Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 9: Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

Bordering countries:

Canada, France (Saint Pierre et Miquelon)

LME total area:

674,862 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit medium numbers of collapsed and overexploited fish stocks, as well as very high proportions of catch from bottom impacting gear.
Based on a combined measure of the Human Development Index and the averaged indicators for fish & fisheries and pollution & ecosystem health modules, the overall risk factor is low.

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (0.802 mg.m^-3) in April and a minimum (0.385 mg.m^-3) during February. The average CHL is 0.576 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (246 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 2000 and minimum primary productivity (208 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2007. There is a statistically significant increasing trend in Chlorophyll of 13.4 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 224 g.C.m^-2.y^-1, which places this LME in Group 3 of 5 categories (with 1 = lowest and 5= highest).

Primary productivity:

Sea Surface Temperature:

Between 1957 and 2012, the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf LME #9 has warmed by 1.04°C, thus belonging to Category 2 (fast warming LME). During this period, two epochs transpired. The first, relatively stable epoch lasted through 1991. During that time, SST remained rather cold, between 4.5°C and 5.9°C, after which, during the second, warming epoch, SST rose from 4.6°C in 1991 to the all-time maximum of 6.8°C in 2012, an increase of 2.2°C in 21 years. The rapid SST increase over the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf in the 1990s-2000s is a local manifestation of a large-scale Subarctic Gyre warming, which is amply documented (Stein, 2005, 2007; Hughes and Holliday, 2007; DFO, 2007; Petrie et al., 2007a, 2007b). The long-term variability of SST in LME #9 correlates strongly with that in LME #8 (Scotian Shelf) since these two LMEs are linked by the Labrador Current. The minima of 1972, 1985 and 1991 may have been associated with large-scale cold, fresh anomalies termed “Great Salinity Anomalies” or GSAs (Dickson et al., 1988; Belkin et al., 1998; Belkin, 2004).

Fish and Fisheries

Commercially exploited fish species in this LME include cod, haddock, salmon, American plaice, redfish, yellowtail and halibut. Also harvested are lobster, shrimp and crab.

Annual catch:

Total reported landings, which were dominated by cod until the 1990s, exceeded 1 million t from 1967 to 1969, but have since declined to around 320,000 t in recent years. Cod landings, in particular, declined from a historic high of over 1 million t in 1968 to less than 15,000 t per year in recent years (2006 – 2010) with landings of less than 10,000 t recorded in 1995 and 1996.

Catch value:

The reported landings of the LME were valued at over 1.2 billion US$ (in 2005 real US$) in the late 1960s, most of which was attributed to cod landings; in recent years, similarly high values are generated by its invertebrate landings.

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

The MTI remained high until the 1990s, when the cod stock began to collapse, a clear case of ‘fishing down’ the food web in the LME. The FiB index shows a similar trend, indicating that the reported landings did not compensate for the decline in the MTI over that period.

Stock status:

The Stock-Catch Status Plots shows that about 50% of commercially exploited stocks in the LME have collapsed with another 20% overexploited. Over 50% of the reported landings biomass is now supplied by fully exploited stocks.

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch ranged between 6 to 30% from 1950 to early 1990s. Then, this percentage increased sharply to its peak at 60% in 1994. After that, this percentage dropped slightly and fluctuated between 50 and 60% in the recent two decades.

Fishing effort:

The total effective effort increased steadily from around 60 million kW in the 1950s to its peak at 143 million kW in the mid-2000s.

Primary Production Required:

The primary production required (PPR) to sustain the reported landings in the LME reached 60 % of the observed primary production in the mid-1960s, but has declined in recent years.

Catch potential projections (under global warming):

Pollution and Ecosystem Health

Pollution

Nutrient ratio, Nitrogen load and Merged Indicator:

Human activities in watersheds are affecting nutrients transported by rivers into LMEs. Large amounts of nutrients (in particular nitrogen load) entering coastal waters of LMEs can result in high biomass algal blooms, leading to hypoxic or anoxic conditions, increased turbidity and changes in community composition, among other effects. In addition, changes in the ratio of nutrients entering LMEs can result in dominance by algal species that have deleterious effects (toxic, clog gills of shellfish, etc.) on ecosystems and humans. An overall nutrient indicator (Merged Nutrient Indicator) based on 2 sub-indicators: Nitrogen Load and Nutrient Ratio (ratio of dissolved Silica to Nitrogen or Phosphorus - the Index of Coastal Eutrophication Potential or ICEP) was calculated.

Nitrogen load:

The Nitrogen Load risk level for contemporary (2000) conditions was moderate (level 3 of the five risk categories, where 1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). Based on a “current trends” scenario (Global Orchestration), this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

Nutrient ratio:

The Nutrient Ratio (ICEP) risk level for contemporary (2000) conditions was moderate (3). According to the Global Orchestration scenario, this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

Merged nutrient indicator:

The risk level for the Merged Nutrient Indicator for contemporary (2000) conditions was moderate (3). According to the Global Orchestration scenario, this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

POPs:

No pellet samples were obtained from this LME.

Plastic debris:

Modelled estimates of floating plastic abundance (items km^-2), for both micro-plastic (<4.75 mm) and macro-plastic (>4.75 mm), indicate that this LME is in the group with relatively low levels of plastic concentration. Estimates are based on three proxy sources of litter: shipping density, coastal population density and the level of urbanisation within major watersheds, with enhanced run-off. The low values are due to the relative remoteness of this LME from significant sources of plastic. The abundance of floating plastic in this category is estimated to be on average over 40 times lower that those LMEs with the highest values. There is limited evidence from sea-based direct observations and towed nets to support this conclusion.

Ecosystem Health

Mangrove and coral cover:

Not applicable

Reefs at risk:

Not applicable

Marine Protected Area change:

The Labrador, Newfoundland LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 541 km² prior to 1983 to 2,882 km² by 2014. This represents an increase of 432%, within the low category of MPA change.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Labrador – Newfoundland LME experiences an above average overall cumulative human impact (score 3.86; maximum LME score 5.22), which is well above the LME with the least cumulative impact. It falls in risk category 4 of the five risk categories (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). This LME is most vulnerable to climate change. Of the 19 individual stressors, three connected to climate change have the highest average impact on the LME: ocean acidification (0.67; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation (0.61; maximum in other LMEs was 0.76), and sea surface temperature (1.58; maximum in other LMEs was 2.16). Other key stressors include commercial shipping, ocean based pollution, demersal destructive commercial fishing, and demersal non-destructive high-bycatch commercial fishing.

Ocean Health Index:

The Labrador – Newfoundland LME scores above average on the Ocean Health Index compared to other LMEs (score 71 out of 100; range for other LMEs was 57 to 82) but still relatively low. This score indicates that the LME is well below its optimal level of ocean health, although there are some aspects that are doing well. Its score in 2013 increased 2 points compared to the previous year, due in large part to changes in the scores for clean waters. This LME scores lowest on natural products, carbon storage, tourism & recreation, and lasting special places goals and highest on mariculture, artisanal fishing opportunities, coastal protection, coastal economies, and biodiversity goals. It falls in risk category 3 of the five risk categories, which is an average level of risk (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk).

Socio-economics

Indicators of demographic trends, economic dependence on ecosystem services, human wellbeing and vulnerability to present-day extreme climate events and projected sea level rise, are assessed for the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf LME. To compare and rank LMEs, they were classified into five categories of risk (from 1 to 5, corresponding to lowest, low, medium, high and highest risk, respectively) based on the values of the individual indicators. In the case of economic revenues, the LMEs were grouped to 5 classes of revenues from lowest, low, medium, high and highest, as revenues did not translate to risk.

Population:

The coastal area includes Newfoundland Island, the coast of mainland Labrador, and the eastern shore of Quebec, stretching over 510,676 km². A current population of 2.5 million is projected to decrease to 1.8 million in 2100, with density decreasing from 5 persons per km² in 2010 to 4 per km² by 2100. About 24% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to increase to 25% in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 12% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. The Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf places in the medium-risk category based on percentage and absolute number of coastal poor (present day estimate).

Revenues and Spatial Wealth Distribution:

Fishing and tourism depend on ecosystem services provided by LMEs. The Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf LME ranks in the high revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $1154 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 10% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $1483 million places it in the lowest revenue category. On average, LME-based tourism income contributes 5% to the national GDPs of the LME coastal states. Spatial distribution of economic activity (e.g. spatial wealth distribution) measured by night-light and population distribution as coarse proxies can range from 0.0000 (totally equal distribution and lowest risk) to 1.0000 (concentrated in 1 place and most inequitable and highest risk). The Night Light Development Index (NLDI) thus indicates the level of spatial economic development, and that for the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf LME falls in the category with low risk.

Human Development Index:

Using the Human Development Index (HDI) that integrates measures of health, education and income, the present-day Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf LME HDI belongs to the highest HDI and lowest risk category. Based on an HDI of 0.899, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.101, the difference between present and highest possible HDI (1.000). The HDI Gap measures an overall vulnerability to external events such as disease or extreme climate related events, due to less than perfect health, education, and income levels, and is independent of the harshness of and exposure to specific external shocks.
HDI values are projected to the year 2100 in the contexts of shared socioeconomic development pathways (SSPs). The Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf LME is projected to maintain its position in the lowest risk category (highest HDI) in 2100 under a sustainable development pathway or scenario. Under a fragmented world scenario, this LME is estimated to place in the low risk category (low HDI) because of reduced income level and smaller population size compared to estimated income and population values in a sustainable development pathway.

Climate-Related Threat Indices:

The Climate-Related Threat Indices utilize the HDI Gaps for present-day and projected 2100 scenarios. The contemporary climate index accounts for deaths and property losses due to storms, flooding and extreme temperatures incurred by coastal states during a 20-year period from 1994 to 2013 as hazard measures, the 2010 coastal population as proxy for exposure, and the present day HDI Gap as vulnerability measure.
The Contemporary Threat Index incorporates a Dependence Factor based on the fish protein contribution to dietary animal protein, and on the mean contribution of LME tourism to the national GDPs of LME coastal states. The HDI Gap and the degree of dependence on LME ecosystem services define the vulnerability of a coastal population. It also includes the average of risk related to extreme climate events, and the risk based on the degrading system states of an LME (e.g. overexploited fisheries, pollution levels, decrease in coastal ecosystem areas).
The 2100 sea level rise threat indices, each computed for the sustainable world and fragmented world development pathways, use the maximum projected sea level rise at the highest level of warming of 8.5 W/m² in 2100 as hazard measure, development pathway-specific 2100 populations in the 10 m × 10 km coast as exposure metrics, and development pathway-specific 2100 HDI Gaps as vulnerability estimates.
Present day climate threat index to the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf LME is within the lowest-risk (lowest threat) category. The combined contemporaneous risk due to extreme climate events, degrading LME states and the level of vulnerability of the coastal population, is low. In a sustainable development scenario, the risk index from sea level rise in 2100 is lowest, and remains the same under a fragmented world development pathway.

Governance

Governance architecture:

None of the four transboundary fisheries agreements (NAFO, ICCAT, NAMMCO and NASCO) in this LME have formal linkages identified across the different stages of the policy cycle.
The overall scores for the ranking of risk were: