Save Eco Destinations

Climate change will bring a combination of rising temperatures and increased predation that will result in biodiversity loss – and it may be worse than currently predicted, claims a study by University of British Columbia (UBC) zoologist Christopher Harley.

“Global warming is already having significant ecological impacts and it’s only going to get more dramatic,” Harley warned.

The study

Published in the current issue of the journal Science, the study examines how rocky shore barnacles and mussels react to the combined effects of warming and predation by sea stars.

Harley looked at the upper and lower temperature limits of barnacles and mussels from the cool west coast of Vancouver Island to the warm shores of the San Juan Islands, where water temperature rose from relatively cool in the 1950s to the much warmer years of 2009 and 2010.

He found that in cooler locations, mussels and rocky shore barnacles could live high on the shore and be shielded from their predators. But as temperatures rose, barnacles and mussels had to move to lower shore levels — and be exposed to predatory sea stars, whose location has not shifted.

“Sea stars are the terrors of the intertidal zone,” said Harley, Vancouver Sun reports. “As it gets hotter you would expect [species] to just move down to lower positions on the shore where they wouldn’t be out of the water for so long. But things aren’t shifting in unison.”

As daily high temperatures during the summer have jumped by almost 3.5 degrees Celsius in the last 60 years, barnacle and mussels have moved 50 cm lower on the shore. However, the effects of predators, and therefore the position of the lower limit, have thus far remained unchanged.

“That loss represents 51% of the mussel bed. Some mussels have even gone extinct locally at three of the sites I surveyed,” said Harley.

He then found that when stress from sea star predation was reduced by using exclusion cages, mussels and other species were able to live in hotter sites where they usually can’t — and their populations there more than doubled.

“A mussel bed is kind of like an apartment complex – it provides critical habitat for a lot of little plants and animals,” said Harley. “The mussels make the habitat cooler and wetter, providing an environment for crabs and other small crustaceans, snails, worms and seaweed.”

In contrast with many previous studies on how species ranges will change due to global warming, this analysis does not assume that species will simply relocate to remain in their current temperature range.

As animals or plants are unable to change their habitat ranges, Harley told, the findings show that warming and predation together could spawn more widespread extinction than scientists currently anticipate.

“Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species,” Harley added. “This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity.”

The effect on fishers

Relatedly, UBC researchers have also determined how climate change can impact the economic viability of current fisheries practices. Fish stocks are already yielding fewer fish due to overfishing and environmental factors such as pollution.

“Climate change is likely to cause more losses unless we choose to act,” said Rashid Sumaila, principal investigator of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC and lead author of the study.

A collaboration between economists, biologists and climate-change scientists, the study gives a broad outlook of the effect of climate change on fisheries and their profitability; it was published online in the journal Nature Climate Change. It received the support of the Pew Charitable Trusts, National Geographic, the World Bank and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

As waters warm, species move to cooler waters

Warming ocean temperatures have led many species to move farther towards the poles and into deeper and cooler waters. This means that while fishers in a few regions, such as Scandinavia in the far north, may benefit because they will now have more fish to catch, many others, and particularly fishers in the tropics, will lose an important food source along with their livelihoods. (Many fishers in tropical regions are poor and fish to feed themselves and their families.)

Researchers examined regional phenomena to help them find out what could happen on a global scale. For instance, lower catches of pelagic fish (such as sardines and anchovies) in Peru resulting from warmer waters during the 1997-1998 El Niño event caused more than USD 26 million in losses.

“For example, if you think about sardines on the Pacific Coast here: Whenever the temperatures are a bit higher, we see more sardines moving from Mexico through the US to Canada,” Sumaila noted, CBC News reports.

Fish survival is compromised

William Cheung, a biologist at the UBC Fisheries Center, said changes in temperature and ocean chemistry directly and adversely affect the physiology, growth, reproduction and distribution of marine life.

“Fish in warmer waters will probably have a smaller body size, be smaller at first maturity, with higher mortality rates and be caught in different areas,” he explained.

NOAA scientist and co-author Sam Herrick is calling for ongoing studies on how climate change and related factors will shape marine ecosystems and the productivity of fish populations.

Richer fish stocks = better adaptation to change

It was found that the bigger populations are, the better fish can adjust to environmental shifts such as warming temperatures. Minimizing the combined strains from overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution runoff, land-use transformation, competing aquatic resource uses and other anthropogenic factors will also contribute to helping stocks cope with climate change.

“We have to remember that the effect of climate change on the marine environment will occur alongside the impacts on land,” said Daniel Pauly, a UBC fisheries biologist and co-author.  “It will not be easy to divert resources from one sector to help another sector. This is why a strong governance system is needed – to temper the losses on the sectors that are worst hit.”

In other words, government officials need to step up and work harder to stop overfishing and illegal fishing, reduce runoff from agriculture and other polluting sources, and fight habitat destruction, among taking other measures.

Take a small step to make a difference

In the meantime, if you eat fish, something you can do is commit to purchasing only sustainably caught seafood. Read more about how to do this here:

• Greenpeace reveals canned tuna guide
• Fish eaters beware – your “sustainable” fish may not be

Related blog posts on Save Eco Destinations:

• Marine experts spell doom for world’s oceans, Pt. 2
• Marine experts spell doom for world’s oceans, Pt. 1

 

 

Last week I wrote about the efforts of certain companies to deceive consumers into thinking they are purchasing sustainably caught fish.

If you remember, I discussed the problematic Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which offers eco-certification to fisheries across the globe and has never refused the certification to any fishery that has completed the certification process. Ahem.

Well, it turns out that the independent adjudicator has ruled in favor of MSC last Monday, which means that the endangered Fraser sockeye salmon stocks have been ruled sustainable. Environmentalists are wailing and independent salmon trollers railing.

The certifier will now submit the Final Certification Report to MSC, recommending that the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery be certified as sustainable. The certifier may issue a certificate and MSC would announce certification after a final internal MSC review of the documents takes place.

So what’s the problem?

“This certification could actually result in well-intentioned consumers buying an endangered Fraser River sockeye with an eco-label on it,” explained Jeffrey Young, aquatic biologist with the David Suzuki Foundation, one of the groups who filed a notice of objection to the MSC’s intent to provide eco-certification to the stock.

I would like to reiterate that some Fraser River sockeye stocks harvested in the fishery that is getting certified by MSC are already classified as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and “critically endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, whose scientists consider overfishing a key threat to the stocks’ health.

Further, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) recently set up a commission to study the decline of the Fraser River salmon stock.

This is definitely bad timing for an eco-certification, don’t you think?

Next time you’re shopping for seafood, remember that MSC-certified seafood is probably not actually sustainably fished, and steer clear of Fraser River sockeye salmon.

There is more good news, so I wanted to share:

In the last post, I discussed the international bluefin tuna trade ban proposed by Monaco, the UK,  and France—which is awesome.

I also mentioned how UK supermarket chains like Waitrose and Sainsbury’s have quit selling endangered seafood—yay!

More good news:

A resolution by member countries and organisations of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) banning fish aggregating devices (FADs) catches between 1 August and 30 September was signed by the Philippines. – FIS

So all the countries that fish commercially with purse-seine fishing boats in the western and central Pacific Ocean will have to abide by the ban. (Bluefin tuna live far out in international waters.)

This is looking good.

While some fishing fleets will remain legally able to fish tuna –

1) they will make their catches with the long-line (a commercial fishing technique) and hand-line fishing methods, which are environmentally sound in comparison; and

2) local fleets will probably have to venture farther than out into the open sea than usual. Then,

3) their operation costs would rise. And thus

4) tuna prices would rise. And hopefully,

5) consumption will consequently fall.

Let’s hope so.

Because the tuna industry is not too fazed by the ban given that it will not apply to long-lining, which will help “bridge the supply gap.”

You know, except the coastal communities that depend on fishing for a source of income. But they don’t count.

What about the international ban?

The countries that sign the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora or CITES—which will probably soon include the U.S.—will meet in March 2010, according to The Economist.

2010? Why not now, right? And even if these countries could meet and get their asses in gear now, it could be too late.

Yet even if the trade in bluefin tuna were to be halted completely, there would be no guarantee that the species would recover. Experience with other fisheries, such as the collapse of the cod population of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland in 1992, has shown that the dynamics of an ecosystem can change when a top predator is removed completely. Fifteen years later, the northern cod stock has not recovered. – The Economist

Woe.

Let’s hope for the best.

And stab anyone you see even thinking about eating tuna. With a spork.

To get some history on the bluefin tuna issue, I recommend this article in the Wall Street Journal written by Prince Albert of Monaco. (Monaco was the first, on June 5^th, to call for an international ban.)

The dramatically endangered bluefin tuna species has something to smile about today: Britain, Monaco and France are calling for an international ban on its fishing.

Wow. Can you imagine?

I’ve been smiling about this all day! (Imagine the tuna!)

“Ours is the last generation with the ability to take action before it’s too late – we must protect marine resources now, in order to fish better in the future,” Sarkozy said at the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), according to Environment News Service.

“We owe this to fishermen, and we owe it to future generations,” he added.

Way cool. (Note to Sarkozy: you owe it to fisherwomen too, pal.)

So, first to raise the flag for the international ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna was the Principality of Monaco. The sovereign city-state launched a formal CITES consultation process earlier this week in hopes of gaining the support of other range States.

People—apart from environmentalists—gained awareness about the issue earlier this year in response to the Sundance Festival release of the documentary film “The End of the Line.” The movie describes the pace at which oceans are being overfished and the crime’s catastrophic consequences. It’s based on the book The End of the Line: How Overfishing Is Changing the World and What We Eat by Charles Clover.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bedirwk95Oc&hl=en&fs=1&]

The film has inspired UK supermarket chains like Waitrose and Sainsbury’s to stop dealing endangered species or only sell sustainably caught fish, and inspired consumers to shop for their food mindfully.

And am I glad! Because even though Greenpeace protests indeed have achieved a whole lot throughout the years, it’s a whole lot easier and less painful to get the point across when you have governmental bodies to back you up. Right, Emma Briggs? Watch the video behind the link to read + watch for yourself.

It seems we need TV to tell us that if we don’t stop being assholes, there won’t be any sushi left by 2048—not to mention no more bluefin tuna by 2012! That’s less than three years.

Wait, scratch that.

“The Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery is collapsing and, unless we take immediate action, the breeding population will disappear by 2010,” said World Wildlife Fund UK (WWF-UK) Marine Programme Manager Sally Bailey.

“We’re urging the government to encourage other countries to follow this lead and ban international trade. It’s our last chance to save this iconic species,” she added.

Jeepers!

But hey, if movies are what we need to reach people (apart from having protesters chain themselves to supermarket freezers) … then get to work, filmmakers!

(Yes, I know Australia’s successfully bred bluefin tuna in cages. It’s not the same.)

Seriously, it’s times like these that I am the most grateful for organizations like Greenpeace, WWF and even those crazy punks over at PETA!

THANK YOU!

From the tuna and from all of us…

I find this issue fascinating, so I wanted to delve into it deeper. Here we go –

Corals:

Scientific studies ascertained a relationship between the approximately 4,000 to 6,000 tons of sunscreen melting off swimmers’ skins and the quickly increasing decline in corals. It turns out that four common sunscreen ingredients (octinoxate, oxybenzone 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, and the preservative butylparaben) activate dormant viruses in corals, which go on to destroy algae—what corals feed on, and without which corals turn white and die.

About 60% of reefs around the world are currently in danger of dying due to global warming, excess UV radiation, and human activity—whether because anchors and boats tear through them, we pollute them with our garbage, or we drown them in our skincare products.

According to the European Commission, the chemicals in sunscreen and other skincare products are so harmful that areas such as marine eco-parks in Mexico straight-out ban them. These chemicals “can accumulate in aquatic animals, have an estrogen-like effect and biodegrade into toxic by-products.”

When they added low quantities of sunscreen to water around coral reefs, they found that “large amounts of coral mucous … was (sic) released within 18-48 hours. Within 96 hours, complete bleaching of corals had occurred.” Previously dormant viruses residing within the corals came alive and triggered widespread infections, effects also caused by pesticides and other pollutants.It only takes 20 minutes in the water for 25% of the harmful ingredients in your sunscreen to be released into the water.

Fish:

All the way back in 2006, the University of Applied Sciences in Basil, Switzerland, found endocrine disruptors (UV filters) in fish—male fish with not only sperm, but also female eggs. Read more here.

Humans:

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) conducted research on 1,031 common brands of sunscreen last year. They found that:

• 4 out of 5 do not offer adequate protection from the sun’s harmful rays
• many include ingredients that may be unsafe
• best-selling sunscreens (e.g. Coppertone, Banana Boat, and Neutrogena) proved to be the worst offenders. Here is the best and worst list: Find your sunscreen.
• many sunscreens only protect against UVB radiations (which cause sunburns), and not UVA radiations (which cause skin damage, aging, immune system problems, and skin cancer)
• 46% of sunscreens contain ingredients that break down under UV rays within minutes or hours, letting UV rays damage your skin
• sunscreens in the form of powder and spray make it easier for toxic nano-scale ingredients to get into your body than lotion sunscreens containing the same ingredients
• some sunscreens—and their toxic ingredients (namely, oxybenzone and other UV filters)—enter the bloodstream. These ingredients may exude free radicals in the sunlight, disrupt the endocrine system, cause allergies, and build up in the body
• the FDA is not currently taking care of these issues, so you must do so for yourself

Read more here.

SOLUTION: wear biodegradable sunscreens without questionable ingredients, apply it  repeatedly to the skin, wear a hat, and wear UV-resistant clothing (e.g. Solartex and No Zone) .