Uneven progress in tackling malnutrition has kept food and nutrition security high on the 53 development agenda globally 1,3. Micronutrients, such as iron and zinc, are a particular focus; it is estimated that nearly two billion people lack key micronutrients 7 , underlying nearly half of all deaths in children under the age of five years , and reducing GDP in Africa by estimates of up to 11% 2,3,7. Consequently, efforts to tackle malnutrition have shifted from a focus on 57 increasing energy and macronutrients (e.g. protein) towards ensuring sufficient consumption 58 of micronutrients 3. People gain nutrients from a mix of locally produced and imported food products. Fish, harvested widely and traded both domestically and internationally, are a rich source of bioavailable micronutrients, which are often deficient in diets that rely heavily on plant-based sources 6,8. Fish could therefore help address nutritional deficiencies if there are 62 sufficient quantities of fishery-derived nutrients accessible in places where deficiencies exist. 63 However, addressing this major food policy frontier has been elusive, in part because the 64 nutrient composition of fish varies significantly among species, and data remain sparse for most species 5. Here we determine the contribution marine fisheries can make to addressing micronutrient 68 deficiencies. First, using strict inclusion protocols (methods), we developed a database of 2,267 69 measures of nutritional composition, from 367 fish species, spanning 43 countries, for seven nutrients essential to human health: calcium, iron, selenium, zinc, vitamin A, omega-3 (n-3 71 fatty acids), and protein. We then gathered species-level environmental and ecological traits 72 that capture elements of diet, thermal regime, and energetic demand in fish 9,10 to develop a series of Bayesian hierarchical models that determine drivers of nutrient content (Methods).

No abstract

The vast developmental opportunities offered by the world's coasts and oceans have attracted the attention of governments, private enterprises, philanthropic organizations, and international conservation organizations. High-profile dialogue and policy decisions on the future of the ocean are informed largely by economic and ecological research. Key insights from the social sciences raise concerns for food and nutrition security, livelihoods and social justice, but these have yet to gain traction with investors and the policy discourse on transforming ocean governance. The largest group of ocean-userswomen and men who service, fish and trade from small-scale fisheries (SSF)-argue that they have been marginalized from the dialogue between international environmental and economic actors that is determining strategies for the future of the ocean. Blue Economy or Blue Growth initiatives see the ocean as the new economic frontier and imply an alignment with social objectives and SSF concerns. Deeper analysis reveals fundamental differences in ideologies, priorities and approaches. We argue that SSF are being subtly and overtly squeezed for geographic, political and economic space by larger scale economic and environmental conservation interests, jeopardizing the substantial benefits SSF provide through the livelihoods of millions of women and men, for the food security of around four billion consumers globally, and in the developing world, as a key source of micro-nutrients and protein for over a billion low-income consumers. Here, we bring insights from social science and SSF to explore how ocean governance might better account for social dimensions of fisheries.

No abstract

This chapter discusses the collection of data on small-scale fisheries in developing countries, the limitations of national data systems and progress in synthesizing collected data.

No abstract

Fishing communities are often recognised as being amongst the poorest in developing countries, and interventions targeted at improving resource status seen as central in the fight against poverty. A series of field assessments focusing on vulnerability conducted in two communities in Mali and Nigeria revealed some counterintuitive results. Despite fishing being the primary livelihood, vulnerabilities relating directly to the state of the resource were ranked lower than those relating to basic human needs. Those results challenge the conventional view and suggest that non-sectoral interventions can have more effective impacts on the livelihood of those communities than interventions targeting the resources.

No abstract