Sea of Japan
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 50: Sea of Japan

Bordering countries:

Japan, Korea, Democratic Republic of Korea

LME total area:

1,054,305 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit low to medium levels of economic development (based on the night light development index) and medium levels of collapsed and overexploited fish stocks.
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 medium.

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (0.905 mg.m^-3) in April and a minimum (0.242 mg.m^-3) during August. The average CHL is 0.414 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (242 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 1999 and minimum primary productivity (180 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2008. There is a statistically insignificant increasing trend in Chlorophyll of 6.79 % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 207 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 Sea of Japan LME #50 has warmed by 1.05°C, thus belonging to Category 2 (fast warming LME). The Japan Sea–like the adjacent East China Sea–was not warming until the 1980s. Unlike the East China Sea, where abrupt warming began in 1982, the warming epoch in the Japan Sea commenced after 1986. Between 1986 and 2010, SST rose from 12.0°C to 14.1°C, an increase by 2.1°C in 23 years. The decadal variability of the Japan Sea is primarily influenced by the Siberian high, which is related to the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation, and secondarily by the Aleutian low, whose decadal variability is linked to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Minobe et al., 2004). However, the North Pacific regime shift of 1976-1977 has not transpired in the Japan Sea SST time series.

Fish and Fisheries

Marine fisheries are an important economic sector for the countries bordering the Sea of Japan LME. Both cold and warm-water fish occur in the LME, with salmon, Alaska pollock, sea urchin, sea cucumber, crab and shrimp being the most valuable species. Long-term fluctuations of Pacific sardine accompanied by noticeable geographic shifts in its spawning and nursery grounds have been observed, but no relationship has been found between high sardine catches and the Tsushima Current.

Annual catch:

Total reported landings in the LME reached 2.8 million t in 1989 but have since declined to around 1.2 million t in the recent 10 years. The fluctuation in the landings can be attributed mainly to the high reported landings of Pacific sardine, which accounted for 30% of the total landings in the mid to late 1980s.

Catch value:

The value of the reported landings also rose steadily to about 4 billion US$ (in 2005 real US$) in 1979.

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

The MTI shows a large fluctuation, reflecting the cyclic nature in the relative abundance, and hence the landings, of the low-trophic Pacific sardine. The FiB index suggests a period of expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, after which the index levels off, indicating that the decrease in the mean trophic level resulting from the high proportion of reported landings of Pacific sardine in the 1980s was compensated for by its large volume of landings.

Stock status:

The Stock-Catch Status Plots indicate that the number of collapsed and overexploited stocks in the LME has been rapidly increasing, to 30 % of the commercially exploited stocks, with about 40% of the reported landings still supplied by fully exploited stocks.

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch decreased from around 16% in the early 1950s to its lowest point at around 2% in 1987. Then, this percentage kept increasing and reached its peak at 19% in 2001. It fluctuated around 18% in recent decade.

Fishing effort:

The total effective effort continuously increased from around 24 million kW in the 1950s to its peak around 145 million kW in 2005.

Primary Production Required:

The primary production required (PPR) to sustain the reported landings in this LME reached 50% of the observed primary production in the 1990s but has since 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 low (2). 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 high 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 100 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:

Not applicable

Reefs at risk:

Not applicable

Marine Protected Area change:

The Sea of Japan LME experienced an increase in MPA coverage from 4,065 km² prior to 1983 to 5,721 km² by 2014. This represents an increase of 40%, within the lowest category of MPA change.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Sea of Japan LME experiences above average overall cumulative human impact (score 3.91; 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 (0.85; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), UV radiation (0.55; 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, sea level rise, 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 Sea of Japan LME scores below average on the Ocean Health Index compared to other LMEs (score 68 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 unchange compared to the previous year. This LME scores lowest on food provision, natural products and tourism & recreation goals and highest on artisanal fishing opportunities, coastal protection, carbon storage, coastal economies, and habitat biodiversity goals. It falls in risk category 4 of the five risk categories, which is a relatively high 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 511,094 km². A current population of 73 157 thousand in 2010 is projected to decrease to 55 696 thousand in 2100, with a density of 143 persons per km² in 2010 decreasing to 109 per km² by 2100. About 28% of coastal population lives in rural areas, and is projected to slightly decrease in share to 27% in 2100.

Coastal poor:

The indigent population makes up 14% of the LME’s coastal dwellers. This LME places in the 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 $2 353 million for the period 2001-2010. Fish protein accounts for 37% of the total animal protein consumption of the coastal population. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $80 112 million places it in the high-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 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 very high HDI and very low-risk category. Based on an HDI of 0.882, this LME has an HDI Gap of 0.118, 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 high-risk category (low HDI) because of reduced income levels and 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 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 high. In a sustainable development scenario, the risk index from sea level rise in 2100 is very low, and increases to medium under a fragmented world development pathway.

Governance

Governance architecture:

In this LME, there is essentially no transboundary fisheries arrangement. However, PICES does provide opportunity for transboundary cooperation in assessment in science. The fact that there is no Regional Seas convention covering the area, only an action plan seriously weakens capacity for transboundary governance in areas relating to biodiversity and pollution. There is the potential for integration of pollution and biodiversity issues under NOWPAP should it proceed to the level of a Convention. There does not appear to be any organisation other than NOWPAP that could integrate and coordinate across the full range of issues required for EBM.
The overall scores for ranking of risk were: