Barents Sea
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 20: Barents Sea

Bordering countries:

Norway, Russia, Svalbard

LME total area:

2,023,335 km²

LME overall risk:

No results

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (1.14 mg.m^-3) in October and a minimum (0.267 mg.m^-3) during March. The average CHL is 0.455 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (227 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 1999 and minimum primary productivity (171 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2007. There is a statistically insignificant increasing trend in Chlorophyll of 8.90 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 199 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:

From 1957 to 2012, the Barents Sea LME #20 has cooled by 0.06°C, thus belonging to Category 5 (cooling LME). In the long-term, the Barents Sea LME appears relatively stable, although interannual variations of its SST are substantial, having a magnitude of 1°C. The timing of cold events of 1978-79, 1987, and 1997-99 is consistent with the well-documented passages of the decadal-scale Great Salinity Anomalies (Dickson et al., 1988; Belkin et al., 1998; Belkin, 2004) of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s through the Barents Sea. A few warming events are also noteworthy. The last warming event, of 2000, was concurrent with a sharp maximum in the Norwegian Sea LME #21. The previous SST peak of 1974 in the Norwegian Sea may have been related to the Barents Sea SST peak of 1973.

Fish and Fisheries

Results are unavailable for this LME.

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 low (level 2 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 low (2). 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 moderate 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 high values are due to the relative importance of these sources in this LME. The abundance of floating plastic in this category is estimated to be on average over 12 times lower that those LMEs with lowest values. There is very 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 Barents Sea LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 70,379 km² prior to 1983 to 199,982 km² by 2014. This represents an increase of 184%, within the low category of MPA change.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Barents Sea LME experiences an above average overall cumulative human impact (score 4.03; maximum LME score 5.22), which is also 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 (0.83; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation (0.45; maximum in other LMEs was 0.76), and sea surface temperature (1.15; maximum in other LMEs was 2.16). Other key stressors include commercial shipping, ocean based pollution, and all three types of demersal commercial fishing (demersal destructive, non-destructive low-bycatch, and non-destructive high-bycatch).

Ocean Health Index:

The Barents Sea LME scores above average on the Ocean Health Index compared to other LMEs (score 74 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 remained unchanged compared to the previous year. This LME scores lowest on food provision, natural products and tourism & recreation goals and highest on artisanal fishing opportunities, carbon storage, coastal economies, lasting special places, and habitat biodiversity goals. It falls in risk category 2 of the five risk categories, which is a moderate 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 Barents Sea 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 northern Norway, the shores of Murmansk, the Republic of Karelia, Arkhangelsk, the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, and the Norwegian island of Svalbard, all stretching over 743,645 km². A current population of 2 million in 2010 is projected to decrease to 1 M in 2100, with density decreasing from 3 persons per km² in 2010 to 2 per km² by 2100. About 33% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to decrease in share to 28% in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 11% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. The Barents Sea places in the very low-risk category based on percentage and in the low risk category using absolute number of coastal poor (present day estimate).

Revenues and Spatial Wealth Distribution:

Fishing and tourism depend on ecosystem services provided by LMEs. The Barents Sea LME ranks in the medium revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $556 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 16% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $18,289 million places it in the medium revenue category. On average, LME-based tourism income contributes 6% 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 Barents Sea LME falls in the category with high risk (low/ modestly developed).

Human Development Index:

Using the Human Development Index (HDI) that integrates measures of health, education and income, the present-day Barents Sea LME HDI belongs to the highest HDI and lowest risk category. Based on an HDI of 0.819, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.181, 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 Barents Sea LME is projected to assume a place in the very low risk category (very high HDI) in 2100 under a sustainable development pathway. Under a fragmented world scenario, the LME is estimated to place in high-risk category (low HDI) because of reduced income level compared to estimated income 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, excluding fisheries).
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 Barents Sea LME is within the medium-risk (medium threat) category. The combined contemporaneous risk due to extreme climate events, degrading LME states and the level of vulnerability of the coastal population, is medium. In a sustainable development scenario, the risk index from sea level rise in 2100 is very low, and increases to low risk under a fragmented world development pathway.

Governance

Governance architecture:

In this LME, none of the transboundary fisheries arrangements appear to be integrated while the three arrangements for pollution and biodiversity appear to have the Arctic Council as an integrating arrangement for one set of issues and the OSPAR Convention for a second set of similar issues relating to pollution and biodiversity. Additionally, the specific biodiversity arrangements for marine mammals and polar bears do not appear to have any formal linkages. Whereas, the Arctic Council is not a binding arrangement, so its implementation is voluntary and country dependent, it does appear to have the potential to develop into an informal overall policy coordinating organization. Nonetheless, this LME has been assigned an overall integration score of 1.0 due to the presence of the Arctic Council with its ability to potentially function as an overall policy coordinating organization for the key transboundary issues within the LME.
The overall scores for ranking of risk were: