More than once, I read and heard in various media and official statements that:
"According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 85 per cent of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion-- the highest percentage since FAO began keeping records, and a 10 per cent increase from four years ago".
I wonder how this percentage increase is shared by the different fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion fisheries... I also wonder why "fully exploited fisheries" are included in the above total percentage of 85%.
I think that the normal logic would say that "fully exploited" is the best state of things, provided that the "fully exploited fishery" is sustainably exploited. Why should fisheries remain "under-exploited", which is the only category not included in the FAO's 85%? BTW, FAO itself is not flocking them, but is presenting separate figures for each category. Well, advocacy is not science, even when it pretends to be based on it.
"According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 85 per cent of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion-- the highest percentage since FAO began keeping records, and a 10 per cent increase from four years ago".
I wonder how this percentage increase is shared by the different fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion fisheries... I also wonder why "fully exploited fisheries" are included in the above total percentage of 85%.
I think that the normal logic would say that "fully exploited" is the best state of things, provided that the "fully exploited fishery" is sustainably exploited. Why should fisheries remain "under-exploited", which is the only category not included in the FAO's 85%? BTW, FAO itself is not flocking them, but is presenting separate figures for each category. Well, advocacy is not science, even when it pretends to be based on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment