Inland fish and fisheries integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract

Inland fish provide food for billions and livelihoods for millions of people worldwide and are integral to effective freshwater ecosystem function, yet the recognition of these services is notably absent in development discussions and policies, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). How might the SDGs be enhanced if inland fishery services were integrated into policies and development schemes? Here, we examine the relationships between inland fish, sustainable fisheries, and functioning freshwater systems and the targets of the SDGs. Our goal is to highlight synergies across the SDGs, particularly No Poverty (SDG 1), Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6), Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) and Life on Land (SDG 15), that can be achieved with the inclusion of these overlooked inland fishery services.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Relationships between inland fishery services and SDGs.

SDG icons (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/) are used with UN/SDG permission

Fig. 2: Correlogram of inland fishery services based on their relationships to the SDGs.
Fig. 3: Dendrogram of the SDGs based on relationships to the two groups of inland fishery services.

SDG icons (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/) are used with UN/SDG permission

References

  1. 1.

    Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1 (UN, 2015).

  2. 2.

    Fader, M., Cranmer, C., Lawford, R. & Engel-Cox, J. Toward an understanding of synergies and trade-offs between water, energy, and food SDG targets. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 112 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Economics 11, 1–23 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bhaduri, A. et al. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals from a water perspective. Front. Environ. Sci. 4, 64 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Smith, M. S. Change the approach to sustainable development. Nature 483, 375 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    CWP Handbook of Fishery Statistical Standards. Section G: Fishing Areas - General (FAO, 2014).

  7. 7.

    Funge-Smith, S. Review of the State of the World Fishery Resources: Inland Fisheries FIAF / C94 (FAO, 2018).

  8. 8.

    Lynch, A. J. et al. The social, economic, and environmental importance of inland fish and fisheries. Environ. Rev. 24, 115–121 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cooke, S. J. et al. On the sustainability of inland fisheries: finding a future for the forgotten. Ambio 45, 753–764 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture - 2018 (SOFIA) (FAO, 2018).

  11. 11.

    Lymer, D., Teillard, F., Opio, C. & Bartley, D. M. in Freshwater, Fish, and the Future: Proceedings of the Global Cross-Sectoral Conference (eds Taylor, W. W. et al.) 169–182 (American Fisheries Society Press, 2016).

  12. 12.

    Freshwater, Fish and the Future: Proceedings of the Global Cross-Sectoral Conference (American Fisheries Society, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and Michigan State University, 2016).

  13. 13.

    Butchart, S. H. M., Miloslavich, P., Reyers, B. & Subramanian, S. M. in IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondizio, E. S. et al.) Ch. 3 (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2019).

  14. 14.

    Welcomme, R. L. et al. Inland capture fisheries. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 365, 2881–2896 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Youn, S.-J. et al. Inland capture fishery contributions to global food security and threats to their future. Glob. Food Secur. 3, 142–148 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cooke, S. J., Arlinghaus, R., Johnson, B. M. & Cowx, I. G. in Freshwater Fisheries Ecology (ed. Craig, J. F.) 449–465 (Wiley Blackwell Science Ltd, 2015).

  17. 17.

    Noble, M. et al. Culturally significant fisheries: keystones for management of freshwater social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 21, 22 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Postel, S. & Carpenter, S. in Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (ed. Daily, G. C.) 195–214 (Island Press, 1997).

  19. 19.

    Fluet-Chouinard, E., Funge-Smith, S. & Mcintyre, P. B. Global hidden harvest of freshwater fish revealed by household surveys. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7623–7628 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Iovanna, R. & Griffiths, C. Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefits transfer: a work in progress at the U.S. EPA. Ecol. Econ. 60, 473–482 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Brooks, E. G. E., Holland, R. A., Darwall, W. R. T. & Eigenbrod, F. Global evidence of positive impacts of freshwater biodiversity on fishery yields. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 553–562 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Holmlund, C. M. & Hammer, M. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecol. Econ. 29, 253–268 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Béné, C., Macfayden, G. & Allison, E. H. Increasing the Contribution of Small-Scale Fisheries to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security FAO Fisheries Technical Paper (FAO, 2007).

  24. 24.

    UNEP Blue Harvest: Inland Fisheries as an Ecosystem Service (WorldFish Center, 2010).

  25. 25.

    Orr, S., Pittock, J., Chapagain, A. & Dumaresq, D. Dams on the Mekong River: lost fish protein and the implications for land and water resources. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 925–932 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Palmer, T. A., Montagna, P. A., Pollack, J. B., Kalke, R. D. & DeYoe, H. R. The role of freshwater inflow in lagoons, rivers, and bays. Hydrobiologia 667, 49–67 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Béné, C. Small-Scale Fisheries: Assessing their Contributions to Rural Livelihoods in Developing Countries FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1008 (FAO, 2006).

  28. 28.

    Fiorella, K. J. et al. Transactional fish-for-sex relationships amid declining fish access in Kenya. World Dev. 74, 323–332 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Voices from African Artisanal Fisheries: Calling for an African Year of Artisanal Fisheries (Sida, SSNC, 2016).

  30. 30.

    Ziv, G., Baran, E., Nam, S., Rodríguez-Iturbe, I. & Levin, S. A. Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5609–5614 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Liermann, C. R., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J. & Ng, R. Implications of dam obstruction for global freshwater fish diversity. BioScience 62, 539–548 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Winemiller, K. O. et al. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351, 128–129 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Floyd, M. F., Nicholas, L., Lee, I., Lee, J.-H. & Scott, D. Social stratification in recreational fishing participation: research and policy implications. Leis. Sci. 28, 351–368 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hunt, W. & McManus, A. Recreational fishing supports health and wellbeing in Western Australia. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 40, 292 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Knopf, R. C. in Behavior and the Natural Environment. Human Behavior and Environment (Advances in Theory and Research) (eds Altman, I. & Wohlwill, J. F.) 205–240 (Springer, 1983).

  36. 36.

    Elmqvist, T. et al. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 488–494 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Martin, T. G. & Watson, J. E. Intact ecosystems provide the best defense against climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 122–124 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Lynch, A. J. et al. Inland fisheries – Invisible but integral to the UN Sustainable Development Agenda for ending poverty by 2030. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 167–173 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Report of the Consultation on Integrating Small-Scale Fisheries in Poverty Reduction Planning in West Africa GCP/INT/735/UK (FAO/DFID, 2003).

  40. 40.

    Lynch, A. J. et al. in Freshwater, Fish and the Future: Proceedings of the Global Cross-Sectoral Conference (eds Taylor, W. W. et al.) 183–200 (American Fisheries Society Press, 2016).

  41. 41.

    Olver, C. H., Shuter, B. J. & Minns, C. K. Toward a definition of conservation principles for fisheries management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52, 1584–1594 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. Ecosystem-based water security and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 18, 317–333 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Townsend, C. R. Invasion biology and ecological impacts of brown trout Salmo trutta in New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 78, 13–22 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Penczak, T. Impact of introduced brown trout on native fish communities in the Pilica River catchment (Poland). Environ. Biol. Fishes 54, 237–252 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    McHugh, P. & Budy, P. Experimental effects of nonnative brown trout on the individual- and population-level performance of native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 135, 1441–1455 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Winfield, I. J. Two hearts are better than one: encouraging collaboration between freshwater fish conservation and freshwater fisheries management. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26, 1007–1012 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. & De Poorter, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database (ISSG, 2000).

  48. 48.

    Granek, E. F. et al. Engaging recreational fishers in management and conservation: global case studies. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1125–1134 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Schlaepfer, M. A., Sax, D. F. & Olden, J. D. The potential conservation value of non‐native species. Conserv. Biol. 25, 428–437 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Perdikaris, C., Gouva, E. & Paschos, I. Alien fish and crayfish species in Hellenic freshwaters and aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 2, 111–120 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Valenti, W. C., Kimpara, J. M., Preto, B., de, L. & Moraes-Valenti, P. Indicators of sustainability to assess aquaculture systems. Ecol. Indic. 88, 402–413 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Costa-Pierce, B. A. Sustainable ecological aquaculture systems: the need for a new social contract for aquaculture development. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 44, 88–112 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Belton, B., Little, D. & Grady, K. Is responsible aquaculture sustainable aquaculture? WWF and the eco-certification of tilapia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 840–855 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Béné, C. et al. Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: assessing the current evidence. World Dev. 79, 177–196 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visback, M. Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534, 320–322 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Rome Declaration on Responsible Inland Fisheries: 5735E/1/06.16 (FAO & MSU, 2016).

  58. 58.

    Beard, T. D. et al. Ecosystem approach to inland fisheries: research needs and implementation strategies. Biol. Lett. 7, 481–483 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    66/288. The Future We Want. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. 66th session (UN, 2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Beard (USGS), S. Cooke (Carleton University), I. Cowx (University of Hull), J. Dalton (IUCN) and other colleagues that we consulted as experts during this exercise; K. Malpeli (USGS) for assistance with figures; S. Carpenter (University of Wisconsin) for feedback on an initial draft; and K. Pope (USGS – University of Nebraska – Lincoln) for conducting an internal USGS peer review. All authors are members of the InFish Research Network (http://infish.org/). No funding sources had any role in the scoring exercise or in the preparation, review or approval of this manuscript. Any use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. The content of this publication has not been approved by the United Nations and does not reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.J.L., V.E. and S.C.P. conceived and designed the exercise. A.J.L., V.E., S.C.P., J.E.C., I.H., K.J.M., E.A.S. and G.L.S. conducted the scoring exercise. A.J.L. analysed the data. A.J.L., V.E., S.C.P., J.E.C., I.H., K.J.M., E.A.S. and G.L.S. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail J. Lynch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods.

Supplementary Table

Supplementary Table 1. Full matrix used for scoring inland fishery services (see Table 1) with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets. Scoring was based on the following scale: +, green, a positive relationship (the service will increase successful target implementation); +/–, yellow, there is a direct relationship, but its direction is unclear, ambiguous or bidirectional (for example, a U-shaped relationship); •, there is no clear relationship (or the relationship is weak and indirect); double symbols (for example, ++) indicate particularly strong relationships.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lynch, A.J., Elliott, V., Phang, S.C. et al. Inland fish and fisheries integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain 3, 579–587 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0517-6

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing