The magnitude of climate change is arguably best depicted in the fact that most, if not all, aspects of life are altered by it. The sports industry, one of the most popular forms of entertainment across the entire world, is no different. In the recent past, a surge in extreme weather conditions has already caused problems in holding sporting events. While the sports industry significantly contributes to global warming, it also has a large potential to be a part of the solution. However, its positive contribution has still not been maximised. We take a look at organisations that have found a way for sports to join the fight against climate change and continue to pave the way for others to follow.

__

A few years ago, the negative consequences of climate change in the world of sports were first-hand experienced by tennis players and fans. In 2018, organisers of the US Open were forced to implement a new tournament policy that allows players to take “a heat break” during their matches. The rule came into effect after several athletes withdrew from the tournament due to extreme heat conditions in New York City. Just two years later, a similar situation happened at another tennis Grand Slam. As wildfires were raging all over Australia, the poor air quality caused organisational problems at the Australian Open, once again forcing some players to retire from the tournament.

As expected, experts predict that climate change will continue to negatively affect sporting competition. For example, a study shows that around half of the former winter Olympics host cities won’t be able to sponsor the Games by 2050 due to a lack of snow and ice. A different research projects that nearly a quarter of English football stadiums will be partially or completely flooded every year.

Of course, none of these alarming forecasts appear to be as troublesome as the most threatening climate change-triggered events (water and food insecurity, energy shortages, and mass migration to name a few). Nevertheless, it is important to analyse the role of sports since they provide both a significant carbon footprint but also potentially impactful solutions.

The Impact of Sports on Climate Change

When examining the contribution of the sport industry on climate change, it is easier to describe how such a negative impact is made than to precisely state its magnitude. The reason is that an accurate method of keeping track and following its own carbon footprint is still not widely practiced within the industry.

However, according to a report by Rapid Transition Alliance: “The global sport sector contributes the same level of emissions as a medium-sized country.”

Examples of this are the 2016 Rio Olympics and the 2018 Russia World Cup, which resulted in 3.6 and 2.16 million tons of carbon dioxide respectively. In order to understand such substantial impact, one must take into account the carbon footprint that comes out of the construction and usage of sporting venues (lighting, heating and cooling), the transportation to/from competitions, as well as the production of sporting equipment.

You might also like: Qatar 2022: The Environmental Cost of the FIFA World Cup

How to Lower the Carbon Footprint of Sports?

Fortunately, there are numerous ways through which sports can help in our battle with climate change. The first (and most obvious) step is to halt their further negative impact by transitioning to sustainable means of operation (e.g. partnering with energy providers who generate electricity from the renewable sources). This change would not only decrease their carbon footprint, but also create financial savings.

Next, thanks to its broad popularity, sports could be a powerful tool for raising awareness about the climate crisis among people across the world, regardless of their geographical location and social background. Simply put, the industry could share important messages about the environment to billions of individuals that are involved in sports either as spectators, practitioners, or facilitators. Such strategy of increasing awareness and educating has shown good results in the past. Research found that fans are receptive to ecological initiatives organised at sporting events, some even to the extent that they are willing to change their lifestyle habits regarding sustainability. This study precisely concluded that “the norms related to sport events have a significant relationship with positive perceptions of the efforts undertaken by sport organisations while also influencing at-home environmental behavioural intentions.”

Social status of athletes can even have a further effect. For instance, at COP26 in Glasgow last year, more than 50 world Olympians and Paralympians (from Tokyo 2020) united to urge for ambitious climate change actions from global leaders. By doing so, athletes spread the word and raised awareness among their fans and especially young people who follow and, often, idolise them. This goes to show that, as the United Nations have perfectly put it, sport can be “recognised as a low-cost, high-impact tool to reach sustainable development, including addressing global warming.”

The Olympic Torch Lighting the Way

The sport organisation that has emerged as the industry’s sustainability leader is the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The involvement of IOC in climate change began in the aftermath of the 1992 United Nations summit, one of the first world meetings on the topic. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, took place in Rio de Janeiro and concluded that “the concept of sustainable development was an attainable goal for all the people of the world, regardless of whether they were at the local, national, regional or international level.”

Having that in mind, the major accomplishment of UNCED was the development of an action programme and cooperation strategy for the 21st century – the Agenda 21. One of the first organisations that followed this lead was the Olympic Movement (OM), which is governed by the IOC. Six weeks after the Rio Summit, the OM’s leading members (International Sports Federations and National Olympic Committees) signed the Earth Pledge at the XXV Olympiad in Barcelona.

In 1994, the environment was officially included as the third pillar of Olympism, and the role of IOC became “to encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport and to require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly.” Furthermore, the OM published its own Agenda 21 that outlined the ways for the sporting community to be more sustainable and oriented towards a greener future.

Ever since then, the promotion of these values has been demonstrated during the actual Olympic Games. At the 1994 Lillehammer Winter Olympics, which were the first Games to explicitly include environmental concerns, the IOC and UN Environment Programme agreed to a cooperation. The Olympic Village for the 2000 Sydney Olympiad became the world’s largest solar-powered suburb, proving that green technologies for housing are possible even on a large scale. Two years later, the Salt Lake Games demonstrated an energy recycling system, which used the curling hall’s air conditioning unit to heat up the venue’s showers and bathrooms.

Athens, home to the first-ever modern Olympic Games in 1896, was chosen to be the host once again in 2004. For that occasion, the city transport infrastructure significantly improved, resulting in better air quality. Similar outcomes were accomplished in preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics, which were held in Beijing. Since poor air quality had historically been a major issue in Beijing and the country as a whole, the Chinese authorities, as a part of their pre-Olympic plan, took many steps to improve it. For example, they removed more than 300,000 high-emitting vehicles from the street, relocated polluting factories, and converted old household heating systems from coal to natural gas. Additionally, by creating urban greenbelts, the total green area of the city increased to 43%. The final outcome of all projects resulted in 16.4 million of tonnes of carbon dioxide being absorbed during seven years prior to the Games.

The Olympic Games in Beijing. Source: Wikimedia Commons

The last decade’s Olympics also presented various sustainability innovations and environmentally friendly practices. According to many, the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games set new standards by coming up with several great ideas. For instance, the Olympic speed-skating venue was built by salvaged timber which had been eaten by mountain pine beetles. Biological diversity was also given much attention, as several species (e.g. locally significant plants, tailed frogs) were relocated rather than endangered during the construction of sporting venues. 

London 2012 was the first Olympiad to measure its carbon footprint throughout the entire project term as well as to commit to and achieve a ‘zero waste to landfill’-target. By doing so, the organisers managed to save an equivalent of 400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The Olympic Park, which was built on once-contaminated industrial land, was later converted into the biggest urban parkland in Europe over the previous 150 years. The following Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro also had some significant positive accomplishments: total of nine kilometres of rivers were recovered through restoration practices, while new waste and wastewater treatment stations were established.

However, probably the most impressive sustainability results were achieved at the last Summer Olympics – Tokyo 2020. Among many ecological initiatives, the ones that particularly stood out were in domains of recycling and carbon neutrality. Recycling was indeed one of the “3Rs” (Reduce/Reuse/Recycle) promoted during the Games. For competition purposes, only eight new venues were built from scratch, 10 sites were temporary constructed, while some of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics locales were just renovated.

Furthermore, 99% of non-consumable items acquired for the tournament, including timber wood, computers, tablets, electrical appliances as well as office desks and chairs, were reused or recycled afterwards. Even the beds in the Olympic Village were built from recyclable cardboard and the athletes’ 5,000 medals were made out of precious materials extracted from old electronic devices, which were obtained from the Japanese public in a nation-wide donation campaign.

In terms of carbon footprint, the Tokyo Games did not only use most of its energy from renewable sources (solar arrays, wood biomass power), but they also went beyond the neutrality by offsetting all the direct and indirect emissions produced throughout the event. This was mainly accomplished through emission trading programmes, which ended up creating an offset of 4.38 million tonnes of CO2 in comparison to the total 1.96 million tonnes of generated carbon footprint.

Additionally, the organisers put an emphasis on the usage of hydrogen. For the first time in the tournament history, this fuel flamed the Olympic torch and nearly 500 hydrogen-cell electric vehicles were used for transportation. At the same time, electricity generated with pure hydrogen supplied power for many residential buildings in the Olympic and Paralympic Village. As a matter of fact, the Village will become Japan’s first hydrogen-powered town, as it has been planned to transform it into “hydrogen-powered flats, a school, shops and other facilities.”

Precisely the longevity of Olympic sites is another aspect to which the IOC has paid a great attention to. The Olympic Games Impact (OGI) studies were created to help city candidates understand and quantify potential impacts of hosting an Olympiad. Such studies are a prerequisite for all host cities, and they encompass a total of 12 years (two prior to the Host City Election plus three post-Games years).

Thus, the IOC strives to explain the environmental impacts, including the positive legacies that carry over beyond the immediate world of the Games. Interestingly, in the past, many unsuccessful candidate cities were able to deliver legacies, as they developed and implemented ‘green’ initiatives regardless of the negative outcome of their bid. Great examples are New York City, Manchester, Chicago, and Sion.

You might also like: The Uncertain Future of the Olympic Winter Games

Private and National Actions for Sustainable Venues

There has been a handful of organisations established in the previous years with the goal of promoting green and circular economies in sports. One of them is the Sports Environment Alliance (SEA), a not-for-profit organisation created to protect and improve the natural environment of Australasia. Their idea is to use the sport industry as a ‘megaphone’ from which the importance of sustainable development and regeneration will be transmitted. Through creative campaigns, like #NoPlanetNoPlay, the SEA wants to motivate sport participants to specifically address climate change by protecting spaces where games and matches are played.

The list of SEA members varies from local community and professional clubs to city councils, schools, state and national sports organisations such as the Australian football, tennis, cricket, and golf federations. Aside from contributing to scientific research reports, the SEA has presented at the COP21 and co-chaired the 2018 Sustainable Innovations in Sports Forum. To stimulate a responsible use of resources, the organisation strives to educate, encourage, and engage general public with the idea of clean future.

Similarly, a membership platform GOAL (Green Operations and Advanced Leadership) aims to help sporting venues operate in environmentally friendly ways with a software that has “a tactical roadmap, a library of resources, progress tracking tools and the free exchange of knowledge and experience among GOAL member venues.” The platform was created by the American Oak View Group (OVG) and among its first members were the NBA franchise Atlanta Hawks and its State Farm Arena.

Another organisation that has been doing significant work in connecting sports and sustainability is the Green Sports Alliance (GSA). Interestingly, this past November, GSA and OVG entered a strategic collaboration “to better support the sport industry’s response to climate change.” The Green Sports Alliance is an environmentally focused trade organisation that aims to create awareness and change for a more sustainable future. To reach such a goal, the GSA gathers various stakeholders from the sport industry and currently counts 600 members. The most notable include the NBA and some of its franchises (Spurs, Celtics, Suns, Jazz, 76ers, Cavaliers, Heat), numerous NFL teams (Patriots, Broncos, Chiefs, Yankees, etc.), as well as United States Tennis and Golf associations, NASCAR, NHL and MLB. Additionally, many U.S. universities are also involved in the GSA: Yale, Notre Dame, Penn State, Texas A&M, North Carolina State, Loyola Marymount, etc. Stanford University, another GSA member, went a step further and offered a course on “Sustainability in Athletics” in its curriculum.

One of the GSA’s strategies is to share recourses and experience from which their members can learn and find inspiration. A concrete example of that strategy is Food Waste Diversion and Compostable Packaging Playbook, where the Alliance presented numerous case studies of stadiums from the United States which transitioned their waste from landfill to circular economy. It is also important to mention that, on GSA’s initiative, October 6th is now recognised as the Green Sports Day, during which sport teams raise public awareness about the green movement. Interestingly, in 2016, the initiative was supported by The White House and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Around the same time period, the US government passed two analogous federal initiatives. The first one established a workshop that created a roadmap for the design, construction, and operation of energy efficient sporting facilities; while the second one selected sport ambassadors (professional athletes and coaches) and sent them abroad to educate youth on issues including the environment.

A few other countries, such as Zambia, Cape Verde, and Palau, also addressed the importance of sustainability in sports. The last two countries are especially interesting, as they are both archipelagos, which are naturally in the most danger of sea level rising due to climate change.

The Football Contribution

Since football is globally considered to be the most popular sport, it is noteworthy taking a look at how some professional clubs have addressed the issue of sustainability.

Some European football teams with the longest traditions have lately been contributing to this field as well. For example, the Italian football powerhouse AC Milan joined Puma’s ‘Re:Jersey’ campaign that has a goal of closing the loop on training clothes. Ever since, the club has been urging its fans to donate the unwanted polyester-made jerseys to be chemically reprocessed and used to produce 100% recycled polyester training kits. Aside from Milan, the campaign has been joined by Manchester City, Borussia Dortmund, and Olympique de Marseille. 

Another famous club, Chelsea F.C., changed its energy suppliers to become more environment friendly. The Brook Green Supply Ltd now provides the club with the energy from renewable sources (wind, landfill gas, and solar). Chelsea’s front office called the change “massive” and pointed out how it will, among other things, help them climb the Sports Positive Premier League table. This sustainability league, apart from England, has been launched in the top French and German football competitions.

Nevertheless, the absolute star in terms of sustainability among football clubs is currently Galatasaray S.K. Last year, the Turkish team and its energy provider Enerjisa installed over 10,000 solar panels on the club’s stadium, making it the largest solar power plant of that kind. And in March 2022, a new Guinness World Record for the amount of megawatts produced by stadium’s solar panels was set when Galatasaray’s Nef Stadyumu generated 4.2 megawatts of such energy. The record-breaking number equals to the energy usage of 2,000 houses and it will decrease the annual carbon footprint by 3,250 tonnes, which furthermore translates to approximately 200,000 saved trees over 25 years.

Galatasaray Nef Stadyumu. Source: Wikimedia Commons

This Istanbul stadium has a capacity to host 52,280 spectators, and the solar energy provides 63-65% of the venue’s electricity usage. But, since Nef Stadyumu is fully using its lighting system only for the official matches (ca. 150 hours a year), a portion of the solar energy remains unused. Therefore, Galatasaray sells the remaining energy to the surrounding area. Interestingly, the whole idea of installing solar panels originated from the stadium’s director Ali Çelikkıran, who is an electric engineer by training.

Last but not least, it should be noted that, according to FIFA, Forest Green Rovers (FGR) is the world’s greenest football club. This English team, which competes in the national third tier league, became the world’s first UN-certified carbon-free team and it also received the UN’s “Momentum for Change” climate action award in 2018. There are several reasons for such recognitions. Club’s current stadium: uses 100% renewable energy, recycles rainwater, has an organic field pitch and a solar-powered robotic lawnmower. That being said, FGR plans to build a new carbon-free wooden stadium, which would among many sustainability features, increase its location’s biodiversity by 12%.

You might also like: Qatar 2022: The Environmental Cost of the FIFA World Cup

Hurdles on the Green Track

Over the years, it has been repeatedly shown that climate change is not bypassing sports. For a part of its community, such a realisation has served as a wakeup call that sports have the power to be a catalyst for positive change.

Among fans and especially among professional athletes, the Olympic Games represent the pinnacle of sporting competition. Therefore, it is very fitting to have the International Olympic Committee as the leading organisation for sustainability within the whole industry. Numerous private organisations, national governments and professional clubs stand right behind, following the Olympic direction.

Nevertheless, there are obstacles along the way. For example, a lack of comprehensive data on carbon footprint produced by sports organisations makes it difficult to provide precise recommendations and create an effective sustainable agenda. A possible solution for the issue is a standardised assessment approach that would be applied across the sport industry. Furthermore, in order to stimulate clubs and organisations to follow such a regulated practice, the national governments should also create policies to incentivise the transition to renewable energy and sustainability.

Additionally, sports organisations, in some instances, declare their commitments to sustainability, but at the same time develop partnerships with companies that do very little to contribute to the green future. Rather than participating in this type of greenwashing, the sports organisations should strive to follow the example of the Forest Green Rovers. Subsequently, fans would adopt the trend and the green domino effect would be created.

Sometimes, the barriers can also be very concrete. As pointed out by the director of Nef Stadyumu in Istanbul, the large solar panel installation was possible because of the venue’s retractable roof, which has the right shape to take in sunlight and sustain the weight of thousands of panels. Other stadiums (i.e. Camp Nou of Barcelona F.C.) maybe do not have that capacity, hence applying the Galatasaray’s idea might not be possible for every club.

Regardless, as we have seen – there are always ways to contribute. The bad news for sports is that they have a lot of room for improvement; however, the good one is that there are plenty of great examples to learn from.

You might also like: Achieving Net Zero: Where Are We Today?

The post The Influence of the Sports Industry on Climate Change and How it Can Be Part of the Solution appeared first on Earth.Org.

Located in the heart of Europe, the country of Slovenia represents a positive example of a nation-wide awareness regarding the importance of nature. Over the course of recent years, such a mindset has put Slovenia amongst the leading countries in terms of sustainability. However, ‘the green mentality’ has not been a pure coincidence, but rather an outcome of the country’s proactive policies that have been implemented to protect Slovenia’s high biodiversity and to educate its citizens. Precisely these policies have helped Slovenia become one of the most sustainable countries in Europe and an example to follow for the rest of the world.

––

Slovenia’s High Level of Biodiversity

Despite the fact that Slovenia covers only around 20,000 square kilometres, its territory is extremely diverse, characterised by several mountain ranges (such as the Julian Alps, the Dinaric Alps, the Southern Limestone Alps), the Adriatic Sea coast, the Pannonian Plain, and the Karst Plateau – a place renowned for its majestic underground caves. The country is also particular as it is affected by three main climate types: sub-Mediterranean, temperate continental, and mountain (or highland) climate. 

Thanks to the variety of ecological and climatic conditions, Slovenia is classified as a biodiversity hotspot. Whilst covering less than 0.004% of the planet’s surface, this country accommodates around 1% of the world’s biodiversity, including more than 2% of all terrestrial species. With this statistic, Slovenia has the highest concentration of animal and plant species per square kilometre in the world. 

Additionally, many of the species present in Slovenia are endemic – that is, native to this country. On the one hand, there are 3,119 endemic plant species, including the Illyrian floral element –  plants with limited distributions along the Dinaric Alps from Slovenia to Albania, mainly thermophilic and heliophilic endemic species – as well as several rare and threatened species. On the other hand, the fauna of this country has 18 native animals such as the Carniolan honey bee, the Lipizzaner horse, and the olm – an aquatic amphibian nicknamed ‘the baby dragon’. Slovenia is also home to three out of five species of large carnivores found in Europe: the brown bear, the grey wolf, and the Eurasian lynx. As a matter of fact, Slovenia’s population of brown bears (now at around 500 in total) has been crucial for the reintroduction of this animal throughout the entire continent. 

Brown bears in a Slovenian forest (source: Ekorna Experience)

The main reason for the presence of these large carnivores in Slovenia is its extensive forest cover. Some of the latest statistics show that approximately 61% (or 12,480 square kilometres) of the country is covered in forest. However, as forests here are expanding, this could very well be an underestimation. Such a large forest area, in fact, makes Slovenia the third-most-forested country in Europe. Even urban areas are incredibly green. In the recent past, this achievement has been recognised internationally: the capital city Ljubljana was awarded Europe’s Greenest Capital in 2016 and the Tree City of the World in 2020.

You Might Also Like: What are the Biggest Causes of Biodiversity Loss?

Ljubljana, The Capital City of Slovenia

The National Green Mentality

Something that has been going hand-in-hand with the rich flora and fauna of Slovenia is the intrinsic enthusiasm for nature among its citizens. Slovenians are known as nature lovers who see their home as an extension of themselves. 

There are some interesting facts that better illustrate the reason for such depiction. For example, Slovenia is considered the most passionate beekeeping country in the European Union,  as there are more than 90,000 beekeepers – almost five every 1,000 people – and on the country’s initiative, the United Nations declared May 20 as World Bee Day. Furthermore, vineyards are so popular in the country that there is one for every 70 people. Lastly, the Slovenian flag contains symbols for the country’s highest point – Mount Triglav, the Adriatic Sea as well as its river and streams – of which Slovenia has almost 27,000 kilometres.

Considering the green mindset of its citizens, it should come as no surprise that Slovenia has been considered one of the most sustainable countries in the world. In 2017, it successfully completed 96 out of 100 detailed sustainability indicators regarding environment and climate, culture and authenticity, nature and biodiversity. Additionally, based on the Good Country Index, Slovenia currently ranks fourth among 169 countries in terms of positive contribution to the planet and the climate. Nevertheless, these remarkable accomplishments could not have been possible without green policies and green education, some of the aspects that Slovenia has paid great attention at.

The Green Government

Protected Areas

It is plausible to state that a country’s approach to nature could be seen in the amount of legally protected areas of its territory. The list of protected areas in Slovenia is quite long, as there are 2,260 of such locations, out of which 1,905 sites are protected under national laws, while 355 of them are classified as ‘Natura 2000′ sites – a network of nature protection areas in the European Union. Among 27 EU countries, the highest share in Natura 2000 holds Slovenia, with 37.87% of its territory being included in this conservation system.

Interestingly, the disparity in number of sites between the two protection entities is not so large since 94% of total area covered by protected areas in the country is an overlap between Natura 2000 and nationally designated sites. In terms of the country’s area, 40.4% of land and 2.48% of ocean is covered by the protected localities. Additionally, under laws enacted by the European Union, 232 species and 60 habitats in Slovenia are classified as protected.

Waste Management and Plastic Pollution

Another example of the Slovenian government’s green attitude – which also helps explaining why many consider it one of the most sustainable countries in Europe – is the adoption of a 2021 ban on nearly all single-use plastic products, including plastic cutlery, plates, straws, ear swabs, and balloon sticks. The ban also applies to food and drink packaging made of expanded polystyrene and other objects manufactures with oxo-degradable plastic.

This law, which was originally created as a EU directive, also established new rules for the labelling of certain disposable plastic products and their packaging, including tampons, pads, wet wipes, and smoking products with filters. The hope is that these new guidelines will facilitate product disposal and raise awareness among consumers. Such a responsible attitude towards waste has been noticeable in Slovenia for quite some time. A good example of that is the fact that, in 2014, Ljubljana became the first European capital to commit to going zero-waste.

During the last ten years, Slovenia developed sustainable forms of tourism as well. Most notably, the Slovenian Tourist Board created the Green Scheme of Slovenian Tourism (GSST), a roadmap to develop and promote sustainable tourism in the country. Specifically, GSST has three main goals: to bring together all efforts directed towards the sustainable development of tourism in Slovenia; to offer tools to destinations and service providers that enable them to evaluate and improve their sustainability endeavours; and to promote these green endeavours through the Slovenia Green brand. To accomplish all of the targets, GSST has established a network of destinations and service providers certified as ‘sustainable’ under the Green Scheme.

Education

One final aspect of government policies that has contributed to turning Slovenia in one of Europe’s most sustainable countries is related to education. In recent years, sustainability has become a focal point of the country’s education system and education for sustainable development has been incorporated in the curriculum at all levels of formal education, from kindergartens to universities, through national regulatory documents.

For instance, the Organisation and Financing of Education Act that was passed in 2008, “sets as an aim education for sustainable development and active social integration in the democratic process, in-depth knowledge and liable attitude towards oneself, own health, others, own and other cultures, natural and social environment, and towards future generations.”

A similar goal was set forth in the Act on Changes and Supplementations of Primary School Act passed in 2007 as well as in the 2011 White Paper on Education, which explicitly states that “sustainable development is the main standpoint of education and the main educational goal” – hence the schools – “should develop students’ knowledge, attitudes and personal commitment towards the environment.” 

In addition to the classroom, the Slovenian school system also includes obligatory forms of outdoor and environmental education. Specifically, according to the Basic School Act of 1996: “Outdoor education is integrated into the national curriculum for primary and lower secondary education”. Furthermore, throughout their nine-year compulsory education, all students must attend several events dedicated to cultural, sports, science and technical activities, as well as an a series of days dedicated to outdoor activities. All events are fully funded by the government and they allow children to learn about nature from a very young age, developing a strong connection and appreciation for it. 

Aside from the traditional school system which – as discussed above – has had a regulated system of sustainable education, a growing number of institutions in Slovenia has been taking a ‘green step’ further. Namely, as of the 2018/19 school year, 722 institutions comprising 35% of all the country’s schools with over 130,000 children and 8,500 teachers were registered in the Eco-School system. This international programme is the “largest network of children, pupils, students and teachers, which promotes the systematic implementation of environmental and sustainable contents and the implementation of sustainable development principles in educational institutions” and it has been present in Slovenia since 1996. Having the support of the European Commission and the United Nations, the Eco-School has a mission of helping schools become sustainable and teaching good habits to young students who are then, furthermore, able to spread those learned practices into their homes and communities. 

However, Slovenia does not solely focus on integrating ‘green education’ in its official school system. Instead, specific programmes have been developed for the wide public. Most recently, one such project, named Life Naturaviva has been organised by the National Institute of Biology and its nine partners  – including five Slovenian natural parks – from September 2017 to August 2022. The main goal of the programme is to reveal the exceptional values of nature and to highlight the threats that biodiversity in Slovenia faces.

Triglav National Park (source: explore-share)

Life Naturaviva aims to reach various groups of the public, from children and students to farmers and politicians. Co-financed by the European Union’s Financial Instrument for Environment and Climate Actions and the Slovenian Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, the project offers fairs, exhibitions and environmental days, summer school for students, workshops for high school teachers, as well as lectures for farmers and agricultural promoters.

Leading the Way in Sustainability

With the continuous effort to educate the entire population about its high biodiversity and the potential threats to it, Slovenia has been able to become one of the most sustainable countries in Europe. This relatively small state has utilised various methods of education and protection of the environment, creating a collective sense of pride and awareness regarding the importance of nature. Nothing better confirms this hypothesis but the fact that Slovenia is the first country in the world “to have been, in its entirety, declared a Green Destination of the World.” Therefore, the recommendation for everybody is to visit one of the world’s top sustainable nations and, most importantly, to urge policy-makers in their own countries to follow the great example that Slovenia has laid out for us.

You Might Also Like: How Sustainable Cities like Singapore Succeed in Green Urban Development

The post How Slovenia Became One of the Most Sustainable Countries in Europe appeared first on Earth.Org.

By the early 20th century, the world population of the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) was estimated to have plummeted to only 1,200. In the times prior to that, this animal had been widespread across both Europe and Asia, as its name indicates. The major reason for the population decrease was human overhunting, which alone caused a total extinction of this species in many ecosystems. Nevertheless, thanks to reintroduction and protection programmes that have been organised throughout the European continent since the second half of the 20th century, the population of beavers has slowly recovered. One such successful story took place in Serbia, a country in the south-eastern part of Europe. 

––

The Eurasian beaver (along its North American relative, the Canadian beaver) is the largest rodent in the northern hemisphere. The body of this species reaches the length of 90 centimetres, while its strong, scaled tail approximately adds another 35 centimetres. The tail is arguably the most important body part of beavers, as it helps them complete various actions in water such as rivers, lakes, and ditches where they spend the largest amount of time. As a matter of fact, these animals can rarely be found farther than 50-100 metres away from a body of water they occupy. Beavers use their tails as a paddle while swimming, but also to produce a warning alarm (by slapping the water surface) for an immediate danger, usually imposed by its natural predators including wolves, lynxes, bears and cougars. In such situations, this species protects themselves by diving in the ‘beaver’s lake’, where they can spend up to 15 minutes. To create this lake – which is their home – the beavers build dams of tree trunks and branches. 

Beaver Dam on the Smilga River (Lithuania). Image by: Hugo.arg

During that construction process, beavers generate certain economic losses to humans because of the trees they sometimes cut down with the sharp front teeth (‘incisors’) in order to create building material for the dams. Such a barrier, furthermore, can produce alternate river flows and cause flooding of nearby land. However, none of those financial harms were the primary motives of the intensive hunting that led to the near extinction of the Eurasian beaver. Instead, this species was hunted for its fur and a secretion of its scent glands called castoreum, which has been used in the production of medicines and perfumes. Additionally, its meat was also highly valued: for example, some records indicate that, due to the fact that beavers are herbivores, the Catholic Church allowed its consumption during the fasting times (it remains unclear whether other Christian denominations had the similar position). Because of all these reasons, there was a high demand for the Eurasian beavers; so high that by the beginning of the 20th century this animal endured in only four sites in Europe. One of the numerous locations where this species became completely extinct was Serbia. 

Long History of the Eurasian Beaver in Serbia

According to archaeological excavations, the Eurasian beaver was present on the territory of modern-day Serbia ever since the prehistoric times. This was particularly true for the northern part of the country – the area that belongs to the Pannonian Plain, a lowland region that remained after the Pliocene Epoch dried out the Pannonian Sea. Based on the paleontological evidence, beavers were present in the Pannonian Plain 15 thousand years ago. The reason behind that strong presence were large rivers (Danube, Sava, Tisa), which created a perfect living environment for this species. One of the largest cities in the Pannonian region was Sirmium, or present-day Sremska Mitrovica (Serbia). During continuous archaeological research of Sirmium, rodent bones have been discovered on a very regular basis. In one particular instance, almost a complete beaver skeleton was dug-out.

A different historical evidence confirms a later presence of the Eurasian beaver in this region as well. Namely, a record of the Swedish naturalist Taube from 1777 mentions his discovery of a large beaver family (of eight members) one mile away from Sremska Mitrovica. Sadly, evidence also shows that the beaver hunting had already began during the 18th century, as another record mentions an entire family being caught in hunting nets near the Serbian town. The fact that this autochthonous species usually lives in families made it particularly easy for hunters. An additional aspect that threatened the beavers in Serbia was drainage of swamp-like areas around the rivers of the Pannonian Plain. Such a practice, done to re-define land usage, reduced the availability of places in which beavers could reside as this animal needs a water basin deep enough not to freeze during the winter period. It is interesting to note that for this very reason, beavers build the dams hoping to ensure the necessary living conditions (i.e deep water for hiding from the predators).

Consequently, the population of the Eurasian beaver in Serbia started to rapidly decrease; the last individuals were recorded in 1903 in Danube, downstream the country’s capital Belgrade. And then, for the next 100 years, beavers disappeared from Serbia. But this bleak situation came to an end in 2004, when a reintroduction programme began in the nature reserve Zasavica, near Sremska Mitrovica – the ancient home of the Eurasian beaver in the Pannonian Plain. 

The Return to Serbia

The project, Reintroduction of the Eurasian Beaver, was organised by the Serbian Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Biology at the University of Belgrade, and a German environmental organisation Bund Naturshutz. The fact that this German society donated 31 Eurasian beavers to Serbia should come to no surprise based on the following statistics: at the end of the 19th century, only around 200 beavers survived in Germany; but, after resettlement programmes, by 2019 this species reached a population of above 40 thousand.  In the region of Bavaria alone (from where the beavers arrived to Serbia in 2004), 14 thousand individuals were present in 2019 as a result of the 1966 reintroduction project. The hope was that the same outcome could be achieved in Serbia. 

As mentioned above, the Zasavica bog was chosen for the project site. In addition to its historical circumstances regarding the Eurasian beaver, this authentically preserved wetland (and one of the last ones in Serbia) was picked for its biological and ecological parameters. The large and deep Sava river nearby, as well as the wetland characteristics of the area, were accompanied by the abundance of food: “aquatic plants, clover, cereals and corn from the fields and pastures”. Moreover, in Zasavica the ecological organisations prepared and built mounds/dams with a goal to provide an easy adaptation for the newcomers from Germany. Very specific steps regarding the safety of this species were also taken – everyday security service groups and occasional police patrols were put in place in order to prevent any hunting, for which law prescribed very high fines (up to 15 thousand euros).

The Special Nature Reserve Zasavica. Photo by Parks Dinarides

At the beginning of the project, the four families of beavers (31 individuals in total) were placed five kilometres apart, since one family occupies an area between one and three kilometres and does not prefer to live in a close proximity to another group of its kind. Very soon after, the beaver families in Zasavica began to make additional dams; one of the biggest ones being 30m long and 180cm tall (80 cm above the water). Precisely such a behaviour immediately showed that the imported beavers were adapting to the new ecosystem. Furthermore, the scientists of the nature reserve continuously followed the movements of these animals through the microchips that were placed under their fur upon their arrival to Serbia. 

As time went by, the tracking system depicted the Eurasian beavers spreading throughout the entirety of the 33-km-long Zasavica bog and even outside this wetland. However, it is important to mention that the beavers themselves also deserve credit for the successful expansion. Namely, these species are monogamous (meaning they stay with the same partners for many breeding seasons, unlike most rodents) and choose to mate only with individuals that are genetically different from themselves. That, in turn, provides a sufficient genetic diversity to recover a population from as low as three individuals. Of course, this positive outcome in Zasavica would not have been possible to accomplish without the conditions and steps previously described.

Nowadays, it is plausible to state that the population of the Eurasian beavers in Serbia have recovered. Given the fact that the government funding (for the microchip tracking system) had stopped, scientists have not been able to track the exact number of this species in the country; however, the estimates are between two and three thousand. The proof for that claim can be found in the number of locations where the beavers are present today. The nature reserve Zasavica became too small to accommodate new generations, which led to migrations to other rivers throughout the country (e.g. Danube, Sava, Drina, Kolubara, Tamnava, etc.), some of which historically have not been known as beavers’ homes. Additionally, the migrations even reached Serbia’s neighbouring countries (i.e. Croatia, Hungary, Romania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina), but the same also happened in the opposite direction: according to the scientists, the presence of beavers from these countries was noted in Serbia as well. 

You might also like: 7 Solutions to Biodiversity Loss

Why is This Reintroduction Important?

The recovery of the Eurasian beaver in Serbia and the rest of Europe is good news for various reasons, which can all be summed up in increased biodiversity. Here are just a few effects of the beavers’ presence in nature: “providing new homes for all sorts of native wildlife, from dragonflies, fish and frogs to water voles, otters and water birds”, “improving water quality and raising salmon and trout populations”, and “reducing the flow of tons of soil and nutrients from nearby fields into a local river system.” Therefore, given that such effects help support the ecosystem, the Eurasian beaver is considered one of the keystone species.

The Eurasian Beaver in Zasavica. Image by: Milena Djordjevic

At the same time, some of the negative effects that were mentioned previously deserve more explanation. First, the beaver’s dams that can cause trouble to humans are, in fact, quite fragile and, as such, leak water rather than stopping it completely. Second, the economic cost of lost trees that are cut down by beavers should be understood as a part of nature’s food chain, because this animal does so not to create building material, but to reach and eat “the high and juicy branches and leaves.” Nevertheless, the Eurasian beaver’s lifestyle does have potential to create financial losses to people. Hence ever since the beginning of the 2004 project, the nature reserve Zasavica allowed all human inhabitants of the region to file a complaint for any damage done by this animal. To date, according to the project manager and a biology professor Dusko Cirovic, every proven complaint has been fully compensated by the government.

In conclusion, from all the information given one can see that the project “Reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver,” which began in Zasavica in 2004, was very successful. Above all, the extinct population of this species fully recovered thanks to the international scientific cooperation between Serbia and Germany. Even though both of the countries accomplished similar results in the retrieval of beavers, the reintroduction projects are still ongoing in some parts of Europe. Nonetheless, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) announced in 2008 the status of “least concern” for the Eurasian beaver, as it considered this species to “have shown good recovery across much of its range, as a result of conservation programmes.” In regards to Serbia, the Eurasian beaver remains a protected species. The sole recommendation for the scientific and governmental authorities of this country is to work on restarting the monitoring programme, as that would allow clear data about the numbers of the Eurasian beaver and its movements throughout the region. Such a step would most arguably prevent the dark history from repeating itself.

The post The Successful Reintroduction of the Extinct Eurasian Beaver in Serbia appeared first on Earth.Org.

The arrival of nearly 50 invasive species into the Adriatic Sea over the course of the previous three decades confirms new conditions developing in this Mediterranean sub-basin, but also represents a danger to its biodiversity. Fortunately, there are still ways in which such a threat could be minimised.

—

All organisms living in an ecosystem rely heavily on each other, and because of that, every species, no matter how small, has an important role to play. Removing, or even simply endangering, any part of this complex web of life has a potential to disrupt the functioning of entire ecosystems. In contrast, increased biodiversity ensures nature’s stability, as well as its sustainability. For all these reasons, the late Edward O. Wilson (also known as ‘the father of biodiversity’) believed that “preserving biodiversity is an ethical imperative.” This idea is particularly relevant nowadays when, perhaps more than ever before, the future of biodiversity in many ecosystems is uncertain: one of them being the Adriatic Sea.

Image by: Wikimedia Commons

Being the northernmost part of the Mediterranean Sea, the Adriatic Sea occupies an area between the two Peninsulas – the Italian and the Balkan – and splashes the coasts of six countries, among which the smallest one is Montenegro. As its name indicates (‘Black Mountain’), this country is predominantly highland: 89.3% of Montenegro is at elevations that, indeed, place it in top ten countries in the world with the highest percentage of mountain area. Nevertheless, despite its geographical structure, Montenegro is a very sea-oriented country – tourism represents one of its main economic branches and its coast is the region with the highest population density. Similarly, in terms of science, Montenegro has its own Institute of Marine Biology in Kotor (IMBK) dedicated to the study and protection of the Adriatic Sea. Through such work, IMBK does not only contribute to the local understanding of the Southern Adriatic, to which Montenegrin waters belong, rather, it also plays an important role in the scientific knowledge of the entire Adriatic Sea. This was recently illustrated in a report in which IMBK, alongside its regional partners (i.e. Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries in Split, Croatia), confirmed 46 new species that had settled in this part of the Mediterranean Sea since the mid-1990s. The same findings were also published in a book titled Ihtiofauna Jadranskog mora (transl. Ichthyofauna of the Adriatic Sea) written by the Croatian scientists Jakov Dulcic and Marcelo Kovacic. 

The Adriatic Sea is considered “one of the richest seas in terms of species, while it is one of the poorest in terms of population density.” The low-volume aspect is particularly apparent in the waters off the Montenegrin coast where the greatest depths reach around 1,400m, making it the deepest area of the Sea. Nonetheless, approximately 70% of known fish species in the whole Mediterranean Sea is recorded in the Adriatic. Thus, it might seem that the migration of new species to this part of the world ocean is a positive phenomenon from a standpoint of even greater diversity and, especially, increased volume. 

What is an Invasive Species?

However, when it comes to nature, things are not always that simple and straightforward. Specifically in this case, a set of chain reactions occurs with the appearance of alien (‘allochthonous’) species in a new ecosystem, because most of them are considered invasive. As indicated, such species (when away from their natural habitats) are prone to invasion of new places. Simply, on one hand – when they migrate and successfully adapt to a different ecosystem, the invasive species are hunting the native (‘autochthonous’) ones, rapidly lowering their population. On the other hand – since they previously have not been a part of an ecosystem, the alien species lack their natural predators in the new home, which allows an uncontrolled population growth. Consequently, such reactions lead to disturbances of stable ecosystems, causing problems to biodiversity of the sea world and its food chain, as well as to the species outside the water, including humans, who rely on sea as a food source. 

Examples of Invasive Species

Good examples of the above-described outcome were recorded in different parts of the world. Namely, in the Turkish part of the Mediterranean Sea, a survey has shown that “98% of the entire herbivore fish biomass was composed of alien rabbitfish” (Siganus rivulatus and S. luridus) which are widely infamous for their successful invasion method. The rabbitfish, once established, grazes down the native algae forests at a rate that does not give it enough time to regrow. This opportunity is then seized by invasive tropical algae which form their own ‘turfs’ or ‘barrens.’ Subsequently, such a scenario leads to a large loss of biodiversity – another research recently found that “biomass was 44 times lower in turfs than in algal forests.” In addition to the vegetation destruction, an established population of rabbitfish also causes “a 40% reduction in the overall number of species present.” 

Another allochthonous species, notorious for its invasion technique, is the lionfish (Pterois miles and P. volitans). This species, with a rather interesting name, feeds on small autochthonous fish and crustaceans in very large quantities since its stomach can expand as much as 30 times. And what is perhaps even more troublesome is that “95% of lionfish prey is comprised of ecologically and economically significant native fish.” An example from the Bahamas precisely depicted how harmful the diet of lionfish can be for the sea world: a 40% increase in the number of this invasive species was associated with a 65% reduction of fish they are preying on. Given these facts, it should come as no surprise the worry that the Montenegrin scientists have felt once the presence of the lionfish was recorded in the southern and northern parts of the Adriatic Sea.

A lionfish. Image by: NOAA’s Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

As confirmed by an ichthyologist and the director of IMBK Aleksandar Joksimovic, PhD – there are no natural predators of the lionfish in the waters of the Adriatic Sea. Therefore, this species can reproduce at a very high rate because its mature females lay 50 thousand eggs every three days. This information not only increases the concern for the native fish species in the Adriatic, but also requires a warning for people that visit or live on the Montenegrin coast. Namely, the lionfish has over a dozen spines whose endings have cells filled with neurotoxins that can be fatal for people with a weak immune system. 

Another newcomer in the Adriatic waters, the silver-cheeked toadfish (Lagocephalus sceleratus), presents a threat in similar ways. Regarding the sea biodiversity, this species has a negative effect since it reproduces very fast and feeds on benthic invertebrates. Its very strong fused teeth allow the silver-cheeked toadfish to also cut through the fishing nets and steal the catch. However, such economic loss for the fishermen is not the greatest danger that this species create for humans: the silver-cheeked toadfish contains tetrodotoxin (in its ovaries, skin, muscles, and liver), which is a neurotoxin 1,250 times stronger than cyanide. And although this fish, once properly prepared, is considered a delicacy in Japan (known as ‘fugu’), its consumption can cause severe health problems, including death. 

Therefore, in addition to disrupting the ecosystem balance and its biodiversity, invasive species have a potential to endanger humans. Taking into account all those negative effects, it is important to present the ways in which allochthonous species, such as the lionfish and the silver-cheeked toadfish, have arrived to the Adriatic Sea. 

You might also like: Invasive Species: How Concerned Should We Be?

How Do Invasive Species Enter the Adriatic Sea?

Despite the fact that Montenegro generates a relatively small share (0.007%) of the global emission of greenhouse gases, the country still feels the impacts of climate change. That is perhaps best depicted in the temperature rise of the Adriatic Sea. During the previous three decades, the Adriatic has been getting warmer by 0.03C every year. Such an increase has been concurrent with the trend of the whole Mediterranean Sea, which, in fact, is developing into the fastest-warming sea as its temperatures are rising 20% faster than the global average. Consequently, the so-called ‘tropicalisation’ process has been happening in various parts of the Mediterranean, including the Adriatic Sea. In other words, the Sea is becoming tropical and, as the scientists from IMBK confirmed, the appearance of the invasive species is a clear bioindicator of that. For example, the lionfish and the silver-cheeked toadfish are considered ‘thermophilic species,’ because their natural habitats are warm and tropical seas (e.g. the Red Sea). Hence, their ability to survive in the Adriatic points to the fact that the new temperature of this sea suits these fish, which most arguably was not the case in the past. 

There are two primary ways in which the allochthonous species have been arriving to the Adriatic Sea. Firstly, there is a voluntary migration of these species through the passages located between the Mediterranean Sea and other parts of the world ocean. Most notably, this pertains to the human-made Suez Canal that was built in 1869 to connect the Red Sea (and the Indian Ocean) and the Mediterranean Sea. It is interesting that the species, which travel into the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal, are also called ‘Lessepsian migrants,’ after the developer of the passage – Ferdinand de Lesseps. 

Secondly, there is also an involuntary migration of alien species into the Adriatic Sea. This type of movement is done by the naval transport, including the cruise ships which are very popular throughout the whole Mediterranean: 16.8% of the total cruise journeys worldwide are done in this region (only the Caribbean has more visits). Namely, large vessels use so-called ballast waters to ensure stability during journeys. These waters are pumped into the ship’s hull in one port and then released/replaced at some of the following stops. The issue with this process is that one cubic metre of ballast water can contain up to ten thousand sea organisms (e.g. undeveloped larvae, young and mature species of various kinds). And for that very reason, the International Marine Organization (IMO) recognized ballast waters as “one of the most significant global ecological and economic risks.” 

But, since the allochthonous species are literally brought into novel ecosystems by the cruise ships, some of those ‘passengers’ – perhaps the non-invasive ones – do not adapt to the new surroundings and die out. Nevertheless, the 2014 study “Cruise tourism environmental impacts – The perspective from the Adriatic Sea” shows the other possibility. This research argues that the majority of invasive species in the Croatian part of the Adriatic arrived there precisely via the ballast waters. And not only that Croatia and Montenegro are close, almost next-door, Adriatic neighbours, but they are also among the top 20 cruising destinations in the whole Mediterranean. Moreover, within the Adriatic region these two countries are ranked even higher: in 2019 the top three cruising destinations of this Sea were Venice (Italy), Dubrovnik (Croatia) and the Montenegrin representative – the city of Kotor. 

Located in the Boka Kotorska Bay, this city was founded in 168BC during the Ancient Roman times, but later also conquered by the Illyrians, Venetians, Austrians, and French. The remains of such rich history are still seen nowadays through the city’s architecture; hence, it should be no surprise that the Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor has been a part of UNESCO World Heritage Sites since 1979. Thus, Kotor has been a very popular tourist location. A good representation of it is cruise tourism, which (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) has been on a steady rise in this city: between 2008 and 2018 there was a tenfold increase in the number of cruise tourists. In terms of economy, until 2020 cruise ship activity was the fastest-growing segment of Montenegrin tourism (e.g. in 2019, approximately a 50 million euros profit was derived from the cruise ships). And whereas in the rest of the world this type of activity does not exceed 2% of the total tourism industry, in Montenegro that share has risen significantly between 2007 (4%) and 2016 (29%). The numbers were to continue rising in 2020 – the forecast had predicted record-breaking 560 cruise entrances in the Boka Kotorska Bay, yet only nine of them were realised prior to the COVID outbreak, which caused a year-long halt. 

A cruise ship entering the Boka Kotorska Bay (source: Blog Mares)

Even though the negative environmental effect of cruise ships is multi-dimensional, it is important to mention a specific example from the Northern Adriatic in order to understand the impact of these vessels on the migration of invasive species. Namely, in 2020 Croatian scientists recorded a large quantity of the sea walnut (Mnemiopsis leidyi), which is an allochthonous species originating from the north-eastern coast of the United States and the Gulf of Mexico. According to the scientists, this invasive species most likely arrived in the Adriatic via the ballast waters of the cruise ships. The sea walnut is particularly dangerous to fisheries, because it can create a significant damage to the stock of small blue fish such as sardines and anchovies. In the past, similar kinds of harm occurred in the Black Sea (during 1980s), the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Sea (in the 1990s) where the sea walnut appeared, established its population, and ultimately led to a disturbance of the ecological balance.

What Can Be Done?

One of the first invasive species that was recorded in the Montenegrin part of Adriatic Sea was the algae Caulepra cylindracea back in 2004. Thanks to its negative impacts on the sea biodiversity, this type of green algae has an ill-famed nickname ‘tumour of the Mediterranean.’ Specifically, Caulepra cylindracea releases alkaloid substances that cause death of various sea organisms. At the same time, the algae has no natural predators, so it spreads at a very high rate creating ‘underwater deserts’ of uniform landscape and low biodiversity. The most notable species endangered in Caulepra cylindracea’s invasion is Posidonia oceanica, an extremely important seagrass that oxygenates the sea ecosystem, stores very large quantities of carbon dioxide, and helps prevent coastal erosion. Aside from the Posidonia, the invasive Caulepra cylindracea also threatens the survival of fish, crustaceans and mollusc which feed on underwater plants and use bare rock/sand as their habitat. 

Following the 2004 discovery of this allochthonous species near the city of Budva, the scientists from the Montenegrin Institute of Marine Biology received a multi-year funding for the monitoring programme. Ever since the government support stopped, the monitoring has not been up to date, hence the clear information about the presence of Caulepra cylindracea is not available. Recently, everything that the IMBK scientists have been able to note (during their field work) is that this invasive species has spread and is now present at more locations – toward the city of Bar and at the entrance of Boka Kotorska Bay. Therefore, this time around the government of Montenegro should not make the same mistake and, instead, provide a continuous funding for tracking programmes of the dangerous newcomers to its Adriatic waters.

Another action that should be put in place simultaneously with the monitoring system is fishermen education about the invasive species. Given that these people spend a lot of time on the sea, their familiarity with the allochthonous fish could be an additional source of information regarding changes in the Adriatic. In the case of IMBK, such educational programmes would not be a complete novelty, since this institution has a long-lasting cooperation with fishermen. Namely, many of the Montenegrin fishers are active participants in the IMBK’s work, as they have a tendency of informing and consulting the scientists whenever they encounter new, unknown species in their catch. It is important to mention that IMBK has already put in place a project of this kind – LEK (Local Ecological Knowledge) – during which the scientists conduct interviews with the fisherman along country’s coast in order to gather information regarding frequency of the alien species in fishing nets, but also about any other current trends in the sea. Therefore, the only recommendation is that similar projects continue to raise awareness about the dangerous newcomers in the Adriatic Sea. 

The two actions described above are, as a matter of fact, pre-requisites for a method that has shown best results in combating the invasive species: targeted fishing. The tracking programmes would provide accurate data to the scientists, who would, in turn, use such information (i.e. numbers and location of alien species) to engage the well-educated fishermen in organised fishing. An example of how this strategy could prevent further destruction of the ecosystem is the Western Atlantic, where a developed population of lionfish was decreased significantly through the policies of targeted removals done by fishermen and divers. Most importantly, there are no indications that similar outcomes cannot be achieved with the allochthonous species in the Adriatic Sea, as long as there is a unified will of the government and science to execute the proactive strategies.

Targeted fishing of the lionfish in the Western Atlantic (source: National Marine Sanctuaries)

Implementing such specific actions is crucial because of a near-certain possibility that the number of invasive species in the Adriatic Sea will continue to rise. There are three main reasons for this hypothesis. Firstly, some prediction models show that the temperature of the Adriatic Sea will increase by an additional 3C by year 2100, which would make this sea even more tropical and, hence, more suitable for migration of other thermophilic species. Secondly, it is to be expected that following the recent expansion of the Suez Canal more species will travel into the Mediterranean Sea. And thirdly, after the recovering 2021 (61 arrivals), the latest predictions are that 250 cruise ships will arrive at Kotor this year. In other words, it appears that cruise tourism in Montenegro is to go back to its pre-COVID trend of several hundred arrivals, many thousands of tourists, and countless sea organisms transported in the ballast waters. 

Although the first two reasons are difficult to alter on the national level, there is an opportunity to influence the third one. Namely, Montenegro should create a policy that would limit the number of cruise ships entering the Boka Kotorska Bay. Despite the fact that the country has a great economic benefit from this area of tourism, such a policy would decrease many negative effects the cruise ships impose on the environment, including the amount of ballast waters that are potentially being dumped into the Bay. This is especially important considering the natural uniqueness of the Boka Kotorska Bay (i.e. numerous endangered and endemic species present). Even though it is not certain how often cruise ships release these waters in the port of Kotor, the number of cruise arrivals to Montenegro also reflects the frequency of such vessels in the Adriatic Sea, which is a semi-closed basin with slow sea currents and long retention of water masses. Therefore, dumping of ballast waters in any part of the Adriatic represents an increased threat of new invasive species throughout its entirety. 

These recommended policies should be taken into serious consideration because, as it was described, the invasive species can cause significant damage to sea ecosystems. After migrating into new places, these allochthonous species endanger the autochthonous ones by over consuming them and by invading their habitats, all while being able to increase their own population since they do not face natural predators in the new homes. Such a scenario could easily lead to biodiversity loss, as we have already seen it be the case in some other parts of the world. Nonetheless, there were also examples of successful methods against the invasive species, and the hope is that Montenegro will be able to accomplish the same in the Adriatic Sea. 

The post Invasive Species Threaten the Biodiversity of the Adriatic Sea appeared first on Earth.Org.