Red Sea
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 33: Red Sea

Bordering countries:

Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen

LME total area:

480,385 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit high rates of increase in MPA coverage.
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 high.

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (0.390 mg.m^-3) in January and a minimum (0.183 mg.m^-3) during September. The average CHL is 0.252 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (365 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 2002 and minimum primary productivity (284 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2011. There is a statistically insignificant decreasing trend in Chlorophyll of -22.1 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 330 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 Red Sea LME #33 has warmed by 0.40°C, thus being on a threshold between Categories 3 and 4 (moderate-to-slow warming LME). The Red Sea saw its SST rising rather gradually except for a sharp drop in the mid-1970s. The most recent peak SST of 28.7°C in 2010 marked the all-time maximum. Using the all-time minimum of 27.4°C in 1975 as a reference point, SST rose by 1.4°C to 28.8°C in 2012. As a relatively small land-locked water body, the Red Sea and its thermal regime, especially of the surface layer, are heavily influenced by the terrestrial climates of adjacent landmasses of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

Fish and Fisheries

About 1,200 species of fish are known to occur in the Red Sea LME, and marked differences occur in fish species richness, assemblage compositions and species abundance in different parts of the Red Sea, reflecting the heterogeneous nature of its environment. Fishing occurs mainly at the subsistence or artisanal levels, although commercial trawling and purse seining are also carried out in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Annual catch:

Total reported landings from this LME have increased steadily, recording over 130,000 t in 2004, most of it in the "mixed group".

Catch value:

The value of the reported landings also increased to about 270 million US$ in 1991 (in 2005 real US$).

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

The fisheries of the Red Sea LME are still expanding, and therefore, they show high and stable MTI values, with an increase in the FiB index.

Stock status:

The Stock-Catch Status Plots indicate that the number of collapsed stocks is similar to that of overexploited stocks (16 – 17%), but the collapsed stocks only contribute a very small amount of the total catch. About 85% of the catch originates from overexploited and fully exploited stocks.

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch increased from 13% in the 1950s to its first peak at around 35% in 1981. Then, this percentage kept decreasing and fluctuated around 23% in recent decade.

Fishing effort:

The total effective effort continuously increased from around 7 million kW in the 1950s to its peak around 70 million kW in the mid-2000s.

Primary Production Required:

The primary production required (PPR) to sustain the reported landing in this LME is increasing in recent years, but has yet to reach 10% of the observed primary production.

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 very low (level 1 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 high (4). 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 very low (1). 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 the highest 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 relative importance of these sources in this LME. The abundance of floating plastic in this category is estimated to be on average over 400 times higher that those LMEs with lowest values. There is limited evidence from sea-based direct observations and towed nets to support this conclusion.

Ecosystem Health

Mangrove and coral cover:

0.02% of this LME is covered by mangroves (US Geological Survey, 2011) and 2.7% by coral reefs (Global Distribution of Coral Reefs, 2010).

Reefs at risk:

This LME has a present (2011) integrated threat index (combining threat from overfishing and destructive fishing, watershed-based and marine-based pollution and damage) of 187. This is the highest integrated threat score of any LME. 11% of coral reefs cover is under very high threat, and 7% under high threat (of the 5 possible threat categories, from low to critical). When combined with past thermal stress (between 1998 and 2007), these values increase to 11% and 23% for very high and high threat categories respectively. By year 2030, 12% of coral cover in this LME is predicted to be under very high to critical level of threat from warming and acidification; this proportion increases to 18% by 2050.

Marine Protected Area change:

The Red Sea LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 1.7 km² prior to 1983 to 16,630 km² by 2014. This represents an increase of 50,000%, within the highest category of MPA change.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Red Sea LME experiences an above average overall cumulative human impact (score 3.61; maximum LME score 5.22), which is also well above the LME with the least cumulative impact. It falls in risk category 3 of the five risk categories (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). This LME is most vulnerable to climate change. Of the 19 individual stressors, all four connected to climate change have the highest average impact on the LME: ocean acidification (0.94; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation (0.26; maximum in other LMEs was 0.76), sea level rise (0.31; maximum in other LMEs was 0.71), and sea surface temperature (1.36; maximum in other LMEs was 2.16). Other key stressors include commercial shipping, ocean based pollution, invasive species, demersal destructive commercial fishing, and demersal non-destructive low-bycatch commercial fishing.

Ocean Health Index:

The Red Sea LME has one of the lowest scores on the Ocean Health Index (score 60 out of 100; range for other LMEs was 57 to 82). 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 decreased 2 points compared to the previous year, due in large part to changes in the scores for natural products and clean waters. This LME scores lowest on mariculture, natural products, coastal protection, tourism & recreation, and sense of place goals and highest on artisanal fishing opportunities and habitat biodiversity goals. It falls in risk category 5 of the five risk categories, which is the highest 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 this 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 stretches over 513 873 km². A current population of 27 950 thousand in 2010 is projected to increase to 108 998 thousand in 2100, with a density of 54 persons per km² in 2010 reaching 202 per km² by 2100. About 58% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to increase in share to 68% in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 24% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. This LME places in the very high-risk category based on percentage and in the high-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. This LME ranks in the medium-revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $230 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 9% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $12 134 million places it in the medium-revenue category. On average, LME-based tourism income contributes 7% 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 this LME falls in the category with high risk.

Human Development Index:

Using the Human Development Index (HDI) that integrates measures of health, education and income, the present-day LME HDI belongs to the low HDI and high risk category. Based on an HDI of 0.648, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.352, 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). This 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 a very high-risk category (low HDI) because of reduced income levels and increased population values from those 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 of this LME is within the very high-risk (very high threat) category. The combined contemporaneous risk due to extreme climate events, degrading LME states and the level of vulnerability of the coastal population, is high. In a sustainable development scenario, the risk index from sea level rise in 2100 is very low, and increases to very high risk under a fragmented world development pathway.

Governance

Governance architecture:

The two arrangements for pollution and for biodiversity fall under the Jeddah Convention. However, there does not appear to be any specific regional arrangements for fishing in general nor habitat degradation and its effect on biodiversity within the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The transboundary arrangement for turtles and their habitat in the Indian Ocean does not appear to be integrated formally with the other arrangements. No integrating mechanisms, such as an overall policy coordinating organisation for the LME, could be found. There may be interaction amongst the arrangements through participation in each other’s meetings, but this appears to be informal.
The overall scores for ranking of risk were: