Newfoundland: A mean, green ecotourism machine?

Impacts of Eco-tourism on Conservation in the Province

While the proper promotion of ecotourism can have several positive effects on conservation, it doesn't come without its problems. After looking at several at home examples and recently taking a look at some National and Global examples of eco-tourism this week we look directly at the impacts of eco-tourism in our province on conservation efforts.


Being a relatively isolated province, any means of travel to the island (boat or plane) are fairly environmentally un-friendly (just for interest: a cool article on potential "green" planes of the future!   http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20110405-will-green-airplanes-take-off ). In chapter 3 of Jennifer Hills book : Ecotourism and environmental sustainability: principles and practice (2009), it discusses how unsustainable aviation is as a mode of transportation, but it is also one of the most rapid growing. By promoting more local ecotourism and encouraging Newfoundland residents to experience our beautiful wilderness, we can reduce some of these associated pollution costs. 

Greenhouse gas emissions for various modes of transportation
http://www.ecovelo.info/2011/08/15/life-cycle-assessment-of-transportation-options/

Since boat tours including iceberg and whale watching are such popular tourism activities in Newfoundland, we were concerned with boat pollution from boat use as well as potential noise pollution if getting to close to the whales and other marine mammals. Since whale watching boats are realtively small (compared to industrial and cargo ships the noise pollution aspect is much lower. However a study conducted in BC and Washington looked at the impacts of noise from tour boats on Orca whales (Erbe, 2002). They found that at higher speeds there was an impact but are hoping that this study can help in setting speed regulations or boat/motor type regulations to cut back on noise disturbance that may impact whale communication.

Is noise pollution from ecotourism affecting whales?
http://www.firstnews.co.uk/news/whales-have-to-shout-over-humans-i1973

While researching for this blog, we found a lack in province wide unity in terms of Eco-tourism. Looking at countries like Costa Rica, there is a nation wide effort to conserve and protect what they have. Currently it seems that Newfoundland and Canada, while on the right path, are still more interested in financial gain than conservation. If more regulations and standardization's around what can be labelled eco-tourism are be set in place, more legitimate establishments can be maintained while those that may be in it more for the money may fall to the wayside.

In response to a comment from an earlier blog, we looked into the Newfoundland Outfitters Association (NLOA) and whether or not we considered it an eco-tourism group as they claim to be. It is a group of businesses all promoting hunting and fishing within the province and thought it made a good parallel to hunting as eco-tourism in other places (Nunavut, where it is highly controlled and Africa where it is less so.) The NLOA has been around for 50 years and currently has over 60 members (businesses) all promoting hunting. Looking at their website (http://www.nloa.ca/index.html) they are mainly concerned with economic impacts and have no particular statements of conservation efforts or initiatives. We do not feel that this is a good example of an ecotourism group as each individual hunting business has a different set of guidelines and priorities. From personal experience, Tom Farrel commented on the Flowers Ridge Lodge in the province which works on a catch and release only policy, runs on solar power and uses only 5 gallons of diesel per year for the lodge versus 500 for some other establishments. In this case, an argument could be made for promoting experiencing nature while still respecting it. 

References:


Erbe, C. (2002), UNDERWATER NOISE OF WHALE-WATCHING BOATS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON KILLER WHALES (ORCINUS ORCA), BASED ON AN ACOUSTIC IMPACT MODEL. Marine Mammal Science, 18: 394–418. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01045.x


Hill, J. 2009. Ecotourism and environmental sustainability: principles and practice. Ashgate Publishing. 


NLOA website: http://www.nloa.ca/index.html

Management and Law of Invasive Species

Management of invasive species is a vital part of ecosystem control within our world; we have talked a bit about various species of invasive animals within Newfoundland and what an invasive animal is. What we now are going to look at is really how well is Newfoundland doing in managing these species. To understand Newfoundland’s role we are going to explain Canada’s regulations, strategies and plans for management invasive animals.  Currently in Canada the number of animals that are considered invasive are: “181 insects, 24 birds, 26 mammals, 2 reptiles, 4 amphibians, some molluscs, and 55 freshwater fish” as quoted from Environment Canada’s invasive species webpage (http://www.ec.gc.ca/eee-ias/default.asp?lang=En&n=1A81B051-1) and these numbers are only one that have been discovered.

The management of invasive species is a complicated task to control. From some of the previous blogs there have been somewhat success stories of management (Newfoundland marten) and some failures in the management of controlling invasive animals (Blue-star tunicate). There was the Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada thought up in 2004 where the federal government works incorporation with each province and territory. There is also a national strategy set in place to control the entrance of new invasive species in to the country.

Canada’s management:

Goal: to conserve biodiversity and use sustainable amounts of biological recourses. This included prevention of spreading of invasive species. This has to be done by creating incentives and legislation of management.

In 2004 there was a strategy released called the National Invasive Alien Species Strategy that had: The goal for the invasive alien species strategy for Canada (Environment Canada, 2004) is to set a framework (Figure 1 below) of strategic challenges to control these invasive animals. Some challenges that were added to the framework were, including economic and social factors with environmental considerations, respond rapidly to invasive species, strengthen programs that protect our natural resources (limit global trade), and limit resource by collaboration between adhoc and regional/issue specific efforts.

 Figure 1: The finalize framework for the management of invasive species within Canada.

In 2005 this strategy started to examine the policies and regulations for invasive species in this Provence.

Legislation involved in Canada’s management of invasive species is the review of over 40 acts. There are also several departments that are listed in figure 2 that display their roles in legislation of the invasive species act. Canada’s priorities include, prevent introductions on new species, detect new invaders, respond to new invaders and manage the spreading through control.

Figure 2: the departments involved in the management of invasive species and their acts presented (Legislation Review: Invasive Species, 2006-2008).

 Newfoundland’s management:

               

               Figure 3: The departments used in making Newfoundland’s legislation on the invasive species act for the province and their acts which got reviewed (Legislation Review: Invasive Species, 2006-2008).

In Newfoundland, the strategies are slightly modified from the overall Canadian strategy because it is an island; therefore the only mode of transportation to the island is by ice, water (including boats) or air. There have been 4 zones set up which indication high entrance points for invasive species which is For example negative zones are very low risk entry points and the positive zones (within the supplying zone) are very high risk and need to be monitored.

Some other strategies that Newfoundland has implemented are, Livestock Health Regulations.

There are rules which prohibit the import of honeybees, honeybee hives, mink or swine into the province. If a person wants to obtain these animals then they must receive a permit from the Director of Animal Health.

Comparison:

The legislation within Canada is an effective act when regarding import of exotic species into the country however this doesn’t concern the entrance between provinces.

Provincial legislation seems to cover off the animals through the Wildlife Act however there is little protection from exotic plant invasions which bring various invasive animals such as insects (long-horn beetle) on to the island of Newfoundland.

Currently there are no rules of cleaning hulls of boats or other transportation sources. Therefore little to no enforcement is done and need to be implemented.

Enviroment Canada. 2004. An Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada. Retrieved from: (http://www.ec.gc.ca/eee-ias/98DB3ACF-94FE-4573- AE0F95133A03C5E9/Final_IAS_Strategic_Plan smaller_e.pdf)

Legislation Review: Invasive Species, 2006-2008. Exotic Species Education Coordination and Policy Development project. Retrieved from: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/biodiversity/invasive_alien_species/legislationreview.pdf

Invasive Species: Global vs Provincial Efforts

Now that we have given a brief overview of Newfoundland’s role in management strategies, now we’ll take a look at how we’re doing compared to some global initiatives. Invasive species are not just a problem here; they are an ever-growing issue in most of the world.

There are many global organizations that take it upon themselves to help solve some of the invasive species issues around the world, such as the Global Invasive Species Information Network which creates a database of invasive species present everywhere in the world.

Another global management program is being run by the Global Invasive Species Team of the Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. This is mainly an information hub to direct you to various planning and strategies that countries have done or are doing. It also provides the public with outreach programs that can get people involved with actually aiding in the management of these species.

 WWF is another world program which deals with the issue of invasive species however; their cause is not solely directed at this. They make little mention of invasive species as a major problem, but they do include an interesting graph of the escalating problem of invasive fish in the Lake Victoria (see below). However, the WWF is a huge powerhouse in the environmental sector with regard to public attention, and they should use it to educate the larger public about a variety of important topics: especially invasive species!

Figure 1: Introduction of Nile perch into Lake Victoria has contributed to the extinction of 200 local fishes (WWF, 2011).

IUCN has the most comprehensive study on invasive species at a global scale. They have an entire report available on their webpage, which includes lots of relevant data and some potential strategies to implement in response to the growing problem of invasive species.

While these organizations are undoubtedly positive, are they effective? Many of them are unknown to the general public and are only frequented by professionals in the area or a small demographic of the wider population. In many cases these organizations provide insufficient or non-complete data that are not providing the whole story. For instance, they often mention certain species are considered invasive in Canada, but Canada is a very large place with very different environments and wildlife distributions – without more specific (smaller scale) data, there is little that can be done with this. Additionally, Global Invasive Species Information Network claims that in Canada, there are only a few species in the kingdom Animalia that are invasive, this is blatantly wrong, there are more than that in Newfoundland alone! Lastly, most of these organizations are “more talk, less action”, that is they suggest what we should do and provide (questionable data) but actually do very little to help mitigate these problems.

Before we get too angry at some of these international organizations, how is Newfoundland and Labrador doing?

Our province mirrors these problems in many ways. Much of Newfoundland does not even know about the status of invasive species here or simply have “bigger problems”. In a survey done in Newfoundland, the public here is most concerned about healthcare and employment problems, while environmental problems were not even near the top of the considerations. And the programs that we do have in place, both government and other organizations, are relatively unknown for people outside of their community. The government needs to put more action into dealing with these invasive species, in the form of research, strategies, education, funding and implementation if we ever plan to make any progress on this problem in our province (much like the issue at a global scale).

Links:

Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health:

http://www.invasive.org/gist/

DFO Newfoundland:

http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ais-eae

IUCN Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species:

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2001-011.pdf

Global Invasive Species Initiative: http://www.gisin.org/DH.php?WC=/WS/GISIN/home.html&WebSiteID=4

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation:

http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/biodiversity/invasive_alien_species/

WWF:

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/own_goals/invasive_species/

Mussel Farming in Newfoundland: An Industry with Plenty of Room to Grow

            In our previous blogs, we have looked at varying topics concerning conservation issues around the world and practices that can make aquaculture more sustainable.  In today’s post, we are going to look at the industry of mussel farming, an industry that is very important to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.  In particular, we will be looking at mussel culture in Newfoundland, how we compare to our maritime competition, techniques used in mussel farming, as well as conservation issues and impacts associated with this form of aquaculture. 

            The blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) is one of the four species that is farmed here in our province.  The industry for blue mussels here in our province is one that has been steadily increasing over the past decade, with all indications showing that it will only continue to grow.  The iceberg-chilled water that surrounds Newfoundland provides an optimal growing environment for mussels and creates a taste that is widely preferred to species farmed in warmer waters (NAIA 2011).  However, this desirable taste does not mean that Newfoundland grows the most mussels in Canada.  Within Canada, mussel farming makes up about 15.8% of all aquaculture, with Eastern Canada dominating the industry as they provide 98% of these mussels (Canadian Aquaculture, 2011; Statistics Canada, 2010).  Figure 1 shows mussel production and total value of mussels throughout Canada as of 2010.  As shown in the figure, while Newfoundland contributes a fair bit to the total, providing 2461 tonnes of mussels, PEI is by far the greatest producer of mussels in Canada as they produce over 18,000 tonnes of mussels per year.  However, if the value of the mussels produced is considered, mussels in British Columbia and Newfoundland have the most value. 

Figure 1: Total production and value of mussels across Canada (Data provided by Statistics Canada, 2010)

A detailed view of the techniques used in mussel culture is shown in figure 2.

Of the multiple growing styles shown, Newfoundland uses the long-line system.  In this system, mussel seeds are initially places into mesh tubes called socks and hung on a line in the ocean that are equipped with flotation devices, and then the mussels are left.  Throughout the year, these lines are continuously thinned out as the mussels continue to grow and become mature.  Once the mussels reach their optimum size, they are harvested, declumped, and sent to their distributor (Mussel Industry Council, 2012).

Figure 2: Production cycle for the farming of blue mussels (FAO, 2012)

While the future of mussel aquaculture in Newfoundland looks bright, there is one problem in particular may hamper the industry’s growth.  In order to keep their industry afloat, Newfoundland must rely on a reliable, annual seed supply (DFO, 2011).  This problem is not unique to Newfoundland, as farms in the Netherlands, Ireland and France have all experienced problems acquiring seeds in the past (FAO, 2012).  There are only a small number of mussel hatcheries located worldwide, so scientists are actively pursuing ways of looking at natural production in our waters.  Many provinces across Canada already naturally produce their own seed, however with the unique water currents around Newfoundland, a new process must be determined (DFO 2011).

Much like any other form of aquaculture, there have been many concerns raised over the conservation impacts on the environment.  However, for mussel farming, while there are numerous negative impacts that it can have on the environment, there are also a few positive ones as well.  Since mussels are filter feeders, the amount of phytoplankton that they consume could lead to food shortages for other planktivorous fishes, and thus leading to a decrease in species richness and diversity in farming areas (Beadman et al., 2004; Dankers and Zuidema, 1995).  Cultivation techniques associated with mussel farming have also raised issues since they may be causing harm to the environment, and wastes produced by the mussels can create anoxic environments and sediment buildup underneath farms (Kaiser et al., 1998).  While these issues are very serious, mussel farming can also contribute to the environment:  mussels are a major component of the recycling of nutrients in water bodies due to the feeding habits, and they also improve water quality in areas where they are farmed (Dame et al., 1991; Lindahl et al., 2005).

In terms of sustainability, Newfoundland still has a ways to go to create measures to address these conservation issues, especially when compared to Canada’s leaders in mussel farming, PEI.  PEI is known for two developments: the shellfish aquaculture industry environmental policy (SAIEP) and the shellfish aquaculture industry codes of practice (SAECOP).  These two developments clearly state the industry’s stance on many issues such as sustainable management, water quality, waste management, and they outline aquaculture practices that will help ensure that the industry respects the environment (Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance, 2012).  While Newfoundland does not currently have any management measures in place, initial meetings have been help to look at developing sustainable development policies, strategic plans, management plans as well as environmental codes of practice. 

So, while the future is bright for the mussel industry of Newfoundland and Labrador there is still plenty of room to grow.  If we want to be considered a leader in the mussel aquaculture world, then sufficient effort must be put into conservation measures and current research must continue. 

- Mark and Brandon

References:

Beadman HA, MJ Kaiser, M Galanidi, R Shucksmith, and RI Willows (2004). Changes in species richness with stocking density of marine bivalves. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 464-475.

Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (2011). Production and Markets. Retrieved from: http://www.aquaculture.ca/files/production-markets.php

Damn R, N Dankers, T Prins, H Jongsma, and A Smaal (1991). The influence of mussel beds on nutrients in the western Wadden Sea and eastern Scheldt estuaries. Estuaries 14:130-138

Dankers N, and DR Zuidema (1995). The role of mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) and mussel culture in the dutch Wadden Sea. Estuaries. 18(1):71-80.

DFO (2011). Seeding an industry: mussel culture in Newfoundland. Retrieved from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/Publications/article/2007/03-12-2007-eng.htm

FAO (2012). Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme Mytilus edulis. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Mytilus_edulis/en#tcNA009D

Kaiser MJ, G Burnell, and M Costello (1998). The environmental impact of bivalve mariculture: a review. Aquaculture ’98 Book of Abstracts. pp. 81-82

Lindahl O, R Hart, and B Hernroth (2005). Improving marine water quality by mussel farming: a profitable solution for Swedish society. Ambio. 34(2):131-138.

Mussel Industry Council (2012). On the Farm “From the Sea to your Plate”. Retrieved from: http://www.discovermussels.com/farm

Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association (2011).  Blue Mussels. Retrieved from: http://naia.ca/nl-aquaculture/blue-mussels/

Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance (2012). Environmental Responsibility. Retrieved from: http://www.aquaculturepei.com/environmental_responsibility.php

Statistics Canada (2010). Aquaculture Statistics 2010. 23-222-x

Australia, the leading country of Marine Protected Areas

The map below shows the estate of marine protected areas that are either Commonwealth reserves or conservation zones that the Australian government manages. These reserves and zones fall under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which was formed in 1999 by the Australian government.

Figure 1: Map of Commonwealth reserves and conservation zones in Australia (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011)

If having the most marine protected areas was a contest, Australia would win by a long shot.  Australia currently has over 200 Marine Protected Areas. They have 100% more marine protected areas than Newfoundland and Labrador, which only has 2 MPA’s established.  As mentioned in a previous blog, Newfoundland’s Marine Protected Areas are located in Gilbert’s Bay and in Eastport.

Not only Newfoundland, but Canada and the United States all look poorly when it comes to MPA’s when compared to Australia. However, it is not all bad news. Canada can learn a lot by the MPA’s established in Australia and how they are managed.

Situated in Australia is the largest marine protected area in the world, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This are can be seen in the figure below in the northeast of Australia.

  Figure 2: Map of Marine Protected Areas located around Australia. (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011)

This area runs over 2300 kilometers along the coast and is approximately 400 kilometers wide. In 2004, the Australian government implemented a new management plan for the area. It has set up 70 distinct bioregions.  40 of these bioregions are non-reef regions and the other 30 are reef bioregions. Within each of all these regions, at least 20% of the area has banned commercial fishing completely. Separate zones are designated for commercial fishing, traditional fishing and research. This ideal example of management has been slowly adapted to other parts of the world.

Another thing that Australia is doing right is they are connecting their networks of marine protected areas together.Linked MPA’s are more resilient to human pressures (fishing, tourism, recreation, etc…) and are more likely to recover from disturbances than isolated marine protected areas.  In Newfoundland, our 2 MPA’s are very isolated from each other. When compared to Canada, the 8 marine protected areas are split between the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans and are once again isolated by great distances.

When compared to Newfoundland and Labrador the first thing that is evident is that Newfoundland or even Canada does not have enough marine protected areas established. Of the 8 marine protected areas in Canada, the size of these areas combined do not even equal the size of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. More marine protected areas need to be formed and it may be worthwhile to look at the way MPA’s are managed in Australia and how Canada can adapt these management strategies. Once more MPA’s are set up in Canada, the government should consider the importance and benefits of keeping these MPA’s as linked networks instead of as isolated individuals.

Review of Newfoundland to Canada and the world.

In 2002 Canada’s Oceans act tasked the minister of fisheries and oceans to lead and commit to get a network of MPAs in the world summit on suitable development. The network was to be established by the end of 2012. Canada’s great lakes and oceans have a surface area of around 5.7 million km^2, which is equivalent to about 56% of Canada’s land. There are currently 7 designated MPAs in Canada, which ranked it as 70^th out of 228 countries in 2007. It can take months or years for MPAs to be established depending on the government legislations and policies and the stakeholders involved in creating the MPA. Below is a report card made by the David Suzuki foundation:

This shows one example of how Canada is doing quite poorly compared to other countries. Canada has only about 0.5% of the possibly oceans reserved, does not get enough funding, and does not have an efficient way to show what degree of habitat is being preserved. Canada does have legislations in place that aid in making MPAs but they have not established enough MPAs with a large amount of area in a efficient period of time. Within Canada there are about 8 federal legislations and 40 provincial/territorial legislations to aid in the creation of MPAs. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has established two out of the seven. This may sound like a good percentage compared to the rest of the provinces but in reality the two MPAs; Gilberts bay and Eastport are very small in size. Gilbert’s bay is about 60 km^2 and Eastport is about 2 km^2 (see descriptions in previous blogs). There could be much improvement because the majority of Newfoundland and Labrador is surrounded by water. The province that seems to have the most area of MPAs within Canada is British Columbia. BC also has two MPAs; Bowie Seamounts about 130 km^2 and Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents about 150 km^2. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources (IUCN) has made categories for the different types of MPAs. The majority of the area of Newfoundland and Labradors MPAs are created for landscape and seascape shaped by human interaction (category v) and created for sustainable use (category VI). In British Columbia the majority of the MPAs area is created for science or strict nature reserve (category I) and for ecosystem protection and recreation (category II). Ideally MPAs would work best under category I because they consist of strict nature reserves were no fishing or human activity goes on, this gives more chance for the spillover effect. The spillover effect is when the ecosystem and species within the MPA grow and they soon spill over the borders of the MPA and enrich environment that is not protected. All in all Canada and Newfoundland need to use the tools of the legislation and policies to create more MPAs in the future.

References:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/2008/marine-protected-areas-progress-report-card/

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/mpa-zpm/index-eng.htm

Nicholls, H.B. 1998. Canadian East Coast Marine Protected Areas: a review. Ocean coastal management. EISEVIER.87-96.

Baby Beluga in the Deep Blue Sea

Retrieved from: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0008989

The Beluga whale has seven different distinct populations within Canada: Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay, Southeast Baffin Island-Cumberland Sound, Ungava Bay, St. Lawrence River, Western Hudson Bay, Eastern Hudson Bay and Beaufort Sea-Arctic Ocean. You might be wondering which if any of these populations has to do with Newfoundland. The fact is all seven of these populations have individuals that regularly visit the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador.  Another frightening fact that involves all of these populations is that all seven are currently listed as threatened, endangered or of special concern by the Committee on the status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). As you can see there exists a real danger of the “baby belugas in the deep blue sea” becoming a thing of the past.

Retrieved from: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0008989

            A little about the beluga:  It’s a toothed whale and belongs to the family Monodontidae. Adults are usually between 2.6 to 4.5 meters long and can weigh up to 1900 kg. Adult females are about 80% longer than males and new born calf’s are half the length of their mothers (imagine giving birth to that). New borns are dark grey but of course adults are white in colour. Belugas lack a dorsal fin, which is possibly an adaptation to the ice-filled waters of the Arctic (makes sense).  Just as a cool side note, their name is derived from a Russian word “Blukha” which means white. 

             Beluga whales are vulnerable to predation by polar bears when they are near ice, and are also predated upon by killer whales. They also return to the same estuaries year after year and this makes them vulnerable to human hunting, disturbance and pollution from agricultural and industrial runoff. Other threats or potential threats that may affect the Belugas include the noise and disturbance resulting from increased vessel traffic and competition with commercial fisheries.

            

              To be honest there’s a lot about these populations we don’t know when it comes to threats and limiting factors. For example Belugas in the arctic range are often killed by Polar bears, yet we cannot go out and document all polar bear attacks (although that would be a wicked job).  The plain nuts and bolts of it are that the arctic environment makes it very difficult for us to document Beluga numbers.

            As of right now the only hunting of Belugas occurs by Indian and Inuit people of Canada who have a licence. Although this is a part of their heritages perhaps it’s something that should stop so as to conserve these great mammals. Currently the most protected of beluga populations is the St. Lawrence population. This population of Belugas are protected from being sought out and from direct approaches by commercial whale watching boats, and behavioural guidelines have been developed for vessels that unexpectedly encounter them.

            Currently in Newfoundland we are doing nothing to protect the Beluga whale. However I believe we should adopt the rules used when encountering the belugas of the St. Lawernce. When these majestic creatures our in our waters we should not approach them. If we see them we should move away from this creature and give them the space they need so as not to disturb the animal in their natural habitat.

If you want more information on Belugas you can check out the following sites:

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_beluga_whale_e.pdf

http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0008989

Life Isn't Easy, Especially for the Little Piping Plover!

So far we have looked at the conservation efforts that are being done with the American Marten in Newfoundland and outside of the Island, but how about another at-risk species, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) (see Figure 1) .

Figure 1: Photo of a piping plover
Photographer: Sydney Maddock
Source: Natural Resources Canada

While the piping plover looks nothing like the marten, they share the commonality of being possible extinct, wiped off, and permanently gone from our province unless WE take action. The piping plover has been designated as endangered by the Committe on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) since 1985, and the Atlantic subspeices (C. m. melodus) has been listed as endangered on the federal Species at Risk Act since 2003 (Environment Canada, 2006).


Even with all the extensive studies that have been done concerning the piping plover, it is still a "highly vulnerable" species according to Calvert et al. (2006). Therefore, in order to efficiently conduct conservation planning there needs to be a detailed assessment made of their habitat, factors that affect their survival, dispersal and recruitment. (Calvert et al., 2006). Collection of these various types of data will then help conservationists execute a proper plan for saving these little birds.

Piping plover populations across North America have shown strong declines in recent years and the eastern Canadian population dropped to as few as 422 birds in 1996 (Amirault, 2005).

Piping Plover reside in lesser populated areas on beaches throughout the eastern provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and the Magdalen Islands of Quebec (Calvert et al., 2006).

Figure 2: Distribution of piping plover along the Atlantic Coast
Source: Department of Environment and Conservation

So what is it about this species that is putting it at risk for extinction? While there are many different factors impacting plover populations, there are three main threats to the Atlantic subspecies. These threats are habitat loss as a result of coastal development, predation by gulls foxes and crows, and human disturbance.

While there is some effort going in to dealing with all three threats, a major component of the recovery planning in Newfoundland is focusing on educating the public, to minimize human disturbance.

To prevent predation, piping plover eggs have developed the feature of being very well camoflauged in their nests on the beach. While this may deter some predators, it makes the nests very vulnerable to being disturbed by humans who simply have no idea they are there (see Figure 3). This is why the recovery plan is focusing on education, as it is through this that people will be more aware of the plover, and what they can do to minimize their impact on the species.

Figure 3: Well hidden piping plover eggs (centre of photo)
Source: Environment Canada - Wildlife Services

The Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation are doing their best to educate the public and create awareness on the piping plover crisis. On their website they, have a brief summary page which shows all the key details about the piping plover here in the province. This page is written in a way which can easily be understood by the public, which is very important for getting the message across. You can read more about the piping plover here

Through education, the Newfoundland government hopes that people will be more willing to voluntarily take on behavior changes that will help the current piping plover populations flourish. These changes include keeping bikes, trucks and other vehicles off the beaches, keeping house pets—such as dogs—on leashes at all times can also help decrease the chances of them destroying the piping plover’s nest.

Gros Morne National Park is also trying its hand at creating awareness about the piping plover, and provides information their website regarding conservation activity they are a part of. Along with the Cow Head Town Council and residents, they have bird watching, monitoring and general education about the piping plover. By speaking with visitors and students, they can inform them of ways to protect this small shorebird. There has also been some more definitive conservation measures in the park, as they have closed off sections of certain beaches where piping plover nests are very abundant. However, even this strategy is tied with education, as there are signs in these areas explaining why the area is significant, and therefore, why it is closed (Parks Canada, n.d.).

Now, on to the important question: Is it working? According to the Department of Environment and Conservation it (sort of) is! The 2006 census saw an increase of nine birds from 2001, which may not sound too impressive, but means a lot more when you take into account that there are were only 48 birds accounted for in the census. The other good news is that the range of the bird seems to be expanding, with a pair of plovers nesting in Gros Morne for the first time since 1975 (Wildlife Division, n.d.).

With the cooperation of the public and conservationists we can help reverse the decline of piping plovers and change their status from “endangered” to “thriving” (we don't think this is an official SARA designation, but you get the idea)! As long as the goals keep being implemented and we the public try our best to follow them, the shorebirds will get on back on track.

Since plover populations can migrate between provinces, it is important to also look at what is being done in other areas. Stay tuned for next week when we will see what other provinces doing in order to help save these little birds!


-Shane & Asfa

References

Amirault, D. L. (editor). 2005. The 2001 International Piping Plover census in Canada. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada.

Calvert, Anna M., Diana L. Amirault, Francois Shaffer, Richard Elliot, Alan Hanson, Julie Mcknight, and Philip D. Taylor. (2006). Population Assessment of an Endangered Shorebird: The Piping Plover (Charadrius Melodus Melodus) in Eastern Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 4th ser. 1.3

Environment Canada. (2006). Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus circumcinctus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. vi + 30 pp.

Parks Canada. (n.d.). Extraoridnary Visitors: Endangered Piping Plovers Return to Shallow Bay Beach. Parks Canada. Retrieved March 22, 2012 from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/nl/grosmorne/ne/ne.aspx

Wildlife Division. (n.d.). Newfoundland and Labrador Species at Risk: Piping Plover. Department of Environment and Conservation, Wildlife Division. Retrieved March 22, 2012 from http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/endangeredspecies/piping_plover.pdf

Endangered Species Legislation in Canada and the United States: How Newfoundland Compares

We recently addressed how Newfoundland’s species at risk legislation compares to other provinces.  In today’s blog, we will address how Newfoundland’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) compares to Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the United States Endangered Species Act (US ESA).  By moving to the national level, it is possible to address how countries are doing in terms of endangered species legislation.

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) was passed in 2002.  The sole purpose of SARA is to “prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or extinct” and to “provide recovery of endangered or threatened species” (SARA, 2002).  Under SARA, a body of wildlife experts forms the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which is assigned to assess the status of species across the country, and recommend species at risk to be listed under SARA (Findlay et al., 2009).  COSEWIC forwards their recommendations to the federal Governor in Council (see Figure 1; Findlay et al., 2009).  This is similar to Newfoundland’s Species Status Advisory Committee (SSAC), which forwards their recommendations to the Minister of Environment.

Figure 1.  The species listing process under SARA from the initial assessment by COSEWIC to its final listing under SARA (Environment Canada, 2010).

As well, like Newfoundland’s ESA, there are issues with SARA.  Candidate species are prioritized under COSEWIC based on a combination of threats, population dynamics, et c.,  but if a species is listed as “Data Deficient” SARA will not conduct more research on the species or reassess the species immediately (Mooers et al., 2010).  As such, species that may be at risk of extinction, but are listed as “Data Deficient” will not be protected under SARA.  Further, there are large discrepancies between the number of species listed and there effective recovery strategies, recovery plans, and determined critical habitats (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The number of legally listed wildlife species up to 2003 and the respective number of recovery strategies, recovery action plans, and defined critical habitats.  The black bars indicate species that are listed as “Threatened” and white bars indicate species that are “Endangered” (from Figure 3 of Mooers et al., 2010)

There are also large discrepancies between taxa (group of organisms), with terrestrial mammals having proportionally less species assessed under COSEWIC being listed under SARA’s legislation (see Figure 3; Findlay et al., 2009).  Findlay et al. (2009) also report that harvested species and northern species (from the territories) are substantially less likely to be listed under SARA. 

Figure 3. The proportion of taxa with completed assessments by COSEWIC that are listed under SARA.  The bars are calculated differently to correct for differences in Not Listing a species, where NL=outright rejection; NL(REF)=outright rejection or referred back to COSEWIC; and NL(REF,EP)=outright rejected or referred back to COSEWIC or deferred to an extended consultation period.  What is to be noticed is the trend, where marine fishes are not represented at all, and birds, herps (reptiles and amphibians), plants, and invertebrates are nearly always designated under SARA (from Figure 1 of Findlay et al., 2009).

            Comparing to Newfoundland’s ESA, SARA needs to work harder to represent all of Canada’s biodiversity.  Newfoundland’s ESA is not perfect either, as many species that have been recommended for listing still have not been assessed by the Minister (as discussed in our previous blog).

            As we can see, there are problems that arise with Canadian endangered species legislation.  But how does Newfoundland, and Canada, compare internationally?  Particularly, how do we compare to the United States?

            The United States Endangered Species Act (US ESA) was created in 1973 (nearly three decades before SARA) to protect threatened wildlife (Gordon et al., 1997).  A species status under the US ESA is determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, which designates a species as either Endangered or Threatened (ESA, 1973).  The FWS is supposed to work with States, Tribes, private landowners, and other federal agencies to carry out conservation actions as listed under the US ESA (FWS, 2011).  However, how well the US ESA actually works is a different story.

            The US ESA has become controversial, causing political divisions and proposals to alter the legislation (Gordon et al., 1997).  This is partly due to the US ESA being applicable to private lands (not the case for SARA or NLs ESA) and conflicts with economic activities (Gordon et al., 1997).  This has led to the US ESA being essentially non-effective, and government spending has been placed elsewhere (see Figure 4; Gordon et al., 1997).  However, acting as a compromise for the US ESA, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) have been used to conserve ecosystems that organisms rely upon (FWS, 2011).  As such, the American government has focused on protecting critical habitats for its biodiversity, which bypasses their own legislation for protecting individual organisms at threat of extinction.

Figure 4. Government spending on its Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) compared to the all other Government expenditures from 1989 to 1993 revealing the transition from heavy investment in wildlife protection to much reduced investment efforts (from Figure 10 of Gordon et al., 1997).

            As we can see, there are several differences between Newfoundland, Canadian, and American species at risk legislation.  While Newfoundland and Canadian species at risk legislation works in a similar manner of having an advisory committee and a governing official doing the final listing, the United States has reduced its use of it ESA, opting to use Habitat Conservation Plans instead.  Where there are limitations in the US ESA, Canada tried to make alterations (e.g., SARA not applicable on private land) to better protect species at risk of extinction.  However, even with modifications to the legislation, there are still problems that need to be overcome.

            In our next blog, we will address how Newfoundland’s ESA compares to legislation across the globe.  Our international focus will help to determine where the province, and Canada, stands in terms of protecting its biodiversity through endangered species legislation.

For more information, check out the following links:

Species at Risk Act Registry

SARA Terrestrial Species Listing

COSEWIC Homepage

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

References:

SARA. 2002. Species at risk act. Retrieved on March 26, 2012 at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/act/sara_e.pdf

Findlay, C.S., S. Elgie, B. Giles, and L. Burr. 2009. Species listing under Canada’s species at risk act. Conservation Biology 23(6):1609-1617.

Environment Canada. 2010. Consultation on amending the list of species under the species at risk act: terrestrial species. Retrieved on March 26, 2012 at

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/public/cd_terrestrial_species_1210_e.pdf

Mooers, A.O., D.F. Doak, C.S. Findlay, D.M. Green, C. Grouios, L.L. Manne, A. Rashvand, M.A. Rudd, and Jeanette Whitton. 2010. Science, policy, and species at risk in Canada. BioScience 60(11):843-849.

Gordon, R.E., J.K. Lacy, and J.R. Streeter. 1997. Conservation under the endangered species act. Environment International 23(3):359-419.

FWS. 2011. Conserving the nature of America. Retrieved on March 26, 2012 at http://www.fws.gov/

Solar Energy – The best option or..?

Hello Fellow Readers,

The Sun. Sometimes a foreign concept to us Newfoundlanders who are continuously doused by fog, snow and rain, but a valuable tool for alternative energy use.

Even though we’re not accustomed to see large photovoltaic cells (large solar panels) around these parts, the solar energy industry is becoming larger and larger as renewable energy sources are picked up, and non-renewable energy decreases. The energy industry is very important in that it can produce as much as 30 times of energy that is inputted and aside from the land use, has virtually zero impact on the environment.

As we look at solar energy as a whole, I must note that it comes in a variety of forms. Ranging from solar ponds, photovoltaic cells and generating parabolic troughs (Pimentel 2008), solar energy can be harvested in many ways to produce energy for small homes and even large scale industrial buildings. As current technology stands, 22% f the suns radiation can be generated for electricity with the cell capacity increasing by about 211% from 2008 to 2009 (Sharan 2008). When looking at the output of energy specifically, it has been calculated that with a 1 million killowatt per hour per year (kWh/yr) input, we would receive an output of 1 billion kWh/yr and supply energy for 100,000 people over a 30 year period!! The problem with this is that it requires a substantial amount of land to place these solar panels and that in itself can be quite costly. The alternative to this is that, with the help of public support and the allowance of panels to be placed on top of homes and building, could reduce the land requirements/usage for solar energy up to 20% (hence why we need more people to hop on board!

Converting to any-new energy source can be a daunting task, but especially when is can be very costly. Even though the returns from solar energy and the money you save in the long run can be huge, the initial cost of the equipment is a setback in itself. It is one of the primary reasons of the slow progression into solar energy.

How is Canada doing?

Some people question if solar energy is economically viable for Canadians. However, a recent article published on CBC news suggests that the future for solar energy is bright. It is stated that even though the cost of solar energy is high right now, newly developed technologies will decrease the price and make it more viable for the nation. As we are not the number one supporters of the solar energy industry, we will become one in the future. "It took decades to get to where they are at [non renewable industries]. Solar will chip away at that, and before you know it, it will be a significant piece of the market share." (Mahajan 2011).

Here are some pros and Cons to solar energy over non-renewable energy sources

Solar Energy

              Environmentally friendly (almost zero impact on the environment)

·         No output of emissions

·         VERY costly to implement,

·         Require large amounts of land,

·         Lack of trained personnel,

·         Lack of public knowledge,

·         Few incentives (ie. Tax breaks)

Non-renewable energy sources

·         Readily available

·         Inexpensive (short term)

·         Very harmful to the environment.

·         Requires destruction of land and ocean ecosystems for extraction

·         Can result in catastrophes (oil spills) that can be very harmful to marine and land species

References

Lin, J., Cao, B., Cui, S., Wang, W., & Bai, X. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of urban energy conservation and GHG mitigation measures: The case of xiamen city, china. Energy Policy, 38(9), 5123-5132. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.042

Myhrvold, N. (2012). Greenhouse gases, climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity. Environmental Research Letters, 7(1), 014019; 014019.

Sharan, A. M. (2009). Efficiency enhancement of stationary solar energy based power conversion

systems in canada. Applied Energy, 86(9), 1405-1409. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.11.032

Sinha, S. (1994). Energy conservation of conventional fuels by use of solar energy. Energy Conversion and Management, 35(7), 589-595.

Quazi, K. (2011). Solar Energy Modeling over a Residential Community in the City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Photoenergy, 11, pages 1-10, doi:10.1155/2011/216519

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour

http://www.solar-wind-nature-energy.com/