[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"question:1521:en-US":3},{"metadata":4,"sys":15,"fields":35},{"tags":5,"concepts":14},[6,11],{"sys":7},{"type":8,"linkType":9,"id":10},"Link","Tag","global",{"sys":12},{"type":8,"linkType":9,"id":13},"oceans",[],{"space":16,"id":20,"type":21,"createdAt":22,"updatedAt":23,"environment":24,"publishedVersion":28,"revision":29,"contentType":30,"locale":34},{"sys":17},{"type":8,"linkType":18,"id":19},"Space","ghhpjogyw4x7","1z3ygBkb7TXYnhfm6Np4su","Entry","2023-05-03T15:43:03.260Z","2025-06-27T23:13:57.417Z",{"sys":25},{"id":26,"type":8,"linkType":27},"master","Environment",57,16,{"sys":31},{"type":8,"linkType":32,"id":33},"ContentType","question","en-US",{"isHidden":36,"isRequiredForChallenge":36,"globalId":37,"answers":38,"answersAsImages":36,"wrongPercentage":94,"name":95,"questionText":96,"statistics":97,"veryWrongStatistics":99,"correctSentence":101,"youWereWrong":102,"youWereRight":103,"dataSourceShortText":104,"dataSourceLinkLongText":105,"extendedAnswerText":106,"headingVeryWrong":107,"youWereVeryWrong":102,"headingWrong":107},false,"1521",[39,60,77],{"metadata":40,"sys":43,"fields":56},{"tags":41,"concepts":42},[],[],{"space":44,"id":46,"type":21,"createdAt":47,"updatedAt":48,"environment":49,"publishedVersion":51,"revision":52,"contentType":53,"locale":34},{"sys":45},{"type":8,"linkType":18,"id":19},"3zjLEjt0TxPFnBEfSjZ2qC","2023-05-03T15:43:03.369Z","2025-01-22T13:44:13.216Z",{"sys":50},{"id":26,"type":8,"linkType":27},15,10,{"sys":54},{"type":8,"linkType":32,"id":55},"answer",{"globalId":57,"correctAnswer":36,"isVeryWrong":58,"answerText":59},"1521-a1",true,"...around 5%",{"metadata":61,"sys":64,"fields":74},{"tags":62,"concepts":63},[],[],{"space":65,"id":67,"type":21,"createdAt":68,"updatedAt":69,"environment":70,"publishedVersion":29,"revision":52,"contentType":72,"locale":34},{"sys":66},{"type":8,"linkType":18,"id":19},"6iflAqCwdZ3Zq6aWrfzXtk","2023-05-03T15:43:03.451Z","2025-01-22T13:44:13.258Z",{"sys":71},{"id":26,"type":8,"linkType":27},{"sys":73},{"type":8,"linkType":32,"id":55},{"globalId":75,"correctAnswer":36,"isVeryWrong":36,"answerText":76},"1521-a2","...around 20%",{"metadata":78,"sys":81,"fields":91},{"tags":79,"concepts":80},[],[],{"space":82,"id":84,"type":21,"createdAt":85,"updatedAt":86,"environment":87,"publishedVersion":51,"revision":52,"contentType":89,"locale":34},{"sys":83},{"type":8,"linkType":18,"id":19},"4n7c23uWjHh0sqDbbTrAWq","2023-05-03T15:43:03.489Z","2025-01-22T13:44:13.294Z",{"sys":88},{"id":26,"type":8,"linkType":27},{"sys":90},{"type":8,"linkType":32,"id":55},{"globalId":92,"correctAnswer":58,"isVeryWrong":36,"answerText":93},"1521-a3","...more than 35%",62,"Overfishing vs 1950","When biologists started counting fish in the oceans in 1950, around 1% of existing fish stocks were overexploited. By 2021 this share was...",[98],"usa 0.62",[100],"usa 0.1964","The share of assessed fish stocks which have been fished to a point where they are at risk of collapse went from less than 1% in 1950 to more than 37% in 2021.","People overestimate most problems – but not this one! We can’t see under the surface of the water and the media doesn’t report much on the types of fish that have gone missing.","We can’t see under the surface of the water and the media doesn’t report much on the types of fish that have gone missing.","Source: FAO & Sea Around Us","The FAO is widely respected by many experts, but critics do not like the fact that it comes directly from governments. Some, they say, may have reasons to adjust their figures, while others may not be able to provide very accurate estimates. That is where we get the figure of 37% from that we use in this question. One alternative is the Sea Around Us - a project from the university of British Columbia - which has been working to replace the “missing data” that exists in the FAO numbers, which they believe comes from unreported catch numbers. The Sea Around Us’ numbers are quite a bit higher than those reported by the FAO, but the trend when it comes to overfishing is very similar (actually higher today, at around 40-50%). The figure of 1% of fish stocks being overfished in the 1950s actually comes from the Sea Around Us, so we are confident it is not an underestimation (even though it doesn’t take into account fish stocks that may have been overfished in the decades before they started counting.)\n\n[1]  [The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024](https:\u002F\u002Fopenknowledge.fao.org\u002Fserver\u002Fapi\u002Fcore\u002Fbitstreams\u002Ff985caed-cc7a-457e-8107-7ce16c6ef209\u002Fcontent)  \n[2]  [Sea Around Us](http:\u002F\u002Fwww.seaaroundus.org\u002Fdata\u002F#\u002Fglobal?chart=catch-chart&dimension=taxon&measure=tonnage&limit=10)  \n","The share of fish stocks that have been counted and are now close to collapse are more than 37% (some estimates are nearer 50%!). \n\nWhen fish stocks started to be counted in the 1950s, it didn’t take into account all the species that had been overfished before that time. However, it’s still clear that the long-term trend is that the share of species being overfished has continued to grow, even if it is creeping up slowly.\n\n### Why are people wrong about this?\nWhen fish seem plentiful in restaurants and shops, people don’t realize the scale of overfishing. In a different question related to this most thought that more fish were being caught, so it is a little surprising they think that more species haven’t been overfished. \n\n### Why is it a problem that people are wrong about this?\nKnowing how many stocks of wild fish are being fished close to collapse is important for people to understand when they are making decisions about what they should eat and how they focus their energy when it comes to protecting ecosystems and the environment.\n\n### Can I trust this data?\nYes, but recognize that fishing data is disputed. The FAO is widely respected by many experts, but critics do not like the fact that it comes directly from governments. Some, they say, may have reasons to adjust their figures, while others may not be able to provide very accurate estimates. That is where we get the figure of 37% from that we use in this question. One alternative is the Sea Around Us - a project from the university of British Columbia - which has been working to replace the “missing data” that exists in the FAO numbers, which they believe comes from unreported catch numbers. The Sea Around Us’ numbers are quite a bit higher than those reported by the FAO, but the trend when it comes to overfishing is very similar (actually higher today, at around 40-50%). The figure of 1% of fish stocks being overfished in the 1950s actually comes from the Sea Around Us, so we are confident it is not an underestimation (even though it doesn’t take into account fish stocks that may have been overfished in the decades before they started counting.)\n","Fishing Gone"]