East China Sea
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 47: East China Sea

Bordering countries:

China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan

LME total area:

1,008,066 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit medium to high numbers of collapsed and overexploited fish stocks, high levels of demersal non-destructive low bycatch fishing, as well as very high shipping pressure.
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 (0.702 mg.m^-3) in March and a minimum (0.352 mg.m^-3) during August. The average CHL is 0.477 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (541 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 1998 and minimum primary productivity (379 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2011. There is a statistically insignificant increasing trend in Chlorophyll of 1.63 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 435 g.C.m^-2.y^-1, which places this LME in Group 4 of 5 categories (with 1 = lowest and 5= highest).

Primary productivity:

Sea Surface Temperature:

From 1957 to 2012, the East China Sea LME #47 has warmed by 1.57°C, thus belonging to Category 1 (super-fast warming LME). The East China Sea was the world’s fastest warming LME between 1957 and 2012 owing to the super-fast warming between 1981 and 1998, when SST rose from 20.6 to 22.8, an unprecedented increase by 2.2°C in 17 years. After 1998, SST decreased down to 21.7°C in 2011, a 1.1°C drop in 13 years. Before 1981, the SST in this LME remained relatively stable since, at least, 1957, varying between 20.5°C and 21.5°C. The abrupt transition from the stable epoch of 1957-1981 to the super-fast warming of 1982-1998 is unparalleled in the World Ocean. The rapid warming of 1982-1998 might have been caused – or at least exacerbated – by the concurrent rapid industrialization and urbanization of China, leading to a 2°C warming of the Yangtze River basin and a 2°C increase of stream temperature of the Yangtze River, which empties into the East China Sea (Belkin, 2009; Belkin and Lee, 2014).

Fish and Fisheries

Fish and other living resources are heavily exploited in the East China Sea LME.

Annual catch:

Total reported landings have increased to about 4.5 million t in 1999, though there is a serious concern as to the validity of the underlying reported landings statistics.

Catch value:

Over the past decade, the value of the annual catch ranged between 3.7 billion and 8 billion US$ (in 2005 real US$) with a peak of just under 8 billion US$ (in 2005 real dollar) in 2010.

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

The concerns over the quality of the underlying landings statistics are also highlighted in the long-term trends of the MTI and the FiB index, with both indices showing a familiar pattern of overexploitation in the region up to the late 1980s, with a slow expansion of the fisheries implied by the increase in the FiB index, followed by a period of a decline in the mean trophic level or a ‘fishing down’ of the local food webs. In the 1990s, both indices show a significant increase, again suggesting that the underlying landings statistics include a large amount of catches from outside of the LME.

Stock status:

The Stock-Catch Status Plots indicate that the number of collapsed and overexploited stocks have been rapidly increasing, now accounting for almost 50% of the commercially exploited stocks, yet, with 65% of the reported landings biomass from fully exploited stocks. Again, the quality of the underlying statistics must be questioned.

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch decreased from 34% in the early 1950s to around 11% in 1983. Then, this percentage kept increasing and fluctuated around 34% in recent decade.

Fishing effort:

The total effective effort continuously increased from around 17 million kW in the 1950s to its peak around 135 million kW in 2006.

Primary Production Required:

In recent years, the primary production required (PPR) to sustain the reported landings in this LME has exceeded the observed primary production, which indicates serious problems with the underlying reported landings statistics, which probably include catches made outside the LME.

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 high. (level 5 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 very high (5). 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 high (5). According to the Global Orchestration scenario, this remained the same in 2030 and 2050.

POPs:

This LME includes the middle Chinese coast and southern coast of Korea. Five samples from 5 locations are available. Although the average PCBs concentration (ng.g^-1 of pellets) is low (24, range 3-56) corresponding to category 2 of the 5 risk categories (1=lowest risk; 5= highest risk), moderate concentrations of PCBs (12 – 56 ng.g^-1) were recorded in the southern coast of Korea. This may be explained by legacy pollution. The average concentration of DDTs is 36 (range 11-80), corresponding to risk category 3. Samples from Shanghai show dominance of DDT over the degradation products, suggesting current inputs of DDTs. Agricultural application and/or antifouling paint may explain the moderate level of DDTs. HCH concentrations were minimal (0.1-0.7 ng.g^-1).

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

Ecosystem Health

Mangrove and coral cover:

0.01% of this LME is covered by mangroves (US Geological Survey, 2011) and 0.06% by coral reefs ().

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 283. 21% of coral reefs cover is under very high threat, and 46% 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 61% and 29% for very high and high threat categories respectively. By year 2030, 33% 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 67% by 2050.

Marine Protected Area change:

The East China Sea LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 2,022 km² prior to 1983 to 4,839 km² by 2014. This represents an increase of 139%, within the low category of MPA change.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The East China Sea LME experiences the highest overall cumulative human impact of any LME (score 5.22). It falls in risk category 5 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 (0.78; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation (0.58; maximum in other LMEs was 0.76), sea level rise (0.25; maximum in other LMEs was 0.71), and sea surface temperature (1.46; maximum in other LMEs was 2.16). High average impact also came from demersal destructive fishing (0.56, the highest score for any LME), demersal non-destructive high-bycatch commercial fishing (0.48; maximum in other LMEs was 0.60), and commercial shipping (0.42; maximum in other LMEs was XX). Other key stressors include ocean based pollution, coastal human population pressure, pelagic high-bycatch commercial fisheries, invasive species, and demersal non-destructive low-bycatch commercial fishing.

Ocean Health Index:

The East China Sea LME scores below average on the Ocean Health Index compared to other LMEs (score 66 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 remained unchanged compared to the previous year. This LME scores lowest on fisheries, tourism & recreation, sense of place and clean waters goals and highest on coastal economies. 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 200 474 km². A current population of 136 598 thousand in 2010 is projected to increase to 166 221 thousand in 2100, with a density of 681 persons per km² in 2010 increasing to 829 per km² by 2100. About 30% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to maintain this share in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 8% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. This LME places in the very low-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 very high-revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $6 955 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 24% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $146 489 million places it in the very high-revenue category. On average, LME-based tourism income contributes 9% 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 medium 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 medium HDI and medium-risk category. Based on an HDI of 0.740, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.260, 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 increasing 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 very high under a fragmented world development pathway.

Governance

Governance architecture:

The two transboundary arrangements for fisheries in this LME - WCPFC and APFIC- cover high seas highly migratory tuna and tuna-like fisheries and the fisheries within national jurisdiction. There does not appear to be any formal connection between the two arrangements, possibly since they have different areas of competence. For pollution, NOWPAP potentially serves an integrating function but it does not appear to be linked to the fisheries arrangements, despite the impacts of pollution on the fisheries. Significantly, no formal arrangement for biodiversity was identified in this LME. It may be assumed that PEMSEA, with its concern for coastal management issues has addressed this issue but PEMSEA depends on voluntary action. 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: