MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1995 



reviewed the revised draft and provided comments to 

 the Department of State on 22 November 1995. The 

 Commission noted that the revised draft, dated 3 

 November 1995, reflected few of the points raised by 

 the United States during the September 1995 meeting 

 of senior Arctic officials and in comments on the 16 

 August draft provided to Canada 29 September 1995. 



In the Commission's view, the 3 November draft 

 was a step backward from the preceding draft. It 

 highlighted the development focus advocated by 

 Canada and, as a consequence placed reduced empha- 

 sis on the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. 

 The Commission recommended that it be made clear 

 to Canada and other Arctic nations that the United 

 States could not agree to provisions in a charter or 

 declaration establishing an Arctic council that arguably 

 would commit the U.S. Government to seek amend- 

 ment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and that 

 would establish the council as the appropriate body 

 for resolving trade and other disputes that arise among 

 Arctic states. 



The Department of State shared many of the 

 Commission's concerns. It advised the other Arctic 

 governments of these concerns in advance of the 

 meeting of senior Arctic officials in Toronto. Among 

 other things, the Department of State advised the 

 Arctic governments that the council, as envisioned in 

 the 3 November 1995 draft, went beyond what the 

 United States viewed as a useful, high-level forum in 

 which governments could address issues of mutual 

 regional concern. It pointed out that the 3 November 

 draft proposed a broad and ill-defined mandate for 

 promoting sustainable development of Arctic resourc- 

 es, a mandate that could impinge on domestic policy 

 prerogatives and international obligations of Arctic 

 governments. 



During the meeting of senior Arctic officials in 

 Toronto, the United States tabled a simple, abbreviat- 

 ed declaration for establishing the Arctic council. The 

 proposed U.S. text did not receive wide support. 

 Recognizing that attempting to develop a consensus 

 agreement for adoption at the March 1996 ministerial 

 meeting could interfere with preparations for that 

 meeting, the senior Arctic officials agreed to defer 

 further consideration of the Arctic council until after 

 the ministerial meeting. Canada offered to host a 



two- or three-day meeting in Ottawa immediately 

 following the ministerial meeting to continue efforts to 

 formulate a consensus declaration establishing the 

 council. At the end of the year, no arrangements had 

 yet been made to continue the discussions. 



The Marine Mammal Commission believes that 

 effective implementation of the Arctic Environmental 

 Protection Strategy is important to the long-term 

 welfare of both Arctic marine mammal stocks and the 

 Alaska Natives who depend on them for subsistence. 

 The Commission also believes that the proposed 

 Arctic council, if structured appropriately, could 

 provide a useful intergovernmental forum for promot- 

 ing implementation of the Arctic Environmental 

 Protection Strategy and other matters of mutual 

 regional interest. The Commission will continue to 

 work with the Department of State and other U.S. 

 agencies to seek agreement on the establishment of an 

 Arctic council, as well as to promote implementation 

 of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. 



Agreements Related to Polar Bears 



Polar bears occur throughout the Arctic in six 

 relatively discrete populations that overlap national 

 boundaries. Thus, effective conservation of polar 

 bears requires cooperative actions by the range states. 

 Activities undertaken during 1995, and the events 

 leading up to them, are discussed below. 



Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears 



In 1973 the Governments of Canada, Denmark (for 

 Greenland), Norway, the Soviet Union, and the 

 United States negotiated the Agreement on the Con- 

 servation of Polar Bears. The measure was the result 

 of growing concern about the possible effects of polar 

 bear sport hunting, which had increased during the 

 1950s and 1960s, combined with the effects of indus- 

 trial activities on polar bears and their habitat. Article 

 I of the Agreement prohibits the taking of polar bears, 

 subject to certain exceptions. Article II requires that 

 each contracting party "take appropriate action to 

 protect the ecosystems of which polar bears are a part, 

 with special attention to habitat components such as 

 denning and feeding sites and migration patterns...." 



142 



