Sulu-Celebes Sea
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 37: Sula-Celebes Sea

Bordering countries:

Indonesia, Malaysia

LME total area:

1,015,737 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit low to levels of economic development (based on the night light development index) and high pollution from plastic debris.
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 very high.

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (0.204 mg.m^-3) in January and a minimum (0.144 mg.m^-3) during June. The average CHL is 0.161 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (284 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 1998 and minimum primary productivity (218 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2013. There is a statistically insignificant decreasing trend in Chlorophyll of -19.5 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 257 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 Sulu-Celebes Sea LME #37 has warmed by 0.64°C, thus belonging to Category 3 (moderate warming LME). The steady warming of the Sulu-Celebes Sea was accentuated by two warm events, in 1988 and 1998, the latter being of the global scale (El Niño 1997-98). The warm event of 1988 occurred simultaneously in the Indonesian Sea LME #38, North Australian Shelf LME #39, West-Central Australian Shelf LME #44, and Northwest Australian Shelf LME #45; and only one year prior to the warm event of 1989 in the Southeast Australian Shelf LME #42. Apparently, the warm event of 1988 was caused by large-scale forcing. The all-time minimum of 1967 occurred simultaneously in the Indonesian Sea LME #38 and one year prior to the all-time minimum of 1968 in the West-Central Australian Shelf LME #44. The strong correlation between the Sulu-Celebes Sea’s thermal history and those of adjacent seas could be explained by oceanic circulation, particularly, the Indonesian Throughflow that flows through these LMEs.

Fish and Fisheries

The fisheries of the Sulu-Celebes Sea LME are multi-gear and multi-species. Reef fisheries provide essential sustenance to artisanal fishers and their families throughout the region while high value fish products are exported to expanding international, national as well as local markets.

Annual catch:

Total reported landings in the LME have increased steadily, recording an average of one million t in the recent decade (2001 – 2010), although there is a significant proportion of the landings being reported simply as unidentified fishes in the available statistics.

Catch value:

The value of the reported landings has also increased, exceeding 1.5 billion US$ (in 2005 real US$) in recent years.

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

The trends in MTI and FiB are not conclusive, likely because of the poor quality of the underlying landings statistics. However, a decline in the MTI can be seen from 1950 to 1974, a period in which the proportion of unidentified fish in the landings statistics was relatively small, an indication that a ‘fishing down’ of the food web is occurring in the LME, only to be drowned out by the high level of taxonomically over-aggregated catches in recent years.

Stock status:

The Stock-Catch Status Plots indicate that about 27% of the stocks in the LME have collapsed or are currently overexploited, and that the reported landings are largely supplied by fully exploited stocks (almost 70%). This diagnosis, however, is probably a result of the high degree of taxonomical aggregation in the underlying statistics.

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch decreased from 70% in the early 1950s to 12% in late 1950s. Then, this percentage fluctuated around 17% in recent decade.

Fishing effort:

The total effective effort continuously increased from around 75 million kW in the 1950s to its peak around 1,000 million kW in the mid-2000s.

Primary Production Required:

The primary production required (PPR) to sustain the reported landings in this LME is increasing, and has reached 40% of the observed primary productivity 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 low (level 2 of the five risk categories, where 1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). Based on a “current trends” scenario (Global Orchestration), this increased to moderate in 2030 and remained moderate in 2050.

Nutrient ratio:

The Nutrient Ratio (ICEP) risk level for contemporary (2000) conditions was very low (1). 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 increased to moderate in 2030 and remained the same in 2050.

POPs:

Data are available only for one sample at one location in Manila Bay. This location shows minimal concentration (ng.g^-1 of pellets) for HCHs (0.4) and low concentration for DDTs (5), while moderate concentration for PCBs (140). The PCBs concentration corresponds to risk category 3 of the five risk categories (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk), and is prominent among Southeast Asian countries. Based on detailed studies by analyzing surface sediments, sediment core, and air samples, current emission of PCBs was suggested (Kwan et al., 2013; Kwan et al., 2014). However, more locations should be monitored to better understand the distribution of PCBs.

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 very limited evidence from sea-based direct observations and towed nets to support this conclusion.

Ecosystem Health

Mangrove and coral cover:

0.7% of this LME is covered by mangroves (US Geological Survey, 2011) and 1.99% 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 284. 29% of coral reefs cover is under very high threat, and 34% 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 change to 43% and 28% for very high and high threat categories respectively. By year 2030, 61% 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 62% by 2050.

Marine Protected Area change:

The Sulu-Celebes Sea LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 615 km² prior to 1983 to 27,582 km² by 2014. This represents an increase of 4,387%, within the medium category of MPA change.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Sulu-Celebes Sea LME experiences above average overall cumulative human impact (score 4.25; 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 (1.05; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation (0.47; maximum in other LMEs was 0.76), and sea surface temperature (1.45; maximum in other LMEs was 2.16). Demersal destructive commercial fishing (0.22; maximum in other LMEs was 0.56) and demersal non-destructive high-bycatch (0.30; maximum in other LMEs was 0.60) also had high impact. Other key stressors include commercial shipping, sea level rise, ocean based pollution, pelagic low-bycatch commercial fishing, and demersal non-destructive low-bycatch commercial fishing.

Ocean Health Index:

The Sulu-Celebes Sea LME scores below average on the Ocean Health Index compared to other LMEs (score 62 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 increased 2 points compared to the previous year, due in large part to changes in the scores for coastal economies and clean waters. This LME scores lowest on mariculture, coastal protection, carbon storage, coastal livelihoods, tourism & recreation, sense of place and clean waters goals and highest on artisanal fishing opportunities. 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 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 327 980 km². A current population of 82 399 thousand in 2010 is projected to increase to 116 545 thousand in 2100, with a density of 251 persons per km² in 2010 reaching 355 per km² by 2100. About 67% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to remain the same in share in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 25% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. This LME places in the very high-risk category based on percentage and in the very 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 high-revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $1 596 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 39% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $14 403 million places it in the low-revenue category. On average, LME-based tourism income contributes 12% 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 very 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 0.657, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.343, 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 (very 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 very high. In a sustainable development scenario, the risk index from sea level rise in 2100 is very low, and increases to high risk under a fragmented world development pathway.

Governance

Governance architecture:

The two transboundary arrangements for fisheries (WCPFC and APFIC) in this LME each cover high seas highly migratory tuna and tuna-like fisheries and the fisheries within national jurisdiction. There does not appear to me any formal connection between the two arrangements, possibly since they have different areas of competence. However, the arrangement for the Regional Seas Programme, the Coordinating Body of the Seas of South East Asia (COBSEA), covers both pollution and biodiversity with linkages to the Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). However neither of these within national jurisdiction arrangements appears to be integrated with the other or with the tuna arrangement. 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: