By Katherine Seto, Johann Bell, Quentin Hanich, and Simon Nicol
Small Pacific Island states depend on their commercial fisheries for food supplies and economic health. But our new research shows climate change will dramatically alter tuna stocks in the tropical Pacific, with potentially severe consequences for the people who depend on them.
As climate change warms the waters of the Pacific, some tuna will be forced to migrate to the open ocean of the high seas, away from the jurisdiction of any country. The changes will affect three key tuna species: skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye.
Pacific Island nations such as the Cook Islands and territories such as Tokelau charge foreign fishing operators to access their waters, and heavily depend on this revenue. Our research estimates the movement of tuna stocks will cause a fall in annual government revenue to some of these small island states of up to 17%.
This loss will hurt these developing economies, which need fisheries revenue to maintain essential services such as hospitals, roads and schools. The experience of Pacific Island states also bodes poorly for global climate justice more broadly.
Island states at risk
Catches from the Western and Central Pacific represent over half of all tuna produced globally. Much of this catch is taken from the waters of ten small developing island states, which are disproportionately dependent on tuna stocks for food security and economic development.
These states comprise:
- Cook Islands
- Federated States of Micronesia
- Kiribati
- Marshall Islands
- Nauru
- Palau
- Papua New Guinea
- Solomon Islands
- Tokelau
- Tuvalu
Their governments charge tuna fishing access fees to distant nations of between US$7.1 million (A$9.7 million) and $134 million (A$182 million), providing an average of 37% of total government revenue (ranging from 4-84%).
Tuna stocks are critical for these states’ current and future economic development, and have been sustainably managed by a cooperative agreement for decades. However, our analysis reveals this revenue, and other important benefits fisheries provide, are at risk.
Climate change and migration
Tuna species are highly migratory – they move over large distances according to ocean conditions. The skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna species are found largely within Pacific Island waters.
Concentrations of these stocks normally shift from year to year between areas further to the west in El Niño years, and those further east in La Niña years. However, under climate change, these stocks are projected to shift eastward – out of sovereign waters and into the high seas.
Under climate change, the tropical waters of the Pacific Ocean will warm further. This warming will result in a large eastward shift in the location of the edge of the Western Pacific Warm Pool (a mass of water in the western Pacific Ocean with consistently high water temperatures) and subsequently the prime fishing grounds for some tropical tuna.
This shift into areas beyond national jurisdiction would result in weaker regulation and monitoring, with parallel implications for the long-term sustainability of stocks.
Pacific Tuna: Feeling the Heat.
What our research found
Combining climate science, ecological models and economic data from the region, our research published today in Nature Sustainability shows that under strong projections of climate change, small island economies are poised to lose up to US$140 million annually by 2050, and up to 17% of annual government revenue in the case of some states.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides scenarios of various greenhouse gas concentrations, called “representative concentration pathways” (RCP). We used a higher RCP of 8.5 and a more moderate RCP of 4.5 to understand tuna movement in different emissions scenarios.In the RCP 8.5 scenario, by 2050, our model predicted the total biomass of the three species of tuna in the combined jurisdictions of the ten Pacific Island states would decrease by an average of 13%, and up to 20%.
But if emissions were kept to the lower RCP 4.5 scenario, the effects are expected to be far less pronounced, with an average decrease in biomass of just 1%.
While both climate scenarios result in average losses of both tuna catches and revenue, lower emissions scenarios lead to drastically smaller losses, highlighting the importance of climate action.
These projected losses compound the existing climate vulnerability of many Pacific Island people, who will endure some of the earliest and harshest climate realities, while being responsible for only a tiny fraction of global emissions.
What can be done?
Capping greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing them to levels aligning with the Paris Agreement, would reduce multiple climate impacts for these states, including shifting tuna stocks.
In many parts of the world, the consequences of climate change compound upon one another to create complex injustices. Our study identifies new direct and indirect implications of climate change for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.
Katherine Seto, Research Fellow, University of Wollongong; Johann Bell, Visiting Professorial Fellow, University of Wollongong; Quentin Hanich, Associate Professor, University of Wollongong, and Simon Nicol, Adjunct professor, University of Canberra. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
12 Comments
I'm all in favour of action to prevent or at least reduce man made climate change. It is many of the arguments made in support of this laudable aim that bug me. If the atmosphere gets hotter because of CO2 and CH4 so will the oceans and that will affect sea life. But the hottest sea water in the world is just north of PNG (the Bismarck sea) and when I lived there they had no trouble catching gigantic tuna.
If you are seriously concerned about tuna don't buy an EV just stop eating tuna. Especially tuna caught by unsustainable, illegal fishing and by slave labour.
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/importing-risk/fishing/
RCP8.5 is never going to happen - for that scenario coal use has to increase by 640 per cent/capita when in reality coal consumption/capita has been largely flat since the 1920's. Any paper that uses RCP8.5 is using a scenario that is already out of the money. Though if they just use RCP4.5 they admit not much happens. There are far worse things Tuna has to worry about today let alone in 2100.
'But if emissions were kept to the lower RCP 4.5 scenario, the effects are expected to be far less pronounced, with an average decrease in biomass of just 1%.'
While both climate scenarios result in average losses of both tuna catches and revenue, lower emissions scenarios lead to drastically smaller losses, highlighting the importance of climate action.'
'Accounting for this bias indicates RCP8.5 and other ‘business-as-usual scenarios’ consistent with high CO2 forcing from vast future coal combustion are exceptionally unlikely. Therefore, SSP5-RCP8.5 should not be a priority for future scientific research or a benchmark for policy studies.'
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217314597
Could I suggest reading the link - it's quite simple - if coal consumption/capita has been flat for 100 years then it is fanciful to suggest it is going to increase 640 per cent - especially with carbon taxes kicking in. Given the population is not going to increase 6 fold by 2100 you do the math. The RCP8.5 scenario is dead in the water.
Thus -
'Accounting for this bias indicates RCP8.5 and other ‘business-as-usual scenarios’ consistent with high CO2 forcing from vast future coal combustion are exceptionally unlikely. Therefore, SSP5-RCP8.5 should not be a priority for future scientific research or a benchmark for policy studies.'
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217314597
I have a file that grows by the year of failed climate alarm-ism and climate doomsday predictions that have gone terribly wrong. It's fascinating how humans can be lead to believe anything as the majority won't bother checking past newspapers or historical data going back 100 years. Don't be fooled by the Co2 fear narrative. This is only to force a change in cheap energy production that will mean millions all over the globe won't be able to afford to heat or cool themselves due to the increasing costs of alternative energy production and it's unreliability. New sourses such as wind and solar are proving notoriously unreliable and costly. These latter, failed to perform in places like Texas last winter where any form of liquid fuel froze in pipelines and wind and solar were useless. Coal turned out to be the better performer. But due to the failure of the other sources, many people froze to death in the week of blackouts. The Earth is fine. It has been through a lot worse than our populating it. It adapts on it's own. If you believe all the fear....then put your money where your mouth is and give up your cars, stop eating meat, tuna etc, oh.., and stop breathing because you are producing the "deadly" Co2!!
I thought your kind had died out? They were the era hollering 'communist' and 'reds under the bed', weren't they/you?
Yes, there have been warners - from the very astute Malthus, on. Wells got there, Edison, Soddy, Hubbert, Galbraith, Georgescu-Roegen - enough. What folk seem to do is apply false logic; 'because it hasn't happened yet, it won't'. According to that, you will never die. According to that, a car speeding towards a stone wall, will never hit it. This is just nonsense.
Knowing it's nonsense, we can ask what it was that staved off Malthus food/people projections? And the answer is: The application of fossil-energy calories to food-production. It's that simple. Then, knowing the energy/feedstock source is both finite, and being hoed-into exponentially, we can know that Malthus was totally correct. Human-kind is now overshot - several orders of magnitude so, all on the draw-down of fossil energy. The fact that the exhaust of that frenzied burn is enough to heat the planet, should not the be prime worry; the worry is the scale of our draw-down.
The bigger worries about tuna are over-fishing, and the fact that all species have a temperature-tolerance envelope; fish are migrating away from the equator at 5-10 km/year - some trees will have trouble copying such speed/distance.
As for trying to justify finite fossil energy as being the one to cling to - a lot of folk ended up on the Titanic taffrail. If something is going to end, it's a waste of time touting it - better ascertain what lifeboat life is like. You were trying to justify the Titanic staying afloat, because the water is colder than the staterooms. I understand if you're spinning on behalf of your income-stream-slash-personal narrative - but..........
I think it all just shows we don't really know where the tipping points are. The whole subject has been well studied for years , any credible study I've read usually ends with we don't really know what will happen. "the end of nature", published in the 1980's, pointed out that man has changed the world to a point that there is nowhere left on earth in a entirely natural state. There is no doubt that there is manmade change , only the speed and effect. It makes sense to try and limit that change as much as possible. In some ways the 2050 etc targets are not productive , because they allow governments to get away with not doing much to date , on the basis they are projecting major improvement by 2050 . A step in time saves nine.
There are some very good maps around of the sea surface temperature. There is also the Argo data for temperatures down to 2000m. The sea surface in the Pacific shows up to 5° variability on a season to season El Nino/ La Nina basis, judging from the colour scales. Argo has shown about 0.05°C rise since 2005 and that is possibly from number massaging.. There are also physical reasons why sea surface temp can't go more than about 30° - lots of thunderstorms cooling the ocean and atmosphere.
That means there is very unlikely to be the disaster they speculate on. And as others have pointed out, if you use RCP 8.5 as the "business as usual" case, it shows you don't know what you are talking about. No longer science but activism.
We're getting patches hotter than that - I was out in the Pacific about 4 years ago - someone 300 miles from Tahiti reported 35 degrees, nearly a metre down. Getting up there. Watch the Attenborough movie (latest on netflix) and they've got a ff hot-spot tracker - makes you think.
Well, makes those think, who are brave enough to think.....
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.