Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
of endangered rhinos. Controlled hunting through the sale of licences to tourists or
through the distribution of licences to indigenous peoples in respect of their ancient
traditions invariably causes heated discussion and considerable moral controversy.
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) has, at various
times, imposed bans on the international trade in ivory, and many countries, including
the USA, have imposed a ban on the importation of hides of polar bears legally
hunted by the Inuit or by commercial hunters in northern Canada.
The Canadian, Russian and US governments allow indigenous peoples to hunt a
restricted number of polar bears for food and for economic gain, but only Canada
permits the bears to be hunted for sport. Since the 1973 Agreement on the Conserva-
tion of Polar Bears and later conservation agreements by the range states (Canada,
Greenland, Norway, Russia and the US), polar bears have not been commercially
killed and harvested. Russia and Norway have not hunted polar bears since the mid
1950s. The Canadian government will pay native hunters up to $11,000 for hides.
Inuit peoples sometimes supplement their income by acting as guides to trophy
hunters from the US and elsewhere who may pay in excess of US$35,000 for the
privilege of killing a polar bear. American hunters cannot take the hides back to
the US with them but a photograph of the hunter with his kill is often sufficient.
Hunters from elsewhere, such as Mexico, may import the hides if they have applied
for and received the appropriate permits. The philosopher Michael Sandel (2013)
raises an important ethical issue here regarding the morality of Inuit hunters selling
their ancient and privileged hunting rights (or dispensation) to trophy hunters, even
though the additional economic benefits are clear. Is applying market criteria so
overtly to an indigenous right degrading that right through its commercialization?
Referring to the killing of walrus rather than polar bears, Sandel writes: 'It's one
thing to honor the Inuit way of life and to respect its long standing reliance on
subsistence walrus hunting. It's quite another to convert that privilege into a cash
concession in killing on the side' (2013: 84).
In 2013, a US proposal, supported by Russia, went before the CITES conference
in Bangkok, Thailand, arguing that polar bears should be listed in Appendix One
and that a total trade ban on polar bear products should be imposed. The Inuit
Tapiriit Kanatami opposed the proposal, stating that scientific surveys suggesting
the species was in decline was wrong. The proposal was defeated, with 38 countries
voting in favour, 42 against and 46 abstaining. The WWF supported the Canadian
Inuit whereas IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) and the New York-
based NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) suggested that the science was
clear and that up to two-thirds of the 20,000-25, 000 polar bears currently inhabiting
the Arctic worldwide would be extinct by 2050. The IUCN suggested a more
accurate figure was probably closer to one third.
The oceans and global fisheries
In 2013 the International Programme of the State of the Ocean (IPSO), in association
with the IUCN, issued a comprehensive report outlining a series of perils, prognoses
and proposals for the marine environment (IPSO, 2013). The scientific evidence cited
demonstrated a trio of problems stemming from climate change - acidification,
warming and deoxygenation. Like so many other ecological indicators, the rate of
ocean acidification is unprecedented in the Earth's history, which is exposing marine
