Global ocean health index - Seychelles ranks high
For many years, the Seychelles’ seas have been providing food and recreation for locals and foreigners while also sustaining sea life and for this the country has been ranked highly in the global ocean health rankings.
In fact, Seychelles is ranked among the best performers in the global index that aims to measure the seas' ability to provide food and recreation while also sustaining sea life.
The ranking has proved why President James Michel has been in the limelight during the last months and hammering home how important it is for the big countries which pollute the environment to play a major role in reducing their carbon emissions as it is mostly Small island developing states (Sids) that are being affected by issues like climate change and sea level rise.
With an exclusive economic zone extending to nearly 1.5 million square kilometres, Seychelles received a total index score of 83% to be ranked ninth globally. The score is an improvement of one percent from the previous year and researchers at the Ocean Health Index have predicted that Seychelles’ score will rise by as much as nine percent next year.
The Prince Edward Islands (South Africa) tops the ranking with a score of 93%, followed by Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia with 93%), Howland Island and Baker Island (United States with 92%), Kerguelen Islands (France with 87%), Crozet Islands (France with 86%), Jarvis Island (United States with 84%), Malta and Greenland with 83% apiece. Denmark rounds up the top-10 with a score of 82%.
Seychelles has scored highly on various ecological, social, economic and political yardsticks. These include food production (79), natural products (100), carbon storage (100), coastal protection (85), coastal economies and livelihoods (85), tourism and recreation (100), sense of place (64), clean waters (72), biodiversity (90) and artisanal fishing opportunity (51).
“The score of 100 that is set as a target for each goal reflects a status that is feasible to achieve and can sustainably produce maximum benefits now and in the future,” Steve Katona, managing director for the Ocean Health Index, said in an interview with the UC Santa Barbara Current.
“Any score below 100 means there is room for improvement,” he added.
Conservation International, which prepared the 2014 Ocean Health Index along with researchers from various institutions like the University of California, Santa Barbara, the University of British Columbia and the New England Aquarium, gave the world’s oceans a ‘D’ score on its report card.
The global average score of 67 percent was largely due to problems associated with overfishing, pollution, climate change and inadequate protection. However, the researchers have said that the overall score is not only a slight improvement on previous years, but also a better performance than expected.
For the first time since the index began publishing its results in 2012, it has this year added all the high seas in the oceans to the 220 EEZs that were measured before. Scientists now hope that the EEZs together with the high seas, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean assessments will begin to provide a much more comprehensive summary of the health of the world’s oceans.
“I think many people are surprised that the score is that good, because people hear all the bad news about overfishing, pollution, death of coral reefs, climate change, and so on,” said Mr Katona in an interview with the National Geographic.
“If you come home with a paper from school, your parents aren't real happy if it's a 67, but most people expected a score for the ocean that was worse,” he noted.
For her part, Elizabeth Selig, conservation scientist with CI and the lead scientist on the high-seas assessment, said: "The high seas are home to important fisheries for species such as tuna and provide habitat or migratory pathways for iconic species such as whales, sharks and sea turtles.”
"Like the Antarctic assessment, the vast size and remoteness of the high seas has limited our ability to study all of the habitats and organisms present, so the biodiversity scores for these regions were based only on species whose populations have been formally assessed," she added.
The Western Indian Ocean and Eastern Central Atlantic Ocean scored highest overall at 79 and the Northwestern Pacific Ocean scored lowest at 53. The Eastern Central Atlantic Ocean had a Fisheries score of 81 out of 100, followed by the Western Indian Ocean with 80, making them the highest-scoring sectors for fisheries. At 7, the Northwestern Pacific Ocean had the lowest Fisheries score because, among other things, its stocks were farthest from the biomass that provides maximum sustainable yield.
The next global assessment is planned for September 2015.
In fact, Seychelles is ranked among the best performers in the global index that aims to measure the seas' ability to provide food and recreation while also sustaining sea life.
The ranking has proved why President James Michel has been in the limelight during the last months and hammering home how important it is for the big countries which pollute the environment to play a major role in reducing their carbon emissions as it is mostly Small island developing states (Sids) that are being affected by issues like climate change and sea level rise.
With an exclusive economic zone extending to nearly 1.5 million square kilometres, Seychelles received a total index score of 83% to be ranked ninth globally. The score is an improvement of one percent from the previous year and researchers at the Ocean Health Index have predicted that Seychelles’ score will rise by as much as nine percent next year.
The Prince Edward Islands (South Africa) tops the ranking with a score of 93%, followed by Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia with 93%), Howland Island and Baker Island (United States with 92%), Kerguelen Islands (France with 87%), Crozet Islands (France with 86%), Jarvis Island (United States with 84%), Malta and Greenland with 83% apiece. Denmark rounds up the top-10 with a score of 82%.
Seychelles has scored highly on various ecological, social, economic and political yardsticks. These include food production (79), natural products (100), carbon storage (100), coastal protection (85), coastal economies and livelihoods (85), tourism and recreation (100), sense of place (64), clean waters (72), biodiversity (90) and artisanal fishing opportunity (51).
“The score of 100 that is set as a target for each goal reflects a status that is feasible to achieve and can sustainably produce maximum benefits now and in the future,” Steve Katona, managing director for the Ocean Health Index, said in an interview with the UC Santa Barbara Current.
“Any score below 100 means there is room for improvement,” he added.
Conservation International, which prepared the 2014 Ocean Health Index along with researchers from various institutions like the University of California, Santa Barbara, the University of British Columbia and the New England Aquarium, gave the world’s oceans a ‘D’ score on its report card.
The global average score of 67 percent was largely due to problems associated with overfishing, pollution, climate change and inadequate protection. However, the researchers have said that the overall score is not only a slight improvement on previous years, but also a better performance than expected.
For the first time since the index began publishing its results in 2012, it has this year added all the high seas in the oceans to the 220 EEZs that were measured before. Scientists now hope that the EEZs together with the high seas, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean assessments will begin to provide a much more comprehensive summary of the health of the world’s oceans.
“I think many people are surprised that the score is that good, because people hear all the bad news about overfishing, pollution, death of coral reefs, climate change, and so on,” said Mr Katona in an interview with the National Geographic.
“If you come home with a paper from school, your parents aren't real happy if it's a 67, but most people expected a score for the ocean that was worse,” he noted.
For her part, Elizabeth Selig, conservation scientist with CI and the lead scientist on the high-seas assessment, said: "The high seas are home to important fisheries for species such as tuna and provide habitat or migratory pathways for iconic species such as whales, sharks and sea turtles.”
"Like the Antarctic assessment, the vast size and remoteness of the high seas has limited our ability to study all of the habitats and organisms present, so the biodiversity scores for these regions were based only on species whose populations have been formally assessed," she added.
The Western Indian Ocean and Eastern Central Atlantic Ocean scored highest overall at 79 and the Northwestern Pacific Ocean scored lowest at 53. The Eastern Central Atlantic Ocean had a Fisheries score of 81 out of 100, followed by the Western Indian Ocean with 80, making them the highest-scoring sectors for fisheries. At 7, the Northwestern Pacific Ocean had the lowest Fisheries score because, among other things, its stocks were farthest from the biomass that provides maximum sustainable yield.
The next global assessment is planned for September 2015.
Forrás: www.nation.sc