness is often hindered by competing priorities, such as economic development in Arctic regions (Clark et al., 2008).

Human Behavior and Conservation:

Institutions shape human behavior by regulating activities that threaten polar bears, such as industrial development, hunting, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the U.S. has successfully reduced direct human impacts, including hunting and habitat disturbance. However, indirect impacts, such as oil drilling and shipping in the Arctic, remain significant challenges (Amstrup et al., 2010). Research also highlights the importance of public awareness campaigns in influencing human behavior. Organizations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have used public education and advocacy to reduce human-wildlife conflicts and promote sustainable practices in Arctic regions. Studies suggest that community-based conservation programs, where local stakeholders are actively involved, are more likely to succeed in addressing human impacts on polar bear habitats (Weber et al., 2015).

Environmental Challenges in the Arctic:

Climate change is the most significant environmental challenge affecting polar bears, with rising global temperatures causing a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2021), the Arctic is warming at twice the global average, leading to a reduction in the availability of sea ice, which polar bears depend on for hunting and breeding. Research by Stirling and Derocher (2012) shows that the loss of sea ice has resulted in decreased prey availability, increased energy expenditure, and lower reproductive success among polar bears. The literature also emphasizes the cascading effects of Arctic ecosystem changes. For example, the decline of sea ice impacts not only polar bears but also other species, such as seals and fish, disrupting the entire food web (Post et al., 2009). Institutions must address these interconnected challenges to ensure effective conservation strategies.

Challenges faced: Despite progress, institutions face significant challenges in addressing the environmental impacts of climate change on polar bears. Studies highlight the difficulty of enforcing international agreements due to geopolitical tensions among Arctic nations and the lack of binding commitments (Young, 2016). Additionally, economic interests in resource extraction, such as oil and gas drilling, often conflict with conservation goals, undermining institutional efforts (Lentfer, 2010). Some researchers argue that existing frameworks do not adequately address the root cause of habitat loss—global greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC aims to mitigate climate change, but its success depends on the commitment of individual nations to reduce emissions (IPCC, 2021). Without coordinated global action, the effectiveness of localized conservation efforts will remain limited.

Case Study: The Impact of Melting Arctic Ice on Polar Bears

The Arctic, one of the most fragile ecosystems on Earth, is experiencing rapid climate change. It is warming at twice the global average, resulting in dramatic reductions in sea ice cover. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus), which rely on sea ice for hunting, breeding, and migration, are among the species most affected by this environmental shift. Classified as a vulnerable species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), polar bears are often considered a bellwether for the health of the Arctic ecosystem. Polar bears depend on sea ice to hunt seals, their primary prey, and store energy for the summer and autumn when food can become scarce. Sea ice now melts earlier in the spring and forms later in the autumn in the bears’ southern range, like Hudson Bay and James Bay in Canada. As ice diminishes, polar bears are forced to travel greater distances or spend more time on land. This has led to reduced body condition, lower cub survival rates, and increased mortality. As the bears spend longer periods without food, their health declines. For every week earlier the ice breaks up in Hudson Bay, bears come ashore roughly 22 lbs lighter and in poorer condition. Understanding the role of institutions in mitigating these threats is critical to conserving polar bears and their habitats.


Role of Institutions in Polar Bear Conservation:

1. National Governments

Several Arctic nations, including the United States, Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Norway, host polar bear populations. National governments play a key role in enacting policies and laws to protect these animals:

United States: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforces the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Under the ESA, polar bears are listed as a threatened species, making it illegal to harm or harass them. The MMPA further protects polar bears by regulating industrial activities, such as oil drilling and shipping, that could disrupt their habitats.

Canada: The Canadian Wildlife Service oversees polar bear conservation and enforces laws that limit hunting and industrial development in Arctic regions. Canada is home to approximately 60% of the world’s polar bear population, making its conservation efforts particularly critical.

Russia: Russia has implemented strict hunting regulations and monitors polar bear populations through the Polar Bear Patrol program, which also works to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts in Arctic communities

While these efforts have shown some success, challenges remain, particularly in balancing conservation goals with economic interests such as Arctic resource extraction.

2. International Organizations and Agreements

Polar bear conservation requires cross-border collaboration due to the species’ wide-ranging habitat. Key international institutions and agreements include:

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (1973): This landmark treaty brought together five Arctic nations (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the U.S.) to regulate hunting and conserve polar bear habitats. While it has been effective in reducing unsustainable hunting, it does not address the primary threat: climate change. Arctic Council: The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum, facilitates collaboration among Arctic nations to address environmental issues. Initiatives such as the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) have been instrumental in tracking climate change impacts on polar bear habitats. World Wildlife Fund (WWF): WWF has played a significant role in polar bear conservation through research, advocacy, and community engagement. For example, the WWF works to reduce industrial pressures in polar bear habitats and educates Arctic communities on coexistence strategies. Although these organizations and agreements have raised awareness and coordinated research, their effectiveness is often limited by non-binding commitments and funding constraints.

3. Legal Frameworks and Policies

National Laws: In addition to the ESA and MMPA in the U.S., Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) and other national laws regulate industrial activities in Arctic regions. These laws are critical in minimizing habitat destruction caused by oil drilling, mining, and shipping. International Climate Agreements: The Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) indirectly benefits polar bears by addressing global greenhouse gas emissions, the root cause of Arctic ice loss. However, progress under this agreement has been slow, and its impact on polar bear conservation remains limited.

4. Challenges to Institutional Effectiveness Despite the efforts of national and international institutions, significant challenges remain: Enforcement Gaps: Monitoring and enforcing regulations across the vast and remote Arctic is logistically challenging. Many international agreements rely on voluntary compliance, which limits their impact.

Economic Pressures: The Arctic is rich in natural resources, and economic activities such as oil and gas exploration often conflict with conservation goals. For example, industrial development increases habitat fragmentation and risks oil spills, which would devastate polar bear populations.

Climate Change Mitigation: Most conservation efforts focus on managing the symptoms (e.g., habitat protection) rather than addressing the root cause—climate change. Without substantial global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic ice loss will continue, rendering other conservation measures insufficient.

Key Findings:

The case study reveals that institutions play a critical role in polar bear conservation but face significant challenges: - National governments have made progress in reducing hunting and managing industrial activities, but enforcement remains inconsistent. - International organizations and agreements have facilitated collaboration but lack the binding authority needed for large-scale impact. - Legal frameworks provide essential protections but do not address the root causes of habitat loss.

To ensure the long-term survival of polar bears, institutions must strengthen enforcement mechanisms, enhance international cooperation, and prioritize climate change mitigation efforts.


Conclusion

The melting of Arctic ice and its impact on polar bears highlights the urgent need for action against climate change. Polar bears, as a keystone species, depend on sea ice for survival, and its loss threatens not only their populations but also the entire Arctic ecosystem. Institutions have made progress through conservation policies and international agreements, yet enforcement challenges and the failure to address the root cause—global greenhouse gas emissions—limit their effectiveness. This research underscores the broader implications of Arctic ice loss, which affects global biodiversity, climate regulation, and sea levels. Protecting polar bears requires stronger climate policies, enhanced international cooperation, and sustainable practices. Their survival is a call to action, reminding us of the critical role of the Arctic in maintaining the planet’s balance.

Bibliography

Articles:

WWF. “Polar Bear | Species | WWF.” World Wildlife Fund, 2019, www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear.

WWF. “Polar Bear Threats.” WWF Arctic, 2024, www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-threats/.

Clark, D. A., et al. (2008). Managing polar bear-human interactions.

News, PBS. “Research Reveals Threats Polar Bears Face as Climate Change Melts Arctic Ice Hunting Grounds.” PBS News, 24 Sept. 2024, www.pbs.org/newshour/world/research-reveals-threats-polar-bears-face-as-climate-change-melts-arctic-ice-hunting-grounds.

Derocher, A. E., et al. (2013). Polar bears in a warming Arctic.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.” IPCC, 2021, www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons.

Stirling, I., & Derocher, A. E. (2012). The loss of sea ice: Effects on polar bears.

Smieszek, Malgorzata, et al. “The State and Challenges of Arctic Governance in an Era of Transformation.” One Earth, vol. 4, no. 12, Dec. 2021, pp. 1665–1670, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.11.014.

Photots:

Fetterer, Florence. “Guest Post: Piecing Together the Arctic’s Sea Ice History back to 1850.” Carbon Brief, 11 Aug. 2016, www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850/.

Photo of Frail Polar Bear Illuminates the Tragedy Unfolding in the Arctic. inhabitat.com/photo-of-frail-polar-bear-illuminates-the-tragedy-unfolding-in-the-arctic/.

“The Graphic Truth: The Politics of Polar Bears - GZERO Media.” Www.gzeromedia.com, www.gzeromedia.com/gzero-north/the-graphic-truth-the-politics-of-polar-bears.