The oceans are key to regulate the world’s climate, yet they are also heavily affected by climate change. Global warming is leading to higher surface water temperatures, rising sea-levels, oxygen deficiency zones, acidification, and changes in ocean currents. All these changes impact significantly coastal ecosystems, and in turn, the communities that depend on them for their livelihoods and survival.
African small-scale fishing communities will be the first to experience the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss, due to their geographical location and limited means to cope with the damages. They already face declines in their catches, linked to the decline and migration to colder places of fish stocks and to the loss of mangroves and coral reefs, which are nurseries for many species. Fishers also experience extreme weather events and coastline erosion, which result in loss of coastal land, destruction of housing and infrastructure and disappearance of their landing sites. Other factors add up to an even bleaker picture: overfishing, urbanization, or human-induced eutrophication.
Much of coastal Africa will be heavily impacted by climate change. What will be the consequences for African small-scale fishing communities?
what are we doing?
Decisions to curb global warming and prevent biodiversity loss are often taken in a top-down manner, without the participation of those most affected: the fishing communities. For example, governments have recently agreed to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030. Yet, merely declaring large areas as protected zones does not address the often-unsustainable exploitation of ocean resources.
Felicito Núñez at the UN Ocean Conference in 2022. Photo: CFFA.
“We are caretakers of the territories where we live and their natural resources. Nobody enters another person’s house without asking: any decision about the conservation of our territories must have our consent.”
We advocate for governments to address the impacts of global warming in a way that guarantees the sustainable and equitable use of marine and coastal resources, as well as transparent and participative management of these resources:
We inform of cases where climate change and biodiversity loss mitigation, marine spatial planning, or conservation projects have an impact on the rights and livelihoods of African artisanal fishing communities;
We demand that governments recognize the rights of coastal communities, including their free, prior, and informed consent before any decision on the oceans are taken, including for conservation purposes and for designating marine protected areas;
We call, with small-scale fishing organisations, for co-management systems for 100% of all coastal areas, with the appropriate financial support and legal frameworks that clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the authorities and fishers; and
We support initiatives that improve the communities’ resilience, particularly facing resource scarcity, helping them reduce post-harvest losses or developing supply alternatives, with the objective of offering long term decent livelihoods prospects to youth.
CONSERVATION FINANCE
Conservation finance has become dominant in the efforts to avert the climate crisis and reverse biodiversity loss. While the proponents present an ambitious vision, understanding the jargon is difficult. There is a pressing need for clarity over what this industry is doing. Check our series of articles.
latest publications on climate change, conservation and fisheries
Closing the funding gap for biodiversity conservation is one of the critical topics at COP 16 in October 2024. The funding gap has been estimated at $700 billion in Goal D of the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, based on a report, “Financing Nature”, published in 2020. Taking the example of fisheries and ocean conservation, this article shows the $700 billion figure is based on highly dubious calculations and assumptions. The author argues the funding gap report is not a serious effort to estimate the needs for supporting conservation efforts. Therefore, the $700 billion figure should be rejected by those opposed to the continuing financialisation of conservation.