| |

Received: 26 November 2020    Revised: 24 February 2021    Accepted: 1 March 2021

DOI: 10.1111/faf.12552

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Sustainable fisheries are essential but not enough to ensure

well-­being for the world’s fishers

Alfredo Giron-­Nava1,2  | Vicky W. Y. Lam3,4 | Octavio Aburto-­Oropeza5 |

William W. L. Cheung4 | Benjamin S. Halpern2,6  | U. Rashid Sumaila7,8 |
Andrés M. Cisneros-­Montemayor9

1
Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Abstract
2
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Effective fisheries management is necessary for the long-­term sustainability of fish-
Synthesis, University of California Santa
eries and the economic benefits that they provide, but focusing only on ecological
Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
3
Sea Around Us and Global Fisheries Cluster,
sustainability risks disregarding ultimate goals related to well-­being that must be
Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, achieved through broader social policy. An analysis of global landings data shows that
University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada
average fishing wages in 36%–­67% of countries, home to 69%–­95% of fishers world-
4
Changing Ocean Research Unit, Institute wide, are likely below their nationally determined minimum living wage (which ac-
for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University counts for costs of food, shelter, clothing, health and education). Furthermore, even
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
5 if all fisheries in every country were perfectly managed to achieve their Maximum
Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Sustainable Yield, a common sustainability target, average incomes of fishers in up to
CA, USA
6
49 countries—­70% of fishers worldwide—­would still not meet minimum living wages.
Bren School of Environmental Science and
Management, University of California, Santa Access to decent work and livelihoods are fundamental human rights, including for
Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA all fisherfolk around the world, and strategies to support their well-­being must there-
7
Ocean Canada Partnership, Institute for the
fore integrate a much wider set of perspectives, disciplines and institutions. Key first
Oceans and Fisheries, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada steps for fisheries researchers are to more fully recognize and estimate fisheries ben-
8
Fisheries Economics Research Unit and efits to households—­including income from women and/or alternative employment,
Global Fisheries Cluster, Institute for the
Oceans and Fisheries, University of British
unreported landings, or shadow values of subsistence catch—­and to help identify and
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada learn from economic equity outcomes in rebuilt fisheries around the world.
9
Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus, Institute
for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University KEYWORDS
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
blue economy, fisheries management, just transitions, minimum living wage, social equity,
Correspondence sustainable livelihoods
Alfredo Giron-­Nava, Stanford Center for
Ocean Solutions, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, USA.
Email: agiron@stanford.edu

Funding information
PEGASuS Program of Future Earth; Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation Science
Program; NOMIS Foundation; American
Geographical Society as an EthicalGEO
Fellow; Walter Munk Foundation for the
Oceans; Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus
Program

Fish and Fisheries. 2021;00:1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faf© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd     1 |
 |
2       GIRON-­NAVA et al.
1 |  I NTRO D U C TI O N
Marine fisheries are essential for the subsistence, cultures, and liveli-
hoods of people in coastal nations around the world (Allison et al.,
2020), and the largest employer in the ocean economy (Cisneros-­
Montemayor et al., 2019). Around 230  million people benefit
from fisheries, either directly from fishing (51  million) or indirectly
through activities such as processing, packaging, trading and tour-
ism services (179 million; Teh & Sumaila, 2013). However, fishing is
often associated with poverty (Béné & Friend, 2011), and studies
have demonstrated that even though fishers are certainly not always
the “poorest of the poor” (Teh et al., 2020), fishers in at least a third
of coastal nations live below their poverty line (Teh et al., 2020).
Additionally, fisheries are also affected by ongoing global challenges,
including climate change (Barange et al., 2018; Sumaila et al., 2011),
pollution (Hughes et al., 2003), habitat degradation (Hughes et al.,
2003), illegal activities (Rudd & Branch, 2016), over-­capacity (Pauly,
1990) and inequitable distribution of access to and benefits from re-
sources (Cisneros-­Montemayor et al., 2019; Finkbeiner et al., 2017).
In light of the challenges these issues pose for ensuring the human
rights of fisherfolk to decent work and livelihoods, it is essential that
we critically evaluate the narratives of resource use and its relation-
ships with individual and social well-­being (Ota et al., 2021).
A growing body of research shows that improved fisheries man-
agement can help recover overfished stocks and in a wide range of
ecosystems worldwide (Hilborn et al., 2020). This consensus has right-
fully prompted calls for a range of management strategies, including
co-­management (Gutiérrez et al., 2011), rights-­based management
(Aceves-­Bueno & Halpern, 2018), quotas (Mora et al., 2009) and ma-
rine protected areas (MPAs; Halpern et al., 2009), among others. The
majority of these strategies state an aim to increase long-­term eco-
nomic benefits and food provisioning through recovered stocks and
ecosystem function. This, however, assumes that achieving biologi-
cally sustainable fisheries, for example managing at their Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY; Gaines et al., 2018; Hilborn et al., 2020), will
simultaneously achieve wider economic well-­being by increasing fish-
ers’ income (Gaines et al., 2018). Following from this rationale, sus-
tainable fisheries should be expected to generate at least enough
revenues to support fishers and their families above their national
minimum living wage (MLW), which accounts for the local minimum
costs of living including food, shelter, clothing, health and education.
An important related issue in this context is the assumption that
“too many fishers” are the main factor driving low incomes. While
over-­capacity is certainly an issue in many fisheries and poverty is un-
fortunately prevalent in many fishing communities (Béné, 2003), there
is much evidence that questions the narrative of “excess” fishers as an
ultimate factor in suboptimal management. For example, in many ar-
tisanal fisheries throughout the world legal access is granted through
fishing permits, but these can be concentrated by permit holders
who then lease them out to fishers and often provide high-­interest
loans at the beginning of seasons which must be repaid before fish-
ers themselves can profit (Finkbeiner et al., 2017). Similar dynamics
occur in otherwise well-­managed fisheries, where tradable quota can
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. METHODS 2
2.1. Assembling the database 3
2.2. Gaps between fishing income and living wages 3
2.3. Distribution of fishing incomes 3
2.4. Trends in current mean fishing wages (CMFW) 3
3. RESULTS 4
3.1. Current mean fishing wages 4
3.2. Potential mean fishing wages at MSY 5
4. DISCUSSION 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8
REFERENCES 9
be bought by a few wealthy companies which then only lease fishing
opportunities to fishers with less financial means (Haas et al., 2016). In
these and similar examples, the distribution of fishing access or quota,
and not the number of fishers, is the main driver of inequitable distri-
bution of fishing revenues. A growing body of research has highlighted
that such issues of lack of access—­whether to technology, markets or
fishing opportunities themselves—­, as well as broader marginalization
of coastal communities, and uneven power dynamics between fishers,
buyers, and decision-­makers, play a fundamental role in determining
well-­being for fisherfolk and coastal communities (Finkbeiner et al.,
2017; Giron-­Nava et al., 2019; Steneck, 2009). The implications of this
growing body of research, of course, are that these issues must be
addressed in conjunction with ecological sustainability challenges in
order to advance towards fishers’ well-­being.
This study focuses on the gap between biological sustainability
and economic well-­being, including considerations about the distri-
bution of wealth, by asking the following question at a global scale:
If we were able to manage every fish stock to achieve MSY, the most
common fisheries sustainability target, and wages were equally
distributed among fishers within each country, how many fishers
would earn at least the minimum living wage of their corresponding
nations? Although clearly hypothetical, this scenario is nonetheless
important to explore as a critical “minimum baseline” that underlies
many ocean goals that are linked to broader sustainable develop-
ment (Singh et al., 2017).
2 | M E TH O DS
This study analyses the contributions of fishing income to economic
aspects of well-­being using available data on the number of fish-
ers, potential incomes from fisheries landings in 2018 and at MSY,
and minimum living wages in each coastal nation. Fisheries could
theoretically achieve MSY through many different management
strategies; here, we focus on scenarios of resulting incomes and
their distribution among fishers. We then compare gaps between
GIRON-­NAVA et al.
minimum living wages and potential average fishing incomes under
scenarios assuming (a) an equal or (b) a log-­normal distribution of
fishing income among all fishers within a country.
2.1 | Assembling the database
In order to estimate the MLW, we compiled data from official country-­
specific documents that stated the MLW either per person or house-
hold. We also use a public database with information on the number
of people directly employed in the marine fisheries sector per country,
estimated as full time equivalents (Teh & Sumaila, 2013). Although we
know that fishing income in many regions might be supplemented by
alternative seasonal occupations or by the work of other members of
the household, we did not have available data to incorporate these ad-
ditional sources income into the analysis. Therefore, we adopt two sce-
narios to estimate the fishing household MLW: (a) a fisher is the only
household member (“best case” scenario as a fisher’s income would
only need to support one person), or (b) a fisher is the only member that
contributes to household income (“worst case” scenario as a fisher’s
income supports all household). In the latter case, we use the average
number of household members in each country as reported in official
documents. All results are reported in ranges to represent these two
conditions, which represent the lower and upper bounds. Countries
for which any of these data were not available were assumed to have a
household size or a MLW equal to the average of other countries in the
corresponding subregion (e.g., Caribbean, Southern Europe), using UN-­
defined geopolitical groupings. Household MLW lines were adjusted
for inflation in national currency up to 2018 using the Consumer Price
Index (The World Bank, 2020) and then transformed to 2018 USD
using the annual exchange rate. Because we do not compare absolute
values between nations, we focus on ensuring that both MLW and in-
comes are converted to real USD within nations; any use of our data
(or future studies) to compare USD values between nations or regions
should first convert all values to purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars.
We compiled data on the estimated landed value of fisheries in
2018 and costs of fishing in 2014 per country from the Sea Around
Us database (Lam et al., 2011; Pauly & Zeller, 2016); both were ad-
justed for inflation as described above. From this information, we es-
timated the percentage of revenue that is used for labour costs (i.e.,
wages), which we used to calculate current mean fisheries wages per
country. We also obtained data on the expected changes in revenues
that would be generated per country if all fisheries were managed
at MSY (a hypothetical best case scenario) from published modelled
results (Gaines et al., 2018).
Note that wages at MSY were calculated assuming that labour
costs per tonne scale up proportionally, so estimates should be care-
fully considered given that labour demands may well change given
larger stocks (Lam et al., 2011). For example, increased fish abun-
dance would be expected to decrease search times and other op-
erating costs, increasing profit margins and the percentage share of
revenues that could go to wages (certainly so for owner-­operators,
potentially for other crew; Gaines et al., 2018; Lam et al., 2011).
|
      3
Alternatively, larger catches under MSY compared to current stock
abundance may also require more (not necessarily compensated)
hours to land and process or lead to decreased ex-­vessel prices
because of higher supply (Sumaila, Ebrahim, et al., 2019). Including
these factors was beyond the scope of this analysis, but they should
be considered in future work, particularly when informing man-
agement strategies at local scales within specific fishery contexts
(Sumaila, Tai, et al., 2019).
2.2 | Gaps between fishing income and living wages
Based on the data described above, we estimated wages per fisher
under current conditions and at MSY management. These two met-
rics were defined as current mean fishing wages (CMFW) and poten-
tial mean fishing wages (PMFW), respectively, and are presented in
Table S1. We then estimated current and potential mean wage gaps
by dividing CMFW and PMFW, respectively, over the MLW for cor-
responding countries.
2.3 | Distribution of fishing incomes
Our baseline scenario assumes a hypothetical equal distribution of
total fishing income in a country among all fishers within that coun-
try, assuming both current landings and projected landings if all
fisheries were managed at MSY. We also present an alternative (and
likely more realistic) scenario where fishing incomes are assumed to
be distributed log-­normally among fishers in a country; that is, some
fishers would accumulate more income than others. To do this in a
way that reflects differences between countries, we parameterized
the log-­normal distribution for each country using its corresponding
Gini Index (a standard measure of national economic equality; Table
S1), under the assumption that the social, governance and economic
dynamics that lead to a particular income distribution within a coun-
try also apply to fishers within that country. The GI values range
from 0 (even distribution of income across fishers) to 1 (one fisher re-
ceives all income). There is some evidence to suggest that disparity in
economic benefits may be relatively more pronounced within some
fisheries compared to other sectors (Ferrol-­Schulte et al., 2014; Teh
et al., 2020), which would make our assumption conservative, but
this is difficult to discern given limited current research on the topic.
2.4 | Trends in current mean fishing wages (CMFW)
A common argument to explain the prevalence of poverty in fishing
communities alludes to the idea that there might be too many fishers
competing over too few fish, which has recently been questioned
based on research regarding the dynamics of power and access to
resources (see, e.g., Finkbeiner et al., 2017). In order to test whether
resource scarcity could explain our observed patterns in CMFW and
its comparison to MLW, we used data on the total number of fishers
 |
4       GIRON-­NAVA et al.

per country (Teh & Sumaila, 2013) and the weighted average state of
fish stocks as defined below:
∑n
sp = 1
(Stock Statussp × Catchsp )
Mean Stock Status = ∑n
(Catchsp )
sp = 1
If indeed there are too many fishers and too few fish and this is
an overarching driver of poverty, there should be a clear negative cor-
relation between the number of fishers and CMFW, and a positive cor-
relation between stocks status and CMFW, which we test using simple
linear regressions. Both models passed the tests of normal distribution
of residuals and homoscedasticity. These two models implicitly assume
two things: (a) catchability per fisher is uniform across countries, and
(b) there is a linear catch term that represents changes in catch per unit
effort. Even though expected violations of these assumptions (e.g., in-
dividual fishing capacity may vary across regions, e.g., if different gears
are used) might affect the magnitude of the estimated regression coef-
ficients, the sign of the relationship should not change and, thus, these
relationships should be primarily used as a qualitative description.
3 | R E S U LT S
3.1 | Current mean fishing wages
Based on global fisheries landings from 2018 (Pauly & Zeller, 2016),
the mean wages of fishers in 43–­93 (36%–­67%) out of the 138
countries and territories for which data were available were below
their MLW, with 36–­66 countries (26%–­4 8%) well below (<50%)
their MLW (Table 1). Moreover, when considering the total number
of fishers in countries below the MLW, as many as 35–­4 8 million out
of 51 million (69%–­95%) fishers around the world have estimated
incomes below their respective national MLW, with China and India
alone accounting for 24  million of those fishers below the MLW.
In contrast, there were 6–­31 countries out of 138 (4.3%–­22.5%),
where the CMFW was five times or more their respective MLW
(“High earners”); these countries represent 238 thousand—­1.6 mil-
lion fishers, around 3% of fishers globally even when considering
the scenario where one fisher is the only member of a household
(Figure 1).

TA B L E 1   Mean fishing income compared to minimum living wage (“Mean wage gap”), number of countries, and percentage of fishers
per region, assuming incomes based on current (2018) fisheries landings and projected landings at Maximum Sustainable Yield, and equal
distribution of income among fishers

Scenario 2018 Scenario MSY

Below Above Below Above

Region Variable Total poverty poverty Total poverty poverty

Global Mean wage gap 0.30–­1.09 0.20–­0.49 2.19–­2.49 1.11–­4.19 0.36–­0.51 2.49–­4.64
# Of countries 138 49–­93 45–­89 138 19–­49 89–­119
% Of fishers 100% 69%–­95% 5%–­3 0% 100% 10%–­70% 30%–­90%
Africa Mean wage gap 0.77–­2.46 0.29–­0.31 2.97–­5.41 2.65–­8.55 0.31–­0.57 5.61–­12.64
# Of countries 38 9–­24 14–­29 38 3–­7 31–­35
% Of fishers 6.1% 58%–­82% 18%–­42% 6.1% 34%–­55% 44%–­66%
Asia Mean wage gap 0.26–­0.99 0.20–­0.57 1.67–­1.97 1.04–­4.08 0.54–­0.59 2.07–­4.08
# Of countries 30 14–­24 6–­16 30 2–­14 16–­28
% Of fishers 80.2% 70%–­96% 4%–­3 0% 80.2% 1%–­70% 30%–­99%
Europe Mean wage gap 0.90–­2.55 0.45–­0.62 1.88–­3.13 1.75–­5.13 0.21–­0.53 2.13–­5.70
# Of countries 26 3–­11 15–­23 26 2–­4 22–­24
% Of fishers 1.0% 23%–­68% 32%–­77% 1.0% 10%–­24% 76%–­90%
North and Central Mean wage gap 0.31–­1.01 0.06–­0.17 3.30–­4.89 0.67–­2.37 0.06–­0.17 2.17–­7.31
America # Of countries 23 14–­21 2–­9 23 11–­14 9–­12
% Of fishers 5.9% 70%–­97% 3%–­3 0% 5.9% 59%–­71% 29%–­31%
Oceania Mean wage gap 0.22–­0.69 0.12–­0.33 1.55–­3.72 1.18–­3.70 0.16–­1 3.70–­8.16
# Of countries 11 5–­7 4–­6 11 0–­6 5–­11
% Of fishers 1.3% 89%–­93% 7%–­11% 1.3% 0%–­92% 8%–­100%
South America Mean wage gap 0.30–­1.03 0.09–­0.14 3.91–­6.51 0.85–­2.85 0.16–­0.45 5.07–­11.87
# Of countries 10 4–­6 4–­6 10 1–­4 6–­9
% Of fishers 5.5% 86%–­94% 5%–­13% 5.5% 79%–­86% 14%–­21%

Notes: Ranges in each indicator represent scenarios assuming that (1) a fisher is the only individual in a household, or (2) a fisher is the only individual
that contributes to income in a household with the average number of members per country. “Total” shows averages weighted by the number of
fishers in each country.
GIRON-­NAVA et al. |
      5

CMFW / MLW

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

F I G U R E 1   Current mean wage gap estimated as the current mean fishing wages divided by the minimum living wage per country
(CMFW/MLW). Values under one represent countries where the CMFW is below the MLW, and values above one represent countries where
the CMFW is above the MLW. White = No data. The map shows the scenario in which fishers are the only individuals in a household. Figure
S1 shows the comparison to the scenario where fishers are the only income contributors to the household

At a regional scale (Table 1), North and Central America, which
include 23 countries, had the highest percentage of fishers under the
MLW (70%–­97%), where Cuba alone represented 33% of those poor
fishers. Other regions also presented high numbers of fishers under
the MLW, e.g., Asia (70%–­96%), South America (86%–­94%), Oceania
(89%–­93%) and Africa (58%–­82%). Europe was the region with the
least number (23%–­68%) of fishers below countries’ MLW, although
as a whole the region only accounts for 1% of global fishers. Table
S1 shows detailed information on fishers per country, mean wages
and MLWs under each scenario of household income. Our results
correspond well to previous findings by Teh et al., (2020), who report
observed differences in fishing incomes and minimum living wages
for a number of countries, with their observed values falling well
within our estimated ranges for almost all regions (Table S2).
We also evaluated the correlation between current mean wages
gap (CMFW/MLW), number of fishers per country and mean fish
stocks status (B/BMSY). We present these tests assuming that fish-
ers are the only members of a household (the “best” case scenario
regarding average income). We found that the current mean wage
gap had a significant but very weak negative correlation with both
2
the number of fishers per country (R  = .092, p < .01; Figure 2a), and
a significant but very weak positive correlation with mean fish stock
status (R 2 = 0.089, p < 0.01; Figure 2b).
3.2 | Potential mean fishing wages at MSY
A hypothetical world in which all fish stocks are managed at their MSY
would increase mean fishing incomes per country, on average, by 3.5
times. Under this scenario, all 44–­89 countries currently above their
MLW will be above it at MSY as well (“Always above”; Figure 3), rep-
resenting 2.6–­15.3 million (5%–­30%) fishers worldwide. An additional
30–­44 countries that under current conditions were under their MLW
will be able to “improve” (Figure 3), representing an additional 12.8–­
30.0 million fishers (25%–­59%), for a total of 15.4–­45.3 million (30%–­
89%) fishers above their MLW worldwide at MSY. However, despite this
improvement in stock status and revenues, and assuming incomes are
equally distributed between fishers in each country, 5.4–­35.4 million
(11%–­70%) fishers and 19–­49 countries worldwide would be “Always
below” (Figure 3) their respective MLW and not be able to meet their
basic economic needs. Notably, 27.8 million (54.5%) of fishers “always
below” their respective MLW, when considering that a fisher is the
only contributor to a household income, are from only five countries
(India—­16.5  million; Indonesia—­4.4  million; Bangladesh—­2.8  million;
Brazil—­2.2 million; and Philippines—­1.9 million). In contrast, from the
44 countries “always above” in this scenario, Thailand had the largest
number of fishers, with 810,000. Of course, the total number of fishers
below MLW would be expected to increase if we assume an unequal
 |
6       GIRON-­NAVA et al.

F I G U R E 2   Trends in current mean fishing wages (CMFW) relative to mean living wages (MLW; dashed lines). Note y-­axes are in log scale,
where equal CMFW and MLW = 0. The x-­axis on each plot represents different explanatory variables: (a) number of fishers per country
(R 2 = .092, p-­value < .01), and (b) fish stocks status (R 2 = .089, p-­value < .01). The white lines represent linear regression models, and the
shaded grey areas represent the 95% confidence intervals. The results are from the scenario in which fishers are the only individuals in a
household

(e.g., log-­normal) distribution of income. This is further discussed below
and presented in Figures S2–­S4.
4 |  D I S CU S S I O N
Effective fisheries management is essential to achieving long-­term
healthy and resilient fisheries, and supporting the cultural, eco-
nomic, health, and social benefits that they provide (Gaines et al.,
2018). However, fishing activities and human well-­being are embed-
ded within broader social and economic systems that fisheries man-
agers cannot address alone (Giron-­Nava et al., 2019).
Common arguments about the relationship between fisheries
and poverty allude to over-­capacity, poor regulations, and a simple
lack of other economic opportunities that all lead to general over-
exploitation and reduced incomes (Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Ostrom
et al., 1999). This view has been widely criticized as too simplistic and
blind to the many systemic factors that hinder equitable distribu-
tion of benefits and costs—­and potentially sustainability—­in fisheries
(Finkbeiner et al., 2017). Our relatively simple analysis in this regard
shows that there is statistical evidence of a relationship between the
number of fishers and average wage gaps (Figure 2a) and average
stock status (Figure 2b), but both of these relationships were very
weak (R 2  <  .1). This shows that, while there may be intuitive truth
to narratives of resource scarcity, the underlying factors of poverty
and equity in fisheries are much more complex than simple num-
bers of fishers, or fish. Specifically exploring other potential factors
was beyond the scope of this work but highly pertinent for fisheries
research; addressing these issues appropriately must involve collab-
oration with social scientists and a focus on subnational data and
contexts.
We found that if fisheries could be hypothetically managed to
reach MSY for all species, and wages were equally distributed, the
number of fishers earning less than the MLW would decrease by
12.8–­30.0 million. This would undoubtedly mark significant progress
for more millions within fishing households (even with respect to the
lowest bar represented by the MLW) but nations would require fur-
ther strategies and investments to ensure at least a MLW for 5.4–­
35.4 million fishers and their families around the world. Under MSY
and a scenario with uneven distribution of wealth per country, an
additional 2.5–­4.5 million fishers (for a total of 7.6–­39.9 million, or
15%–­79%) would earn wages below their MLW. Even though this
scenario is likely more realistic, using national Gini Index values to
inform income distributions may still underestimate the potential
number of fishers below the MLW, as the fishing sector has been
shown to have more uneven wealth distributions than other eco-
nomic activities (Ferrol-­Schulte et al., 2014; Teh et al., 2020) and can
be highly heterogenous within a country (Allison et al., 2009; Blasiak
et al., 2017; Keen et al., 2016; Finkbeiner & Ayers, 2017), a single
fishing community (Giron-­Nava et al., 2019) or a crew (Bennett &
Basurto, 2018; Lindkvist et al., 2017). There is increasing research
into the strategies and recovery times of well-­managed stocks,
which has highlighted the importance and opportunity for recov-
ering these fisheries (Gaines et al., 2018; Mangin et al., 2018). As
this study shows, however, recovering stocks will not automatically
achieve well-­being goals, and supporting these communities will
GIRON-­NAVA et al. |
      7

F I G U R E 3   Comparison of mean fishing

wages to minimum living wages (MLW)
under current conditions (CMFW/MLW—­
black line) and at MSY (PMFW/MLW—­
grey line) for each country. (a) Countries
are ranked from lowest CMFW (rank 0)
to highest CMFW (rank 138) in the x-­axis.
The point where CMFW is equal to the
MLW is represented by the dashed line.
We identified three groups of countries.
(1) Always below: both CMFW and PMFW
are below the MLW. (2) Improve: the
CMFW is below, and the PMFW is above
the MLW. (3) Always above: both CMFW
and PMFW are above the MLW. (b) The
map shows each country labelled by the
same three categories. The results are
from the scenario in which fishers are the
only individuals in a household. Figure
S2 shows the scenario in which fishers
are the only income contributors to the
household

require in-­depth local research given the ecological and social com-
plexities of fisheries around the world.
A current challenge to improved development planning is the
lack of reliable and standardized information on fishing profits and
their distribution (Béné et al., 2007; Teh et al., 2020), which should
be prioritized in global initiatives, such as the nascent UN Decade
of Ocean Science that has focused on important but insufficient
ecological and social data collection (Singh et al., 2021; Teh et al.,
2020). In the case of income analyses, this should include, for exam-
ple, quantitative information on the contributions of women in fish
processing and sales—­and of alternative seasonal employment—­to
household incomes, and wider estimations of the shadow economic
values of take-­home catch that can be essential for household diets,
public health, and local economies in fishing communities essential
for household diets, public health, and local economies in fishing
communities (Cisneros-­Montemayor et al., 2018; Harper et al., 2020;
Tacon & Metian, 2018; Teh et al., 2020). Furthermore, almost all rela-
tively wealthy countries (and some developing ones) have a range of
public services—­such as health care, continuing education, employ-
ment insurance and access to loans—­available to their populations,
including fishers, and considering only income does not capture
these benefits relative to fishers in other regions. Aside from being
a limitation of this study, all of these issues reflect the complexity
inherent in considering poverty in fisheries (Béné et al., 2010), and
the importance of not leaving fishers behind by solely focusing on
biological sustainability. Our findings are indeed central to aims be-
yond fisheries management per se, including the FAO Small-­Scale
Fishery Guidelines (Jentoft et al., 2017) and the UN Sustainable
Development Goal 14.b (“Provide access for small-­scale artisanal
fishers to marine resources and markets”; Singh et al., 2017).
Social and economic policies to support fishing incomes are of
course context-­specific, but there are existing examples that are
widely relevant. For example, several fisheries in the Canadian
Pacific and Atlantic use individual quota schemes, but those in the
former do not include provisions to ensure that quota owners are
fishers themselves (e.g., quota allocated to specific vessels and
owner-­operator policies). This has resulted in quota consolida-
tion and “armchair fishermen” that have led to sometimes serious
social harms in some Canadian Pacific fisheries (Haas et al., 2016;
McDonald, 2019). Fishing incomes can also be supported directly
or indirectly by redirecting existing harmful subsidies—­a sometimes
significant source of existing funding (Sumaila, Ebrahim, et al., 2019;
 |
8       GIRON-­NAVA et al.
Sumaila, Tai, et al., 2019)—­into well-­planned and long-­term invest-
ments, including direct cash transfers or in-­kind support linked to so-
cial or environmental policy outcomes (e.g., Europe, Mexico, South
Africa; Cisneros-­Montemayor et al., 2016). The types of analyses
highlighted here, including different categories of countries that are
always above or below MLW (Figure 3), and the absolute difference
between current incomes and MLW in specific countries (Table S1),
can be directly used to help plan appropriate national (or local) strat-
egies. In these approaches, it is important that income support be
decoupled from fishing effort per se (e.g., a direct transfer instead
of a fuel subsidy) to avoid contributing to overfishing and long-­term
poverty traps (Cisneros-­Montemayor et al., 2016). In addition to sup-
porting fishing income per se, these types of programmes can also
be linked to issues of restorative justice for vulnerable communities.
In Canadian fisheries, for example, such programmes can provide
funding to support Indigenous communities in acquiring existing
fishing capacity (including vessels, quota and training), supporting
local incomes and traditions while complying with science-­based co-­
management regulations (Canada, 2010).
Aside from external income support, maximizing the value of
catch is a common goal and an intuitive way to increase fishing in-
comes without necessarily increasing catch (Pascual-­Fernández
et al., 2019). These strategies can act at various steps in seafood sup-
ply chains and do not necessarily require high capital investments
on the part of fishers, which may of course hinder their adoption.
These can include changes to equipment, practices, and policies to
improve the quality of landed fish, adding value to catch by partic-
ipating in processing, engaging more directly with final consumers
(and at least partially capturing retail prices), and identifying and ac-
cessing higher-­value markets (Pascual-­Fernández et al., 2019). We
must caution, however, that these strategies are only useful when
there are systems in place to ensure that higher unit prices do not
lead to increased fishing capacity and that fishers indeed benefit
from them. If this is not the case—­as in many developing regions—­
higher prices may simply lead to increased effort and competition,
and, given existing broader societal issues and governance capacity,
collapsed fisheries or capture of profits by powerful actors.
Despite our best efforts, there may be places where fishing in-
comes, even under sustainably and equitably managed fisheries, will
not be sufficient to ensure minimum living wages for all current fish-
ers and their families. In these cases, the growing push for a Blue
Economy focused on social equity may be able to create new ave-
nues for supporting well-­being in coastal communities (Allison et al.,
2020; Cisneros-­Montemayor et al., 2019; Österblom et al., 2020). In
that context, a possible improved policy scenario would ideally help
fill current wage gaps through a just sharing of benefits both from
fisheries and contextually appropriate development of new sectors
(Pendleton et al., 2020). These could include, for example, marine
ecotourism, mariculture, coastal habitat restoration and offshore
wind energy generation. Crucially, these sectors would not only
provide local jobs but broader benefits including more accessible
food, electricity, drinking water and transportation. In order for a
Blue Economy to truly benefit traditional fishing regions, however,
development must involve and learn from these fishing communi-
ties, and avoid simply pushing fisheries aside as new sectors develop
(Cisneros-­Montemayor et al., 2019). Even if new sectors become
well established, transitioning to new types of livelihoods will not
be easy or inevitable, and ensuring that coastal communities benefit
requires specific attention and policies (Bennett et al., 2019).
As this study shows, achieving ecological sustainability would
have positive impacts for millions of fishers throughout the world,
but ensuring that their rights to decent work and livelihoods are
met will require deep cross-­sectoral support and integrated poli-
cies (Jentoft et al., 2017). An interdisciplinary approach to fisher-
ies research can inform just transitions to sustainability and help
address social inequities and recognize the rights and contributions
of women, Indigenous peoples, migrants, and informal workers to
fisheries and coastal economies and livelihoods (Bennett et al., 2019;
Brugère et al., 2008; Sievanen, 2014). Overall, an even broader col-
laboration and recognition of institutions, development objectives,
and needs beyond ocean sectors and communities (Singh et al.,
2021) will be needed to achieve the overarching goal of leaving no-­
one behind in a global push for social well-­being.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
We thank members of the Nippon Foundation Nereus Program
and the Ocean Nexus Program Center at EarthLab, University of
Washington, in collaboration with the University of British Columbia,
for their comments on earlier versions of this work. A.G.N. was sup-
ported by the PEGASuS Program of Future Earth, which is funded
by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Science Program and
the NOMIS Foundation and administered by the School of Global
Environmental Sustainability at Colorado State University. A.G.N.
was also supported by the American Geographical Society as an
EthicalGEO Fellow and the Walter Munk Foundation for the Oceans.
A.M.C.M. acknowledges support from the Nippon Foundation
Ocean Nexus Program.
C O N FL I C T S O F I N T E R E S T
The authors declare no conflicts of interest
AU T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S
AGN and AMCM made equal contributions to this manuscript as
leading authors, designed the study, analysed the data and wrote the
paper. VL contributed data, analysed the data and wrote the paper.
OAO and BSH designed the study and wrote the paper. WC and URS
contributed data and wrote the paper.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
All data are available in article supplementary material.
ORCID
Alfredo Giron-­Nava  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3433-9251
Benjamin S. Halpern  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8844-2302
Andrés Miguel Cisneros-­Montemayor  https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-4132-5317
GIRON-­NAVA et al. |
      9

REFERENCES coastal communities. Ocean and Coastal Management, 100, 63–­73.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceco​aman.2014.07.016
Aceves-­Bueno, E., & Halpern, B. S. (2018). Informing the design of territo-
Finkbeiner, E., Bennett, N., Brooks, C., Frawley, T., Mason, J., Ng, C.,
rial use rights in fisheries from marine protected area theory. Marine
Ourens, R., Seto, K., Swanson, S., Urteaga, J., Briscoe, D., & Crowder,
Ecology Progress Series, 596, 247–­262. https://doi.org/10.3354/
L. (2017). Reconstructing overfishing: moving beyond Malthus for
meps1​2571
comprehensive and equitable solutions. Fish and Fisheries, 18(6),
Allison, E. H., Kurien, J., & Ota, Y. (2020). The human relationship with our
1180–­1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12245
ocean planet. Retrieved from https://ocean​panel.org/blue-­paper​s/
Gaines, S. D., Costello, C., Owashi, B., Mangin, T., Bone, J., Molinos, J.
Human​Relat​ionsh​ipwit​hOurO​ceanP​lanet
G., Burden, M., Dennis, H., Halpern, B. S., Kappel, C. V., Kleisner, K.
Allison, E. H., Perry, A. L., Badjeck, M. C., Neil Adger, W., Brown, K.,
M., & Ovando, D. (2018). Improved fisheries management could off-
Conway, D., Halls, A. S., Pilling, G. M., Reynolds, J. D., Andrew, N.
set many negative effects of climate change. Science Advances, 4(8),
L., & Dulvy, N. K. (2009). Vulnerability of national economies to the
eaao1378. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao1378
impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 10(2), 173–­
Giron-­Nava, A., Johnson, A. F., Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., & Aburto-­
196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2008.00310.x
Oropeza, O. (2019). Managing at maximum sustainable yield does not
Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M., Cochrane, K. L., & Funge-­Smith,
ensure economic well-­being for artisanal fishers. Fish and Fisheries,
S. (2018). Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture:
20(2), 214–­223. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12332
Synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. FAO.
Gutiérrez, N. L., Hilborn, R., & Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership, social cap-
Béné, C. (2003). When fishery rhymes with poverty: A first step beyond
ital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature, 470(7334),
the old paradigm on poverty. World Development, 31(6), 949–­975.
386–­389. https://doi.org/10.1038/natur​e 09689
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305​-­750X(03)00045​-­7
Haas, A. R., Edwards, D. N., & Sumaila, U. R. (2016). Corporate concen-
Béné, C., & Friend, R. M. (2011). Poverty in small-­scale fisheries: Old
tration and processor control: Insights from the salmon and herring
issue, new analysis. Progress in Development Studies, 11, 119–­144.
fisheries in British Columbia. Marine Policy, 68, 83–­90. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14649​93410​01100203
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.019
Béné, C., Hersoug, B., & Allison, E. H. (2010). Not by rent alone:
Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E., & Kellner, J. B. (2009). Spillover from ma-
Analyzing the pro-­poor functions of small-­scale fisheries in develop-
rine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental
ing countries. Development Policy Review, 28(3), 325–­358. https://doi.
Conservation, 36(4), 268–­276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376​89291​
org/10.1111/j.1467-­7679.2010.00486.x
0000032
Béné, C., Macfayden, G., & Allison, E. H. (2007). Increasing the contri-
Harper, S., Adshade, M., Lam, V. W. Y., Pauly, D., & Sumaila, U. R. (2020).
bution of small-­scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food secu-
Valuing invisible catches: Estimating the global contribution by
rity. Fisheries Bethesda, 125, 59–­62. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97​
women to small-­scale marine capture fisheries production. PLoS One,
81107​415324.004
15(3), 1–­16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0228912
Bennett, A., & Basurto, X. (2018). Local institutional responses to global
Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R. O., Anderson, C. M., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A.,
market pressures: The sea cucumber trade in Yucatán, Mexico.
Costello, C., de Moor, C. L., Faraj, A., Hively, D., Jensen, O. P., Kurota,
World Development, 102, 57–­70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.world​
H., Little, L. R., Mace, P., McClanahan, T., Melnychuk, M. C., Minto, C.,
dev.2017.09.006
Osio, G. C., Parma, A. M., Pons, M., … Ye, Y. (2020). Effective fisheries
Bennett, N. J., Blythe, J., Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., Singh, G. G.,
management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proceedings
& Sumaila, U. R. (2019). Just transformations to sustainability.
of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 2218–­2224.
Sustainability, 11(14), 3881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su111​43881
Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Bellwood, D. R., Card, M., Connolly, S. R., Folke,
Blasiak, R., Spijkers, J., Tokunaga, K., Pittman, J., Yagi, N., & Österblom, H.
C., Grosberg, R., Hoegh-­Guldberg, O., Jackson, J. B. C., Kleypas, J.,
(2017). Climate change and marine fisheries: Least developed coun-
Lough, J. M., Marshall, P., Nyström, M., Palumbi, S. R., Pandolfi, J.
tries top global index of vulnerability. PLoS One, 12(6), 1–­15. https://
M., Rosen, B., & Roughgarden, J. (2003). Climate change, human im-
doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0179632
pacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science, 301(5635), 929–­933.
Brugère, C., Holvoet, K., & Allison, E. (2008). Livelihood diversification in
https://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.1085046
coastal and inland fishing communities: misconceptions, evidence and
Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Barragan-­Paladines, M. J., & Franz, N.
implications for fisheries management. Working paper, Sustainable
(2017). The small-­scale fisheries guidelines. Springer.
Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (SFLP). Rome, FAO/DFID, 39 pp
Keen, M. R., Schwarz, A. M., & Wini-­Simeon, L. (2016). Towards defin-
Canada, D. of F. and O (2010). Evaluation of the Atlantic Integrated
ing the Blue Economy: Practical lessons from pacific ocean gov-
Commercial Fisheries Initiative (AICFI). Retrieved from https://www.
ernance. Marine Policy, 88, 333–­3 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dfo-­mpo.gc.ca/ae-­ve/evalu​ation​s/10-­11/6b118​-­eng.htm
marpol.2017.03.002
Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., Harper, S., & Tai, T. C. (2018). The market
Lam, V. W. Y., Sumaila, U. R., Dyck, A., Pauly, D., & Watson, R. (2011).
and shadow value of informal fish catch: A framework and appli-
Construction and first applications of a global cost of fishing data-
cation to Panama. Natural Resources Forum, 42, 83–­92. https://doi.
base. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68(9), 1996–­2004. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1477-­8947.12143
org/10.1093/icesj​ms/fsr121
Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., Moreno-­Báez, M., Voyer, M., Allison, E.
Lindkvist, E., Basurto, X., & Schlüter, M. (2017). Micro-­level explanations
H., Cheung, W. W. L., Hessing-­Lewis, M., Oyinlola, M. A., Singh, G.
for emergent patterns of self-­governance arrangements in small-­
G., Swartz, W., & Ota, Y. (2019). Social equity and benefits as the
scale fisheries –­A modeling approach. PLoS One, 12(4), 1–­23. https://
nexus of a transformative Blue Economy: A sectoral review of im-
doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0175532
plications. Marine Policy, 109, 103702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
M. Finkbeiner, E., Micheli, F., J. Bennett, N., L. Ayers, A., Le Cornu, E., &
marpol.2019.103702
N. Doerr, A. (2017). Exploring trade-­offs in climate change response
Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., Sanjurjo, E., Munro, G. R., Hernández-­Trejo,
in the context of Pacific Island fisheries. Marine Policy, 88, 359–­364.
V., & Sumaila, U. R. (2016). Strategies and rationale for fishery sub-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.032
sidy reform. Marine Policy, 69, 229–­236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Mangin, T., Cisneros-­Mata, M. Á., Bone, J., Costello, C., Gaines, S. D.,
marpol.2015.10.001
McDonald, G., Rodriguez, L., Strauss, C. K., & Zapata, P. (2018).
Ferrol-­Schulte, D., Ferse, S. C. A., & Glaser, M. (2014). Patron-­client re-
The cost of management delay: The case for reforming Mexican
lationships, livelihoods and natural resource management in tropical
 |
10       GIRON-­NAVA et al.
fisheries sooner rather than later. Marine Policy, 88, 1–­10. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.042
McDonald, K. (2019). Coast fisheries: Sharing risks and benefits (Issue
May). Retrieved from https://www.ourco​mmons.ca/Docum​entVi​
ewer/en/43-­1/FOPO/repor​t-­1/
Mora, C., Myers, R. A., Coll, M., Libralato, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, R. U.,
Zeller, D., Watson, R., Gaston, K. J., & Worm, B. (2009). Management
effectiveness of the world’s marine fisheries. PLoS Biology, 7(6),
e1000131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pbio.1000131
Österblom, H., Wabnitz, C. C. C., & Tladi, D. (2020). Towards ocean eq-
uity. Retrieved from www.ocean​panel.org/how-­distr​ibute​-­benef​its-­
ocean​-­equit​ably
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999).
Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science,
284(5412), 278–­282. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.284.5412.278
Ota, Y., Allison, E. H., & Fabinyi, M. (2021). Evolving the narrative for
protecting a rapidly changing ocean, post-­COVID-­19. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 1–­2. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aqc.3568
Pascual-­Fernández, J. J., Pita, C., Josupeit, H., Said, A., & Garcia
Rodrigues, J. (2019). Markets, distribution and value chains in small-­
scale fisheries: A special focus on Europe. In R. Chuenpagdee, & S.
Jentoft (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity for Small-­Scale Fisheries Governance
(Vol. 21, pp. 141–­162). MARE Publication Series. Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­94938​-­3_8
Pauly, D. (1990). On Malthusian overfishing. ICLARM, 13(1), 3–­4.
Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2016). Catch reconstructions reveal that global ma-
rine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nature
Communications, 7, 10244. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomm​s10244
Pendleton, L., Evans, K., & Visbeck, M. (2020). Opinion: We need a global
movement to transform ocean science for a better world. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(18), 9652–­9655. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.20054​85117
Rudd, M. B., & Branch, T. A. (2016). Does unreported catch lead to over-
fishing? Fish and Fisheries, 18, 313–­323. https://doi.org/10.1111/
faf.12181
Sievanen, L. (2014). How do small-­scale fishers adapt to environmen-
tal variability? Lessons from Baja California, Sur, Mexico. Maritime
Studies, 13(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4015​2-­014-­0 009-­2
Singh, G. G., Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Cheung, W., Guy,
J. A., Kenny, T. A., McOwen, C. J., Asch, R., Geffert, J. L., Wabnitz,
C. C. C., Sumaila, R., Hanich, Q., & Ota, Y. (2017). A rapid assess-
ment of co-­benefits and trade-­offs among Sustainable Development
Goals. Marine Policy, 93, 223–­231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2017.05.030
Singh, G. G., Harden-­Davies, H., Allison, E. H., Cisneros-­Montemayor, A.
M., Swartz, W., Crosman, K. M., & Ota, Y. (2021). Will understanding
the ocean lead to “the ocean we want”? Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(5), 1–­5.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.21002​05118
Steneck, R. S. (2009). Marine conservation: Moving beyond Malthus.
Current Biology, 19(3), 117–­119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cub.2008.12.009
Sumaila, U. R., Cheung, W. W. L., Lam, V. W. Y., Pauly, D., & Herrick, S.
(2011). Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of
world fisheries. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 449–­456. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclim​ate1301
Sumaila, U. R., Ebrahim, N., Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D., Li, Y., Kim, H. S.,
Mallory, T. G., Lam, V. W. L., & Pauly, D. (2019). Updated estimates
and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 109, 103695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103695
Sumaila, U. R., Tai, T. C., Lam, V. W. Y., Cheung, W. W. L., Bailey, M.,
Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., Chen, O. L., & Gulati, S. S. (2019).
Benefits of the Paris agreement to ocean life, economies, and peo-
ple. Science Advances, 5(2), 1–­10. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.
aau3855
Tacon, A. G. J., & Metian, M. (2018). Food matters: Fish, income, and
food supply—­A comparative analysis. Reviews in Fisheries Science
& Aquaculture, 26(1), 15–­28. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308​
249.2017.1328659
Teh, L. C. L., Ota, Y., Cisneros-­Montemayor, A. M., Harrington, L., &
Swartz, W. (2020). Are fishers poor? Getting to the bottom of marine
fisheries income statistics. Fish and Fisheries, 21(3), 471–­482. https://
doi.org/10.1111/faf.12441
Teh, L. C. L., & Sumaila, U. R. (2013). Contribution of marine fisheries to
worldwide employment. Fish and Fisheries, 14(1), 77–­88. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-­2979.2011.00450.x
The World Bank (2020). Inflation, consumer prices (annual %). International
Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics and Data Files.
S U P P O R T I N G I N FO R M AT I O N
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Supporting Information section.
How to cite this article: Giron-­Nava A, Lam VWY, Aburto-­
Oropeza O, et al. Sustainable fisheries are essential but not
enough to ensure well-­being for the world’s fishers. Fish Fish.
2021;00:1–­10. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12552