Main

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aspire to “leave no one behind”1. However, an important and culturally diverse group of economic actors and resource stewards—the global population of small-scale fishers and fishworkers—are currently lagging behind because their contributions to society remain obscure and are frequently overlooked2. SSF are diverse and elusive in definition but generally include pre-harvest, near-shore harvest and post-harvest activities using low-technology, low-capital and labour-intensive practices3. Wild-capture SSF in inland and marine waters is the most important food production system based on non-cultivated natural resources, but this small-scale subsector is often not recognized in agricultural, development and nutrition policy. Despite having a dedicated SDG target (goal 14b) aimed at securing their access to (marine) fishery resources and markets, small-scale fisherfolk were excluded, for example, from OECD blue-economy employment statistics4 because their numbers were judged too difficult to estimate. As with some terrestrial resource-based food supplies, including hunting, foraging and pastoralism, SSF are frequently excluded from analyses of food systems5,6. Despite being an important source of high-quality protein and micronutrients globally7, fish are hardly visible in strategies to achieve SDG 2 (zero hunger). Even less visible are SSF in inland water systems, which are not addressed in the SDGs8. A consequence of this is the marginalization of small-scale fisherfolk in national and international policy dialogue, in which they have limited influence on the governance of aquatic resources and ecosystems, including the implementation of measures against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing9; marine spatial planning10; designation and management of marine protected areas11; and integrated management of freshwater systems8. Similarly, SSF often lose out to more-visible economic sectors, such as industrial fishing, aquaculture, tourism, agriculture, irrigation and hydropower development, in governance interventions designed to manage oceans12 and inland waters13. This in turn leads to patterns of inadequate resource management, loss of access to fishing areas and fishery resources (including ‘coastal squeeze’ or ‘grabbing’)14,15,16 or displacement from rivers and wetlands17,18, leading to a variety of cascading effects from community-level loss of cultural heritage and economic revenue to negative effects on individuals’ mental and physical health, among other issues19.

Being invisible to national economic planners and in statistics increases the likelihood of being left out of social-protection programmes20, climate national adaptation programmes of action21, large debt-relief assistance programmes designed to promote growth and reduce poverty (such as poverty-reduction strategy papers)22 and public health interventions23. The lack of adequate attention from governments and international development agencies6,24 has also resulted in inadequate or inappropriate assistance after disasters25 and has exacerbated vulnerabilities to emerging economic, social, environmental and health stressors such as COVID-19 (ref. 26). Despite this, every day this sub-sector serves as a highly important socio-economic and nutritional safety net for millions of people around the globe27,28, often providing low-income communities with high levels of life satisfaction comparable with those of wealthy countries29. Coastal Indigenous populations are particularly reliant on SSF, consuming 15 times more seafood per capita than do non-Indigenous populations30. The international failure to better recognize the contributions of SSF and include them in sustainable development through national and international policy frameworks has consequences not only for the fisherfolk and the consumers of the fish they catch, but to the broader global society.

The historic marginalization of SSF in national and international policy and development stands in sharp contrast to case studies from around the world highlighting the important contributions small-scale fisherfolk make to sustainable development27,31. As such, achieving the SDGs will not be feasible in many countries without ensuring a sustainable future for SSF as key components of food systems8, encompassing all aspects of the production, provision and consumption of food, and their interrelationships32. SSF provide food and nutrition security (SDG 2, zero hunger), contribute to good health and well-being (SDG 3)33 and provide income in areas that often lack other economic opportunities (SDG 1, no poverty)13,34. Women participate (SDG 5, gender equality) not only in post-harvest activities but also in pre-harvest and harvesting activities, making direct inputs to household food production and monetary income35,36,37,38. Most species targeted by SSF are destined for direct human consumption, particularly highly nutritious and affordable small pelagic species, such as those of the clupeid family (including sardine, herring and anchovy)39. This constitutes one of the most energy-efficient animal-sourced food production systems, generating among the lowest environmental impacts in terms of greenhouse gas and other stressors40,41,42, and they do not require feed, fertilizer or pesticide inputs or the consumptive use of fresh water43. With enabling policy frameworks in place, small-scale fishers and fisheries have the potential to make substantial contributions to responsible production and consumption (SDG 17) and be important environmental stewards for the maintenance of public access to healthy aquatic environments and the sustainable, equitable use of aquatic resources (SDG 14 and 14.b)44,45,46, among other contributions to food systems and SDGs.

In this study, we address the demand for better global and regional multidimensional data to guide sustainable development of the sub-sector (Supplementary Section Table E1), through the first global-scale systematic data-gathering initiative of the multidimensional contributions of SSF to food provision, poverty eradication, women’s employment and peoples’ dietary micronutrient supply. Better data are needed to underpin and garner more economic and political support for SSF. Actions such as legal mandates, capacity building, research and other supporting initiatives by coalitions of practitioners, development partners and academics are also needed, together with participatory approaches, to enable the sustainability of SSF. Previous data-collection efforts on SSF have mostly focused on providing global estimates of marine catch and value47,48 (such as the Sea Around Us project; Extended Data Table 2), been based on individual case studies and mostly qualitative information (including the Too Big to Ignore research network), or had a limited methodological scope49. Although such information has contributed to valuable policy insights27,34, a lack of harmonized multidimensional quantitative data has probably hindered policy action50. Without adequate quantitative data, policy-makers may struggle to calibrate the scale of investments and priority of response, including relative to other food production systems.

Our study aims to establish the absolute and relative contributions of SSF to the multiple dimensions of sustainable development, and to determine the main policy actions needed to enhance the critical contributions of SSF. To do this, we developed global estimates for SSF catch, micronutrient supply, employment, livelihood dependency, women employed, economic value, governance participation and tenure (that is, regimes of property and access rights). We argue that improving data availability and quality for the contributions of SSF, coupled with analysis of how they are governed, can provide a firm empirical justification for recognizing them in development policies and programmes, to attain the SDGs through mechanisms that enhance this sub-sector at global, regional and national levels6,11,51,52.

In those rare instances for which SSF data are available as part of national fisheries or demographic information systems, crucial employment data are rarely disaggregated by sex, and production data are rarely linked to national accounting of food and nutrition supply. Although scholars are starting to recognize and enumerate the importance of aquatic foods to global nutrition53,54,55, the focus has been almost entirely on marine fisheries, whereas in this study we incorporate the substantial contribution from inland fisheries.

Absolute and relative contributions

Marine and inland catches

SSF provide at least 37.3 million tonnes of fish, including fin-fish and aquatic invertebrates, annually (95% confidence interval (CI), 27 million–53 million tonnes), representing at least 40% of the global capture-fisheries production reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (92.5 million tonnes, average for 2013–2017)56 (Fig. 1a,b and Extended Data Table 1). This is equivalent to at least 31.2% of the marine (25.1 million tonnes of fish annually) and about 99.7% of inland (12.2 million tonnes; averages for 2013–2017) global fisheries capture reported by the FAO56. Our estimates of global SSF catch are in line with previous studies (Extended Data Table 2 and Supplementary Table C5), particularly for marine SSF. For the inland sub-sector, we acknowledge that our estimates are more conservative than those of previous modelling approaches based mostly on non-fishery data57,58 and should be interpreted as the visible, lower end of the global estimates derived from previous studies. The limited availability of inland data is largely due to fishery agencies perceiving a lack of economic return on collecting structural and statistical data, as well as the sheer logistic constraints of covering an often vast mosaic of small water bodies, making this sub-sector particularly data deficient and thus often marginalized. Data for inland SSF should be improved, particularly at local or national levels, but we underscore the importance of including them to reverse the narrative that leads to the persistent marginalization and undervaluation of inland small-scale contributions to sustainable development. Although they are arguably small scale, recreational fisheries were not included because this study fell under the scope of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (hereafter SSF guidelines). Recreational fisheries are estimated to contribute only 2.2% of the global fisheries catch, and about 6% of our global estimate of SSF catch59,60 (Supplementary Section C3), but it is recognized that recreational fisheries may provide important economic, recreational and health benefits, particularly in high-income countries61.

Fig. 1: SSF multidimensional contributions to sustainable development.
figure 1

a, Global absolute contributions of SSF, including a catch of around 37 million tonnes (95% CI, 27 million–53 million), micronutrient supply for 2.3 billion people within 20 km of a coastline or large water body (10–30 km, 1.5–3.0 billion), employment for 21 million women (95% CI, 18 million–24 million), total employment for 60 million people (95% CI, 52 million–68 million) and livelihoods (part or full dependency) for 492 million people (95% CI, 447 million–535 million). Regional contributions by marine and inland sector, when possible, are shown as pie charts. Global micronutrient supply to local diets is quantified as the number of people within 20 km of a coastline or water body for whom SSF catches could contribute an average of 20% of their dietary intakes of six key micronutrients (calcium, iron, selenium, zinc, vitamin A and omega 3). Although fatty acids are not defined as micronutrients because the recommended intake for omega 3 fatty acids that are concentrated in aquatic foods (EPA and DHA) is within the micronutrient range, here we refer collectively to all six nutrients as micronutrients. Total and women’s employment include pre-harvesting, harvesting and post-harvesting activities. Livelihoods include employed and subsistence fishers plus members of their households. Here n indicates the number of countries with data available for each metric. b, Proportion of SSF catch, micronutrient supply, women employed, total number of people employed and livelihoods relative to the total fisheries sector (comprising large-scale and small-scale fisheries) at global (vertical red line) and regional (black circles) scales, highlighting the distribution of proportions across countries (violin plots). Further details are found in Supplementary Section C1, including 95% CIs for catch, employment and livelihoods, maximum and minimum values for micronutrients (Extended Data Table 1), uncertainty in coastal population size (Extended Data Fig. 1) along with details per country case study, extrapolated countries, sample size and data sources (Supplementary Tables C1, C2 and C3).

Source Data

Full size image

At the global level, marine SSF catch is more substantial than inland catch in terms of volume (67% of total small-scale catch), but the latter represents a vital contribution to food security and nutrition for households living near bodies of open water62, particularly for the Africa region (Fig. 1a).

Most of the catch (53.0% for marine and 76.1% for inland) surveyed in our study was not identified taxonomically at species level or was recorded as “not elsewhere included”. For the catch identified at the functional group level, herring, sardines and anchovies made up the largest fraction (3.8 million tonnes, 20% of the total catch), closely followed by miscellaneous pelagic fish (3.7 million tonnes, 19%) (Extended Data Fig. 2a). The category of miscellaneous freshwater fish dominated the reported inland catch (6.7 million tonnes, 63%) followed by the group of carps, barbels and other cyprinids (1.6 million tonnes, 15%) (Extended Data Fig. 2b). Overall, we found that SSF target a total of 2,104 species (1,798 marine and 488 inland, based on 58 national case studies). Increasing nations’ ability to understand the species composition of their catch is important for effective management; for example, species characteristics such as life-history traits are vital to define the manner and rate at which they can be harvested and the minimum sizes to be retained. Information on catch volumes at species level, together with information on fishing intensity and ancillary information, such as size-based data, can provide information on the biological sustainability (for example, stock status) of SSF as key information in designing adequate management measures63. Effective management is needed to ensure that fishing activities do not cause detrimental harm to the ecosystems they depend on (for example, minimizing destructive fishing practices64), avoid targeting vulnerable species65 and promote climate-resilient fisheries (for example, acknowledging the cumulative effects of climate change16), in accordance with SDG 14 (life under water) and SDG 10 (climate action) (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table D1). Without effective and tailored management, many SSF will continue to overfish or move towards overfishing, compromising their long-term sustainability.

Fig. 2: Illustration of main linkages between the various dimensions of contributions to and impacts of SSF and the SDGs.
figure 2

Dimensions shown are catch, poverty eradication, shared governance, advancing gender equality and nutrient supply. Identification of key actions that mediate the realization of contributions to the SDGs are mostly based on findings from the Illuminating Hidden Harvests study74 and are synthesized in Supplementary Section D.

Full size image

Micronutrient supply

Poor-quality diets can lead to micronutrient deficiencies that cause complications in pregnancy, impair child growth, undermine long-term health and cognitive outcomes and increase susceptibility to disease66. Global catches from SSF currently provide 20% of the intake of six critical but commonly lacking micronutrients67,68 for up to 2.3 billion people (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Table 1) living within 20 km of a coastline or large inland body of water (1.5–3.0 billion people living 10–30 km from a large body of water; Extended Data Fig. 1). This is one in four people globally and represents a large share of the estimated 3.2 billion people globally who depend on aquatic animal foods, from all sources, including large-scale fisheries and aquaculture, for 20% of their animal protein63. A study that focused on marine catch and coastal populations found that SSF contributes an average of 10% of dietary micronutrient intake from all foods55. Our estimates refine this body of evidence.

Based on global SSF catch data, the sub-sector provides the equivalent of 50% of an individual’s omega-3 fatty acid (docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)) intake, 28% of their selenium, 11–12% of their calcium and zinc, 9% of their iron and 3% of their vitamin A intake (Extended Data Table 3). SSF contributions to dietary intake were highest in Africa, Asia and Oceania, for both inland and marine systems, reflecting the high micronutrient density of these catches. Inland fisheries made the greatest contributions to dietary intake in Africa and Asia, reaching a potential 146 million people with 32% of their micronutrient intake in Africa, and 360 million people with 24% of their micronutrient intake in Asia. In Africa, however, estimates indicate that micronutrient deficiencies remain prevalent68, with intake of micronutrients well below requirements66,69. Marine SSF make the greatest relative contributions to dietary intake in Oceania, providing 36% of micronutrient intake to 25 million people, and Africa, providing 23% of micronutrient intake to 181 million people (Extended Data Table 3).

For people within 20 km of a coastline or large (more than 50 km2) inland body of water, SSF contribute the equivalent of, on average, 54% of their daily aquatic food consumption (including that from small- and large-scale fisheries and aquaculture) (Extended Data Table 3). Regionally, this can be as high as 85% and 77% in Oceania and Africa, respectively, and in 46 countries, SSF supply exceeded consumption. Indeed, in case studies of countries, an average of 79% of catch was retained for domestic use, confirming that the catch from SSF is directed primarily towards local nutrient needs (Extended Data Table 3). Many of these micronutrients are available but still lacking in diets, particularly in low- and middle-income countries with large catches from SSF55, indicating that there is scope for developing nutrition-sensitive SSF policies to help address nutrient gaps in nutrient-deficient populations70.

The data on available micronutrients from SSF provide evidence of the under-recognized and under-realized importance of this sub-sector in eradicating hunger and malnutrition, which is directly linked to achieving SDG 2 (zero hunger). For SSF to be part of this solution, greater coordination is needed between the actors tasked with decision-making in the fisheries, health and nutrition, and economics and trade arenas71. Sustainable supply and access to fish for the most vulnerable populations need to be prioritized and enhanced through evidence-based, effective fisheries management and nutrition-sensitive governance39,70,72. For marginalized populations in low- and middle-income nations, this means supporting vulnerable groups, including women, children and those living in poverty, to give them better access to SSF catches as an affordable source of animal food that also has a low environmental footprint (notably carp, barbel and other cyprinids from inland SSF, and herring, sardine and anchovy species from marine SSF)39,42,73. Other relevant actions include ensuring that information is available on appropriate handling, processing and storage protocols to ensure access to safe and high-quality aquatic foods and avoiding post-harvest losses74, and on the benefits of fish consumption for infants, children and lactating mothers (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table D2). National policies and appropriate incentives are required to retain an adequate proportion of SSF catches of small pelagic fish in local food markets, to help low-income consumers secure access to healthy diets. In some regions (such as West Africa), these fish are otherwise increasingly used for fish meal and other non-human-consumption purposes75. How much fish needs to be retained for local consumption will depend on the number of nutritionally vulnerable people and their access to alternatives with similar nutrition at a comparable cost73. Incentives for small-scale fishers to supply fish to domestic markets must account for the potential for fishers to earn higher incomes from exports to distant urban or export markets76.

Poverty eradication

Although poverty is a multi-dimensional concept characterized by vulnerability77, previous case studies have shown that SSF can support livelihoods and alleviate poverty through a range of pathways, from the provision of safety nets in times of shock or vulnerability, to increased labour productivity and incomes27,78,79. Our study estimated that one in every 12 people around the world (about 492 million people; 95% CI, 447 million–535 million, Extended Data Table 1) are at least partly dependent on SSF pre-harvesting, harvesting and/or post-harvesting activities through formal employment, work for self-consumption or as related household members (defined as being a member of a household in which at least one member is working in SSF for commercial employment or subsistence) in 2016.

Although data were not available to measure change over time, the snapshot provided by this study shows the global importance of SSF livelihoods that alleviate poverty through either prevention or reduction, or a combination of the two. In terms of prevention, most of those who participate in SSF live in low-income contexts marked by vulnerability, and low opportunity costs of labour in other sectors, in which the livelihoods supported may help to prevent poverty and provide safety nets that are not otherwise available in the economy. For example, 54% of those commercially employed in SSF and 57% of subsistence workers resided in countries considered to have ‘high’ or ‘very high’ vulnerability to climatic and natural hazards, according to the World Risk Index80. Approximately 60% of subsistence workers were located in low- or lower-middle-income countries28, and at least 13.2% of the total population lived in a household in which one person worked in SSF for commercial employment or subsistence in 2016 in the world’s 45 least-developed countries, where alternative livelihood opportunities may be limited74. Relative to the total capture-fisheries sector, SSF support 95% of all livelihoods at least partly dependent on fisheries, providing 89% of formal employment (Fig. 1b).

In economic terms, SSF generated 44% of the total landed value in the 58 countries surveyed (representing approximately 68% of FAO global capture-fisheries production). The estimated global landed value of the SSF catch (generated by multiplying catch and first-sale price) was US$77.2 billion (95% CI, $70.4 billion–$83.3 billion). Marine catch accounted for $58.1 billion (95%CI, $53.7 billion–$62.2 billion) and inland for $19.0 billion (95% CI, $16.7–$21.1 billion) based on the average for 2013–2017 (Extended Data Table 4). The total revenues from the first sale of the marine SSF catch exceeded the total individual revenues of some of the largest ocean-based industries in 2018, such as cruise tourism, port activities and offshore wind power81. Accounting for both the poverty prevention and reduction functions of SSF in assessing their potential contributions to SDG 1 (no poverty)27,79 and SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth)82,83, policies should aim to achieve a fair distribution of catch benefits and access to resources (SDG 14b), among other actions highlighted in Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table D3.

Advancing gender equality

A crucial step towards overcoming gender-blind policies that perpetuate the marginalization of women in the fisheries sector is the collection, use and sharing of gender-inclusive and disaggregated data. In a change from previous global studies that estimated women’s participation in SSF harvesting38,49, this study reveals approximately 21 million women (95% CI, 18 million–24 million women) employed commercially in SSF activities worldwide in pre-harvest, harvest and post-harvest activities (Fig. 1a and Extended Data Table 1), generating about 90% of all employment for women in the entire fisheries sector (Fig. 1b).

Furthermore, about 24 million women were identified in unpaid and informal activities such as subsistence fishing and processing, bringing the total participation by women to at least 44.7 million28. Importantly, more women engage informally in SSF activities than are commercially employed. Informal engagement (such as subsistence and other unpaid work) can limit women’s inclusion in social protection programmes, exposes them to greater occupational hazards and constrains the economic benefits that can be derived from formalized fishing (for example, access to licences are often determined by ability to prove historic use)37. Women also participate less in governance mechanisms that shape decision-making processes, thereby directly and indirectly affecting access to nutritional and livelihood benefits36. Better recognizing the diverse ways in which women participate in fisheries value-chain activities, and the scale of women involved, is essential to advancing SDG 5, SDG 1 and SDG 2, among others. To increase the contributions of women in SSF to sustainable development, a summary of indicative actions is shown in Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table D4. These include the imperative of ensuring gender-equitable access to SSF through secure tenure in support of food and livelihood security84; and transforming dominant gender norms to promote women’s leadership and governance in SSF85,86.

Understanding regional patterns in multidimensional contributions

The magnitude of the global contribution of SSF with respect to the total fisheries sector highlights the critical importance of this sub-sector to sustainable development. Explaining regional patterns helps to contextualize it. Asia benefits from the highest absolute contributions in most dimensions (catch volume and value, people employed, livelihoods supported and women employed), producing four times as much SSF catch as Africa, which is the region with the second-highest SSF catch (Fig. 1a). Africa is where SSF were most important relative to total fisheries, contributing 67% of the total catch for the region and 75% of the total contribution to nutrition (Fig. 1b). By contrast, Europe’s SSF support the lowest absolute number of livelihoods of all the regions (Fig. 1a) and make the lowest relative contributions across all dimensions (Fig. 1b). Despite this, for several countries in the region, the sub-sector represents 100% of the total fisheries sector, highlighting its importance for many national coastal communities87. These differences in catch share of SSF in different countries also occur in other regions, illustrating the importance of assessing these contributions at national or even local levels. The relative average contribution of SSF to overall fisheries catch in Oceania is below the global average, largely because of the high volumes of industrial tuna catches for some countries88, but it is one of the most important regions in terms of their relative contributions to dietary intake, people employed and livelihoods supported (Fig. 1b). Moreover, marine SSF catch is four times more important in terms of kilograms of fish produced per capita in Oceania than in Asia (52.6 kg per person per year versus 14.3 kg per person per year; Extended Data Fig. 3). Our findings in Oceania serve as an important reminder that SSF are critically important to achieving SDG 2 (zero hunger) and other SDGs in those regions or countries where alternative economic and livelihood opportunities are more limited, including small island developing states and other least-developed countries.

Secure rights for fishers

Granting small-scale fishers secure rights to participate in the management and governance of their fisheries is increasingly recognized as a necessary condition for the development of locally appropriate governance systems89 and the realization of the SDGs90. Devolving rights to fishers can address constraints in management capacities by fishery agencies and provide fishers with greater incentives to become stewards of their local environment91,92,93. However, we found that about two-thirds (63.8%) of the SSF catch from the 51 countries surveyed in this respect (45 for marine and 34 for inland fisheries) are not associated with formally recognized rights to participate in management and decision-making processes (that is, there are no explicit statements in written national, subnational or local fisheries policies) (Fig. 3). The remaining one-third (36.2%) of the catch is associated with different types of fishers’ rights to participate in decision-making. For 12.9% of the catch in our dataset, fishers have been granted only management rights (Fig. 3), meaning they can participate in decisions about where, when and how to fish94. For 20.9% of the catch, fishers are increasingly empowered to manage their fisheries because, as well as management rights, fishers have been granted rights to determine who can fish through exclusion or transferability rights (Fig. 3). Full devolution of rights to fishers (as defined by granting the full suite of management, exclusion and transferability (alienation) rights in a previous classification95) represented only 1.7% of the catch in our dataset (Fig. 3). These general patterns are similar when the data are disaggregated by marine and inland fisheries (Extended Data Fig. 4). Our data highlight that when management or a combination of a more complete set of rights are devolved in a particular country, this typically represents only a small proportion of the national SSF catch (Supplementary Fig. C2), indicating that these arrangements are mostly localized and are not covered in national statistics, or are applied to only a subset of specific fisheries, and are not representative of national SSF policies (Supplementary Fig. C2).

Fig. 3: Percentage of catch with different levels of rights devolution in formally governed SSF.
figure 3

Data are based on analysis of policies from 51 countries that govern around 82% of their reported SSF catch. Combinations of rights that accounted for less than 1% of total SSF catch, such as devolved transferability rights, are not included in the figure.

Source Data

Full size image

Although two-thirds of catch is from fisheries for which small-scale fisherfolk cannot formally participate in management, this does not constitute evidence that these fisheries are mostly unmanaged or unregulated. Local, customary self-governance might be in place in the absence of formal regulations or devolved rights96.

However, formally securing rights, either recognizing customary arrangements or developing new ones, is critical to reducing the vulnerability of small-scale fishers to exclusion or competition from more-powerful economic sectors97 and external political, social, economic or environmental drivers of change14,92,98. The absence of rights to access, harvest and manage resources threatens the survival of fishers’ culture, way of life and ecological sustainability, particularly among Indigenous peoples99. When rights are secure and there is good alignment between the rights being devolved and the circumstances fishers and managers face in localized social–ecological contexts, empowered fishing communities are more likely to develop processes that reflect local values around stewardship of the aquatic environment, sustainable fisheries and/or equitable livelihoods93,100,101,102. Actions demonstrated to secure rights to fishers include eliminating barriers to fishers’ participation in fisheries management processes; creating local enabling conditions to exercise their tenure rights, including legal recognition of Indigenous rights to land and water; strengthening local supporting institutions, such as civil society organizations and decentralized fisheries agencies with clear roles and responsibilities. Stock health in SSF depends partly on fisheries- and non-fisheries-related external drivers, including climate change, pollution, infrastructure development, such as damming, and habitat degradation18. Measures that enhance organizational, administrative, enforcement and scientific capacity among co-management groups, ultimately leveraging secure rights, are likely to move the SSF towards sustainable practices101,102 (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table D5).

Discussion

Multidimensional measurement of the scale and impact of SSF has rarely been quantified, so it is unsurprising that the policy support they currently receive is not commensurate with the range and size of the different global contributions they make to sustainable development (Fig. 2). This situation is changing and there are now reasons for optimism with developments such as: the policy momentum created by the SSF Guidelines89,103 and the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022; the upward trend in interest from academia, including the Too Big to Ignore research network3,104; increased funding by international development organizations and private philanthropists24,52; continued engagement of global fisher organizations and their supporters, such as the World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers, the World Forum of Fisher Peoples and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, in global policy processes; and the emergence of coordinated SSF campaigns, such as the Call for Action released at the 2022 UN Ocean Conference105.

There is evidence that improved information systems are associated with positive outcomes to several SDGs in a variety of cases and geographies (Supplementary Table D6). When such information systems are inclusive of SSF, the sub-sector experienced greater visibility and inclusion in a range of supportive policies, increased investment by governments and development partners, and improved outcomes106. For example, incorporation of the fisheries sector in national statistics on HIV and AIDS enabled countries where fisheries support an important number of livelihoods (Uganda, Thailand and India) to include this sector in national response strategies and development assistance programmes107,108, contributing to the reversal of their HIV epidemic in a direct contribution to SDG 3 (good health and well-being)109,110. Effectively improving the inclusion of SSF in national policies will need not only increased awareness of their importance, or more technical data and information, but also better communication between government and the sub-sector (through, for example, fishers’ organizations), better cooperation across governmental institutions (such as ministries of fisheries and social development), and ultimately more-effective inclusion and participation of the sub-sector in the design and implementation of inclusive policies. As demonstrated by the highly participatory process of developing the SSF Guidelines111, purposefully designing coherent, inclusive policy frameworks with the support and participation of rights holders means they are more likely to lead to desired improvements104.

Multidimensional SSF

Focusing on unidimensional metrics of SSF contributions (for example, only as catch or landed value, or omitting pre- and post-harvest activities) misrepresents and undervalues the importance of this sub-sector with respect to other dimensions such as employment or nutrition supply, or broader cultural values relating to sense of identity and recreation. This unidimensional production focus typically overlooks the roles of SSF in policies aimed at economic development. For instance, whereas SSF contribute to at least 40% of the total fisheries catch, when pre- and post-harvest activities are included, they contribute to 89% of the total employment, 95% of the total livelihoods and 90% of the women employed in the total fisheries sector (Fig. 1b).

What gets measured is more likely to be managed, and better accounting for the many ways SSF contribute to sustainable development induces an explicit recognition of SSF in advancing multidimensional goals8,54,112,113 (Fig. 2). It also implies expanding current approaches in management and governance114 focused on maximizing catch or landed value, while minimizing biological impacts on stocks (Fig. 4a), towards explicitly including other critical contributions in management objectives in line with the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries115, notably total employment, women employed or nutrient supply (Fig. 4b). Through multidimensional analyses, such as this study, a fuller contribution of SSF, related strengths and weaknesses in policy and management towards sustainable development of the sector can be more readily understood and acted on13,116. Attending to the multidimensional contributions fisheries make will require the government agencies responsible for managing fisheries to increase or better use the available human, financial and technological resources and also foster a culture of tolerance and trust for colleagues trained under different disciplinary traditions and an appreciation of types of data other than those conventionally collected on fisheries35,117. Redefining SSF as multidimensional activities is not entirely new118,119. Japan and the European Union have engaged in policy development for fisheries and agriculture within a similar framework as a means of reconciling investments in rural development118,120 while also aligning with the principles of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Similarly, fishing activities in other parts of the world could be valued for their role in the development of rural economies, the maintenance of rural landscapes, communities and cultural heritage, contributions to recreation and cultural values, and in managing landscapes and biodiversity, among the other diverse functions they provide to ecosystems and society. Importantly, SSF are not static and may transform or adapt in response to diverse changing ecological contexts (such as fish stock status), economic factors (such as market preferences) and social or cultural perceptions (arising demographic shifts, for example). This may take the form of economic and operational diversification of fishing and associated livelihood activities. This type of transition is most apparent for those in industrialized societies, in which there may be greater opportunities to engage in other economic activities, but how to transform is a challenge that confronts all SSF regardless of context. The allocation of rights, organizational and management capacity, development of better policies, and greater empowerment of SSF will support their ability to move towards greater self-determination and to chart a positive course for their continued development.

Fig. 4: Reconceptualizing SSF as multidimensional contributors to sustainable development.
figure 4

a, Schematics of SSF managed for a single objective, for instance to reduce environmental impacts or to increase economic value generated from the activity, among other single-objective management choices. b, An alternative multidimensional approach. Managing SSF through evidence-based, participatory multidimensional analysis (such as this study) will better allow integration of SSF into a food systems approach and trade-off evaluation to inform evidence-based management, policy and governance that contributes to sustainable development.

Full size image

Evidence-based trade-offs

Obtaining sufficient multidimensional data and information about SSF in a given context, and institutionalizing the capacity to analyse and use it (Fig. 2), is necessary but not sufficient to sustain the wide range of benefits from SSF. Effective management and governance will require the evaluation of trade-offs in multidimensional management objectives and associated policies that reflect the diverse contributions of SSF to sustainable development. For instance, institutionalized collaboration between different government agencies (such as ministries of fisheries and economy) will allow the generation and analysis of multidimensional data and information that contribute to an understanding of the inherent trade-offs in management objectives for these social–ecological systems (Fig. 4b).

Fisheries in developed countries are often explicitly managed with a single goal, such as maximizing the long-term catch, based on the concept of (single species) maximum sustainable yield (enshrined in international conventions and agreements121,122), maximizing economic efficiency and profitability, or maximizing the sustainability of fishing communities through employment generation123 (Fig. 4a). The past two decades have seen an increasing trend towards the explicit inclusion of nutrition objectives in fisheries policy124. Policy formulation requires trade-offs between often competing objectives to be confronted, but these are often not sufficiently evaluated or explicitly articulated. Several model-based approaches to assess trade-offs between food security, economic development and biodiversity conservation exist, and these could be used in the context of operationalizing the ecosystem approach to fisheries124. For example, maximizing economic value while maintaining ecosystem structure would require a reduction in fishing effort, with high social cost for fishing communities with limited alternative livelihoods125. However, most of these approaches require specific ecological, social and economic reference points and are context and fishery specific126,127, making them costly and data heavy. Irrespective of context, our results show that small-scale fishers make important contributions and so should be carefully considered as part of trade-off analyses when promoting transitions. Trade-off analyses also typically require a level of ecological knowledge of SSF that is often lacking in those regions where the bulk of them occur128, limiting the local application of these approaches. We call for the development and use of simple, low-cost, data-driven and participatory approaches to understand trade-offs of multiple objectives aimed at informing the evidence-based management of SSF (Fig. 4). Standardization and coordination across data sources will facilitate the alignment of data across dimensions and enhance sound trade-off assessments74. Evaluation of these trade-offs should incorporate both fisher and non-fisher stakeholders, to ensure that the distribution of benefits and interest are well supported by adequate evidence and to give legitimacy to balancing difficult choices between social, nutritional, economic or environmental goals (Fig. 4b). In this respect, the involvement of small-scale fishers as co-generators and owners of data (such as traditional and local knowledge) guiding management and governance arrangements is key129,130. This study has synthesized data at a global level, but further actions are needed to institutionalize and support community-based data-collection programmes131, in which fishers are trained to collect and analyse their own fishery and socio-economic data. These programmes can create financial incentives132, enhance social cohesion, drive broader investment in SSF133 and incentivize fishers’ involvement in co-management134. For data-poor fisheries that are often overlooked in statistical systems, these approaches may constitute the only viable option for systematic data collection and are increasingly tested and implemented in inland fisheries in Africa135, and in coastal fisheries in, for example, the Timor Sea133, South Africa132 and Mexico136, with strong support from practitioners, donors and intergovernmental organizations137,138,139. Collaborative data collection and research among fishers, managers, practitioners and scientists may support better access to information but will not automatically result in more collaborative management, fishers’ stewardship towards sustainable practices, or the effective implementation of management arrangements. Capacity development for participatory design and implementation of tailored, evidence-based approaches for collaborative legal frameworks, management, devolution of rights and SSF empowerment (Fig. 3) and resource stewardship are needed, particularly for SSF in the least-developed countries in line with the FAO Blue Transformation roadmap140.

Conclusions

This paper illuminates the size and range of the contributions of SSF to sustainable development, supporting a more holistic understanding of what SSF are, their importance and the need to reconceptualize them for more-inclusive governance and management as part of global food systems (Fig. 4). In coastal and inland waters worldwide, particularly in lower-income contexts in which SSF form an important pillar of livelihoods, such comprehensive reconceptualization will be essential for achieving multiple policy goals for sustainable development. Moreover, we argue for a better contextualization of the importance of the SSF sector with respect to other uses of water and land, such as tourism, shipping, energy and aquaculture. Evaluating trade-offs across the multidimensional benefits provided by these sectors at local or regional levels can better inform policies aimed at ensuring broader sustainable development. In providing these multidimensional contributions and values, our study highlights the policy attention deficit that results in systemic global underinvestment in the evidence and knowledge base, and ultimately in the management and governance of SSF, perpetuating the social, economic and political marginalization of millions of fishers and fishworkers worldwide.

Methods

The data and methodology for this paper were produced within the framework of the Illuminating Hidden Harvests (IHH) initiative conducted by the FAO, Duke University and WorldFish. Data were collated from different data sources applying specific methodologies described below and by the FAO, Duke University and WorldFish74 for the exclusive purpose of the IHH study. Therefore, data are not to be considered official country data and do not replace the information provided in official FAO data systems.

Information on the various dimensions of contributions and impacts of SSF to sustainable development was compiled and synthesized (Extended Data Fig. 5), resulting in a database that provides estimates on catch, landed value, livelihood dependency, employment, number of women employed, contribution to dietary micronutrient intake and governance (see Supplementary Table A1 for the main indicators). In-country experts from 58 country-case studies (20 countries were strictly marine, 6 strictly inland and 32 combined marine and inland; Extended Data Fig. 6) collected secondary data on species-specific catch, ex-vessel price (as input for landed value estimations), contribution to dietary micronutrient intake and governance. For employment and livelihood dependency, microdata from national household survey instruments in 78 countries (for example, population censuses, labour-force surveys and household income expenditure surveys) were used (Supplementary Section B3.3). Primary data collection took place only when secondary sources were not available (for inland Brazil and coastal China, for example). Countries were selected on the basis of the absolute contribution to global fisheries production and employment; the relative importance of the fisheries sector in a given country (that is, production and employment per capita); the importance of fish as a source of protein in people’s diet; and ensuring geographic balance (Supplementary Table A2 shows data sources, the full set of criteria and decision rules for the selection process). For this study, only capture fisheries were included in the analysis (excluding recreational fisheries and aquaculture; Supplementary Section A4). It is possible that some retained recreational fisheries catch has ‘polluted’ SSF catch data, particularly for inland fisheries in Europe, and to a lesser extent in North America, for which FAO data were used (Supplementary Section C3 and Annex 3 of ref. 141).

To accommodate the diversity and heterogeneity of fishing fleets considered to be ‘small-scale’, an a priori, standard definition was not used. Our rationale to avoid the use of technological metrics such as vessel size or gear type as cut-off points to define SSF is that, in some cases, legitimate SSF might be excluded, or large-scale operations might be included as part of the small-scale fishing fleet. Instead, experts compiled data following the most common legal or operational definition in use in each country, and comparability was assured because the same metadata about each fishery unit was collected, regardless of how each fishery unit was initially defined (Supplementary Sections A4 and A5). Case-study data were corroborated and validated by consultation with external global fisheries experts, comparison with responses to an ad hoc questionnaire that the FAO sent to all countries, and with the FAO’s capture-fisheries database56 and ref. 74 (Supplementary Sections A6 and A7). The compiled country case-study catch data (in tonnes), grouped by functional groups of species (Extended Data Fig. 2) for the years 2013–2017, were used as inputs to a regression model used to predict the catches of 152 countries using a set of suitable predictor variables (Supplementary Section B1). For marine catch, final predictors included gross domestic product, SSF jobs and region (Supplementary Section B1.1). For inland catch, final predictors included FAO landings data and world region (Supplementary Section B1.2). The FAO capture-fisheries production database is primarily based on official statistics submitted by countries, but complemented or replaced, when necessary, with data from other sources (such as fisheries regional bodies). The FAO has established a series of mechanisms to ensure that the best available information is submitted, revised and validated. However, it is acknowledged that official statistics often underestimate SSF catches, particularly those from inland fisheries, supporting the need to improve national statistical collection with the aim of better representing inland and marine SSF landings. Variances of catch estimates for case-study countries were based on qualitative confidence assignments to each country, whereas variances of catch predictions for extrapolated countries were based on regression model outputs (Supplementary Section B1). Catch estimates and variances were summed across all countries to calculate the global and regional catch contributions of SSF (Fig. 1a). Aggregate 95% confidence intervals are shown in Extended Data Table 1. Country-level predictions do not constitute empirically observed data and are no replacement for observational data for the purpose of country-level analyses. A sensitivity analysis considered an alternative set of estimates of the percentage coverage of SSF catch records in each country, which were used to expand national estimated catches (Supplementary Section B1.3). Landed economic value was estimated using species catch and annual average ex-vessel price data from country case studies as inputs and external global data on fishery-related variables driving the price and value of fisheries (for example, stock biomass or resource status, fishing technology used or fishing effort) to generate global predictions by statistical modelling and global extrapolation (Supplementary Section B2). For employment and livelihood dependency, data from national household surveys were used as inputs to produce global estimates by extrapolation (Supplementary Section B3 and ref. 28), and estimates were triangulated and validated using country case-study data and extra external datasets (such as FAO data on employment in fisheries, responses to the FAO ad hoc questionnaire, and global marine fishing fleet effort data142). Regional and global gender distribution was estimated by extrapolation and imputation of average gender ratios and triangulated with the ad hoc questionnaire responses and the country case studies (Supplementary Section B3.4.1 and ref. 74).

To calculate the potential contribution of SSF to local diets in Fig. 1a, fish catch data for the 58 country case studies were supplemented with extrapolated global catch data for all 186 countries, resolved to functional group level. Second, existing databases were used to extract fin-fish (www.fishbase.org) and invertebrate (INFOODS) nutrient concentrations, for six micronutrients (calcium, iron, selenium, zinc, vitamin A and omega 3). Although fatty acids are not defined as micronutrients, because the recommended intake for omega 3 fatty acids that are concentrated in aquatic foods (EPA and DHA) is within the micronutrient range, we refer collectively to all six nutrients as micronutrients important to human health, often lacking in diets but found in aquatic foods143. These concentrations were assigned to each species, genera, family, order and class in the reported catch, in order of descending priority144, to estimate the catch-weighted average micronutrient concentration (for each of the six nutrients) of each functional group in each country, for the marine and inland sub-sectors. Third, catch-weighted average micronutrient concentration of each country’s functional group were multiplied by the annual catch (in tonnes) and the edible portion144,145, before summing across functional groups, to calculate, for each of the six nutrients, each country’s micronutrient supply from SSF. Each country’s daily micronutrient supply from SSF (average annual edible catch × nutrient concentration of catch/365) was used to calculate the per capita supply of micronutrients from SSF (daily micronutrient supply/coastal population), based on the population living within 20 km of a marine coastline or inland body of water (lakes with an area of more than 50 km2 and reservoirs with a storage capacity of 0.5 km3 or more). The sensitivity of these results to coastal population size was tested by estimating micronutrient intake for populations within buffers of 10 km, 20 km and 30 km. The per capita supply of micronutrients from SSF relative to each country’s per capita nutrient supply was estimated from all foods using dietary intake data from the Global Dietary Database146. These contributions were then averaged across the six nutrients to give the average contribution of SSF catch to per capita dietary micronutrient intake. Finally, the contribution of SSF to micronutrient supply from all fisheries (Fig. 1b) was estimated relative to the total supply from global fisheries147.

Governance analyses relied on the country case-study governance dataset containing 976 observations of diverse governance arrangements and associated catch (in tonnes), accounting for 61% of the estimated global catch in 51 countries (7 countries did not provide governance data). The fishery unit concept allowed linking catch with governance data (Supplementary Section A5). The FAO-LEX database (https://www.fao.org/faolex/en/) was also used for corroboration and gap filling. The analysis of the presence of different types of tenure rights (management, exclusion and transferability) in each governance arrangement follows ref. 95. For definitions, main assumptions and caveats, see Supplementary Section B5.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.