What this site does not cover, and why

The rule we are following

Every ActSmall topic operates on a single editorial rule: where the named scientific and operational authorities converge, we display it; where they diverge or are silent, we do not invent a position. The named bodies for ocean science and management are the FAO (fisheries status, SOFIA), the IUCN Red List (species assessments), the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA, marine protected areas), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, NOAA, and the regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). Where they converge we cite them. Where they have not, we say nothing.

Per-species "sustainable seafood" verdicts

The major consumer seafood-guide programmes (Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch in the US, the Marine Conservation Society Good Fish Guide in the UK, the Marine Stewardship Council label) produce per-species, per-fishery, per-method sustainability ratings that are updated regularly and differ across the programmes. The FAO's State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) publishes the stock-status numbers at the global level but does not produce a consumer rating^[1]. We do not maintain our own consumer seafood verdicts because (a) the ratings differ by region and gear type in ways a single global list cannot capture, (b) the rating programmes update faster than a static map, and (c) the consumer-choice framing is contested as a stand-alone solution by the fisheries-management literature, which generally identifies stock-management policy (catch limits, gear regulation, IUU enforcement) as the primary lever. We link to the named consumer programmes by region rather than producing our own.

The size and shape of the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch"

Marine plastic accumulation in the subtropical gyres is real and well-documented. The size, mass, and composition of the so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch differ substantially across studies depending on whether they count microplastic load (Lebreton et al. 2018 estimate, often the highest cited), surface debris, or visible-from-aircraft accumulation. The popular "island the size of Texas" framing is not consistent with the published surface concentrations — the accumulation is a low-density mostly-microplastic zone, not a continuous island^[2]. We do not repeat the "island" framing and we do not produce our own size estimate; we cite the peer-reviewed surveys and link to the IOC-UNESCO marine-litter assessments.

National whaling and high-seas governance positions

Iceland, Norway, and Japan operate commercial whaling under their interpretations of the International Whaling Commission moratorium framework; the Faroe Islands operates traditional pilot-whale drives under Faroese law; indigenous subsistence whaling continues in several Arctic countries under IWC quotas. These are real, ongoing policy disputes among IWC member states. We do not take a side. The IUCN Red List status of the species involved is shown where it exists (and several great-whale populations are now Least Concern or Near Threatened on the global Red List, while specific sub-populations remain Endangered) — we cite the assessments themselves rather than asserting a "correct" national policy.

Deep-sea mining moratorium debates

The International Seabed Authority is currently working on the Mining Code for the Area beyond national jurisdiction. Several countries (France, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Costa Rica) have called for a moratorium; several others (Norway, the Cook Islands, China) have advanced exploratory licences. This is an active multilateral policy negotiation. We do not assert a position on the moratorium because doing so would require us to take a side that the IOC-UNESCO, FAO, and IUCN have not jointly endorsed.

Offshore wind versus marine biodiversity

Offshore wind expansion has been the subject of recent claims (in the US northeast, in the UK, and in Denmark) that the construction or operation of turbines causes whale or marine-mammal mortality. The named scientific bodies — NOAA Fisheries, the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, BOEM — have published findings that there is no evidence of offshore-wind-caused mortality in the cases examined to date^[3]. We cite these findings where they have been published. There are real and unresolved questions about cumulative noise, pile-driving impacts on cetaceans, and seabird collision risk — we link to the peer-reviewed reviews for these. We do not assert that offshore wind is harm-free, and we do not amplify the unsubstantiated mortality framings.

Aquaculture as a category

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food-production sector globally; the FAO reports that aquaculture has produced more aquatic-animal food than capture fisheries since 2022. Different aquaculture systems (open-net salmon pens, closed recirculating systems, integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, low-trophic bivalve and seaweed culture) have very different environmental profiles, and the FAO does not endorse a single best system. We do not rank "all aquaculture good" or "all aquaculture bad"; we cite the FAO's system-specific analyses where they exist.

Where this leaves us

The ocean topic covers what the FAO, IUCN, WDPA, IOC-UNESCO, and NOAA have converged on: marine protected area coverage by country (WDPA-OECM combined), FAO stock-status percentages, sea-surface-temperature anomalies, household-scale actions (reducing land-based plastic, supporting MPA expansion, reporting marine wildlife observations to OBIS / iNaturalist). Where the named authorities are silent or where the question is policy rather than household action, we say so.