Central Arctic
Click here to choose an LME

×
← go back to the LME Portal

LME 64: Central Arctic

Bordering country:

No country

LME total area:

3,522,239 km²

LME overall risk:

This LME falls in the cluster of LMEs that exhibit high percentages of rural coastal population, high numbers of collapsed and overexploited fish stocks, as well as high proportions of catch from bottom impacting gear.
Because this LME does not have resident citizens, it has no Human Development Index and no risk score.

Productivity

Chlorophyll-A:

The annual Chlorophyll a concentration (CHL) cycle has a maximum peak (0.297 mg.m^-3) in August and a minimum (0.169 mg.m^-3) during April. The average CHL is 0.373 mg.m^-3. Maximum primary productivity (367 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) occurred during 2001 and minimum primary productivity (88 g.C.m^-2.y^-1) during 2008. There is a statistically insignificant increasing trend in Chlorophyll of 139. % from 2003 through 2013. The average primary productivity is 163 g.C.m^-2.y^-1, which places this LME in Group 2 of 5 categories (with 1 = lowest and 5= highest).

Primary productivity:

Sea Surface Temperature:

From 1957 to 2012, the Central Arctic LME #64 has warmed by 0.10°C, thus belonging to Category 4 (slow warming LME). The Central Arctic is covered with ice in winter. During that time ice concentration approaches 100%. Leads between ice floes are quite rare and narrow. Wide leads or polynyas that would allow satellite measurements of SST are almost non-existent. In summer the sea ice cover retreats, so that the Central Arctic become partly ice-free. The annual mean SST analyzed in this report is thus based almost exclusively on summertime measurements. Because of this constraint, the thermal history of SST in this LME has not been covered in the previous analysis (Belkin, 2009). The extremely slow warming observed since 1957 through 2001 was followed by a relatively rapid warming, which was quite abrupt between 2006-2007. This abrupt shift was possibly related to the rapid shrinking of the Arctic sea ice cover observed in the 2000s. After the 2006-2007 shift, the Central Arctic SST remained stable between 2007 and 2012, notwithstanding the ongoing shrinking of the Arctic sea ice cover.

Fish and Fisheries

The Central Arctic LME, along with its surrounding LMEs is unique in that the melting and freezing of ice creates rich habitats close to the sunlit surface. The wide continental shelves provide large shallow areas, where freshwater from north-flowing rivers creates estuarine conditions. There is a limited number of true Arctic species of commercial importance. Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) occurs throughout the Canadian Arctic. In the summer, many stocks of Arctic char migrate to the sea, where they have a larger resource base to exploit and thus are able to grow faster. While at sea, they feed on crustaceans and small fish. Before winter, these migrants return to the rivers and lakes. Under extreme winter conditions, they hardly feed at all.

Annual catch:

Sea mammals abound and are still exploited. However, the Central Arctic LME does include waters seasonally ice-free and regularly commercially fished, both in the Northwest Atlantic (around Greenland, including Davis Strait and Baffin Bay) and the Northeast Atlantic (waters north of Iceland and towards Svalbard). Thus, reported landings in this LME are dominated by catches taken in the Atlantic waters. From the 1950s to early 1970s, the catch was dominated by ocean perch and thereafter by capelin. The highest catch of about half a million t, consisting mainly of capelin, was obtained in 1996.

Catch value:

Marine Trophic Index and Fishing-in-Balance index:

The catch data from this LME are too crude for ecosystem indicators such as PPR, MTI or FiB index to be computed.

Stock status:

Catch from bottom impacting gear:

The percentage of catch from the bottom gear type to the total catch reached its first peak at 90% in 1996. This percentage ranged between 18 and 67% in the recent decade.

Fishing effort:

The whole time series of effort data in the LME region is incomplete.

Primary Production Required:

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:

No data for this LME

Nutrient ratio:

No data for this LME

Merged nutrient indicator:

No data for this LME

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 low 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 low values are due to the relative remoteness of this LME from significant sources of plastic. The abundance of floating plastic in this category is estimated to be on average over 40 times lower that those LMEs with the highest values. There is 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:

Not applicable.

Cumulative Human Impact:

The Central Arctic LME experiences one of the lowest overall cumulative human impact (score 0.74; maximum LME score 5.22). It falls in risk category 1 of the five risk categories (1 = lowest risk; 5 = highest risk). This LME is most vulnerable to climate change. Of the 19 individual stressors, the only stressor with high average impact on the LME was ocean acidification (0.73; maximum in other LMEs was 1.20), comprising 98% of the total overall impact.

Ocean Health Index:

The Central Arctic 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 increased 1 point compared to the previous year, due in large part to changes in the score for clean waters. This LME scores lowest on food provision, natural products and tourism & recreation goals and highest on artisanal fishing opportunities, coastal protection, coastal economies, 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

This LME has no resident population so population-related indicators are not evaluated. However, nearby countries and distant fishing nations utilize this LME for fishing and tourism, the revenues for which are reported here.

Population:

Fishing and tourism depend on ecosystem services provided by LMEs. This LME ranks in the very low-revenue category in fishing revenues based on yearly average total ex-vessel price of US 2013 $2 million for the period 2001-2010. Its yearly average tourism revenue for 2004-2013 of US 2013 $17 277 million places it in the medium-revenue category.

Coastal poor:

Revenues and Spatial Wealth Distribution:

Human Development Index:

Climate-Related Threat Indices:

Governance

Governance architecture:

None of the three transboundary fisheries arrangements (NEAFC, ICCAT and NASCO) appear to be integrated while the three arrangements for pollution and biodiversity (NAMMCO, ACPB and OSPAR) appear to have the Arctic Council as an integrating arrangement for one set of issues and OSPAR for a similar set of issues. However, 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, although as mentioned, its policy coordination role with respect to fisheries is weak. Consequently,, this LME has been assigned an overall integration score of 1.0 due to the presence of the Arctic Council.
The overall scores for ranking of risk were: