The coast and inshore waters are ecosystems small-scale fishers depend on for their livelihoods. This reliance and their intrinsic knowledge explain why their role as key stewards of those habitats is increasingly being recognised. African countries have turned their attention to how small-scale fisheries can contribute to fulfilling their climate and biodiversity goals. The EU should ensure to support this, particularly in strengthening priority access and funding co-management in coastal waters for small-scale fishers.
Reading time: 16 minutes
In September 2024, the ministers for ocean, inland waters and fisheries of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states (OACPS) gathered in Dar es Salaam for their 8th meeting, declared that they encouraged “the establishment of artisanal stewardship areas by effectively closing inshore or wider shelf areas, where small-scale fishers operate, to industrial fishing and other industrial activity.”
This ministerial declaration also calls OACPS members to promote the effective co-management of 100% of these artisanal stewardship areas (ASAs) together with fishers. They saw ASAs as a way to improve “sustainable management of the small-scale fisheries sector,” maintain healthy fish stocks, “securing livelihoods and substantially contributing to conservation targets, including Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.”
Since the declaration, some timid developments have happened, Ghana leading the way by extending its Inshore Exclusion Zone (IEZ) to 12 nautical miles (nm) in August 2025. Senegal also announced the establishment of an IEZ of 12 nautical miles at the UN Ocean Conference in Nice in June 2025, but no concrete measure has yet been taken. In contrast, other African nations’ fishers are facing the encroachment of existing IEZ, for example, through the drafting of fisheries management plans granting exceptions for trawlers and semi-industrial vessels to fish in parts of IEZs, as is the case of Liberia.
As the EU is reviewing its external fisheries action strategy – and Commissioner Costas Kadis developing his “Ocean Diplomacy” – it should look at its closest neighbour and partner. In Africa, artisanal fisheries account for 66% of the catch, provide livelihoods for more than 10 million men and women and supply nutritive and affordable food to more than 200 million. The sector also indirectly employs many other men and women, from carpenter, ice producers, and mechanics, to youth who daily offload the fish from the canoes. For example, in Senegal, it is estimated one in 6 people are employed in a job linked to the fishing sector.
In this regard, a truly inclusive ocean governance and diplomacy needs to take into account the needs and demands of African fishing communities while supporting African states in fulfilling their commitments towards the ocean and those that depend on them for their livelihoods.
The inshore exclusive zones (IEZs) in African countries have to be looked at through the stewardship perspective: firstly, we look at the demands of African small-scale fishers with regards to preferential access and co-management, secondly, we look at challenges fishers face in relation to IEZs. Finally, we look at how the EU can support preferential access, co-management and environmental stewardship in Africa.
1. Building on preferential access to foster stewardship
1.1 PREFERENTIAL ACCESS: A GLOBAL CONSENSUS WITH LEGAL BASIS
In a previous article, CFFA analysed a series of studies jointly commissioned by the African confederation of artisanal fisheries organisations (CAOPA) and CFFA on areas reserved to artisanal fisheries in several African countries. In it, CFFA delved into the legal basis for preferential access for small-scale fishers to certain coastal waters. UNCLOS places emphasis on environmental and economic factors for access and prioritises nationals that have traditionally fished in certain areas (see art 61.3 and 62.3 of UNCLOS). The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) and the Guidelines to secure sustainable small-scale fisheries (2014), both non-binding yet providing a hint of the global appetite for recognising the role and importance of small-scale fisheries, point towards a human-rights-based approach to fisheries management, bringing in the concepts of “preferential access” and “exclusive zones”.
These two documents implicitly acknowledge the need to protect small-scale fisheries from other competitors for the coastal space. Historically, industrial fisheries have been seen as the main competitors, but lately this has widened to other “blue sectors” also competing for space in areas where small-scale fishers operate. However, literature continues to focus almost exclusively on industrial fishing as the principal threat to small-scale fishing operations.
Preferential access is linked to the acknowledgment of coastal communities’ tenure rights. However, tenure rights – that is, access to the resources coastal communities depend on – should also be linked to “devolved rights” or co-management rights, that is the right to participate in management of these resources.
Before implementing any project, the EU should support consultation with local communities, ensuring the necessary transparency so that they are fully informed and can participate effectively. Photo: Members of a cooperative of women fish processors in Grand Béréby, Côte d'Ivoire.
Indeed, in the latest review of preferential areas (2024), the authors recognise that co-management is an essential element for the success of exclusive zones: “if appropriately enforced through shared governance with fishers and responsible fishing practices, relatively small areas of the ocean could provide important nutrition security, economic, and employment benefits to millions of people living in coastal areas.” [Ed. Our emphasis]
1.2 FULFILLING CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY GOALS: BRINGING THE STEWARDSHIP CONCEPT IN
In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the stewardship of small-scale fishing communities in preserving and protecting the ecosystems they depend on for their livelihoods. It is no coincidence that the OACPS placed the idea of “artisanal stewardship areas” along with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets. Global evidence shows that small-scale fishing communities “are among the world’s most effective contributors to safeguarding aquatic resources and environments.” Small-scale fishers participating at the 8th OACPS conference in 2024 requested that “when it is demonstrated that the conservation of biodiversity is a direct result of the establishment of areas reserved for small-scale fishing, prohibited to industrial fishing, co-managed by fishers and the Ministry of Fisheries, then these areas should be considered by our States as contributions to the "30 x 30" objective."
Whether these artisanal stewardships areas can be recognized as contributions to the 30x30 goal is something that a Technical Support Group (TSG) has been tasked to do by the OACPS: “One of our goals is to identify ways for artisanal stewardship areas to meet credible standards and have genuine conservation impact, as part of national and international efforts to both track progress towards 30x30 and the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Small-Scale Fisheries,” explains Hugh Govan, member of the TSG.
1.3 A CALL TO ACTION THAT RESONATES GLOBALLY: THE DEMANDS OF SMALL-SCALE FISHERS
Since early 2022, small-scale fisher organisations have actively been engaging in advocacy with the OACPS, the African Union and the EU, through a “Call to action” requesting that tenure rights and access to fishing resources are protected and that their participation in fisheries management is guaranteed: “Our governments must grant us exclusive access rights to coastal fishing, by closing inshore areas to industrial fishing and other industrial activity and by protecting title, tenure, access, and resource rights,” states priority 1 of the Call to Action (2022), and they must also “implement co-management systems for 100% of all coastal areas, by putting in place specific legal frameworks that clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the authorities and fishers.” [Our emphasis, Ed.]
Their second priority is to make sure that the gender perspective is taken into account, acknowledging the key role women in fisheries play both in innovation and conservation of resources management. Women in the fishing sector are indeed often invisible in decision-making processes and “their work and contribution are neither recognized nor valued.”
“Small-scale fishing communities ask that their value is recognized beyond profit, for the benefits they bring to coastal communities and the environment, in terms of livelihoods, food security, culture, well-being and as the best-informed stewards.””
The presence of men and women representing small-scale fisheries at the UN Ocean conference (UNOC) 2 and 3 in Lisbon (2022) and Nice (2025) reminded other stakeholders of their relevance as guardians of the ocean and of their dependence on healthy ecosystems for their survival. They recalled that, under Sustainable Development Goal 14 “life under water”, there is also target b – “guaranteeing access to resources and markets for small-scale fisheries”. No effective ocean conservation can happen without coastal small-scale fishing communities. In their letter to the co-drafters of the UNOC 3 political declaration (2025), they quote the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to a clean environment and argue that “the conservation of the sea and its resources will depend on a clearly inclusive and equitable conservation that considers us under a human rights approach.”
In this regard, African decision-makers and their partners cannot ignore the importance of preferential and exclusive access to coastal areas and the pressing need for co-management to ensure food security, livelihoods and achieving biodiversity goals, and it is reassuring that the OACPS ministers included this in their final declaration. Successful artisanal stewardship areas cannot be done without the support of governments and the guarantee for fishing communities that both their tenure rights and genuine participation will be respected and encouraged.
2. When exclusive is not so exclusive: Key challenges for small-scale fishers in IEZs
No African country has yet implemented an effective artisanal stewardship area, although there are some examples “pointing in the right direction”. Our goal is not to develop an exhaustive analysis, and CFFA can only but point at the ongoing work being carried out by Duke and Stanford Universities on preferential access and community-based conservation.
Nevertheless, African decision-makers have expressed their wish to respond to fishers’ demands – at least in words. We believe it is therefore useful to understand what key challenges small-scale fishers express facing the current architecture of inshore exclusive zones in their countries. The aim is to point at some general recommendations for those who wish to partner with African countries in their quest to secure access and resources to small-scale fisheries.
2.1 AN UNFAIR BATTLE GROUND? INCURSIONS, COMPETITION AND (LACK OF) ENFORCEMENT
The most common complaint from fishers concerns the lack of enforcement by authorities of the areas that are reserved to them. Beyond competition for resources, incursions by industrial vessels have serious and sometimes fatal consequences, such as destruction of SSF gear or collisions with local canoes resulting sometimes in lives lost at sea. These can happen especially at night, when such infringing vessels switch off their lights not to be detected by patrols. “Our 12nm area is exploited by foreign vessels, mostly of Asian origin,” explains Papa Cá, which leads a fisher’s cooperative in the area of Biombo in Guinea Bissau. “Poaching by industrial fisheries within the 9 nm reserved to artisanal fisheries is the major issue in The Gambia,” says Dawda Saine, from the Gambian National Association of Artisanal Fishing Operators (NAAFO). Fishers who try to contest the presence of these vessels often do so at the risk of their lives.
The incursions of industrial vessels into artisanal fishing zones can have serious consequences, such as the destruction of artisanal fishing gear and collisions with SSF canoes, which can cause loss of life at sea. Photo: Carmen Abd Ali.
In some cases, the competition small-scale fishers face inside their reserved area is “legal”. Many IEZ regulations carry exceptions or have loopholes allowing for foreign and foreign-origin industrial and semi-industrial vessels to fish in the area reserved for small-scale fisheries. “The laws only refer to trawling, whereas small-scale fishers face competition from Turkish and Chinese seiners that also fish for small pelagic species,” complains Harouna Lebaye, from the Mauritanian Fédération libre de pêche artisanale (FLPA). These seiners obtain a “coastal fishery licence” allowing them to come closer to the coast. In Liberia, the Liberian Artisanal Fishermen Association Liberian (LAFA) has been advocating for a decade to protect the 6nm IEZ from being further unravelled, recently calling for stopping the approval of a controversial Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) that would allow semi-industrial trawlers between 4 and 6 nm.
Other exceptions open the door for abuses, for example, the former Ghanaian regulation allowed trawlers to fish for bait in the IEZ; while the former Guinean legislation allowed for “advanced artisanal fishing”, a euphemism for semi-industrial vessels. Foreign-origin trawlers then simply used a straw man to obtain a national fishing licence. Both these cases are now addressed in the legislation, but they bring us to a more general question: even if the regulations are clear and protective of an IEZ, what is the real capacity for these African countries to actually deter industrial vessels and enforce IEZs?
2.2 A FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND SAFE ACCESS?
When it comes to defining zones or types of fishing operations, African countries’ fisheries legislations have sometimes been drafted to reflect the reality on the ground. For example, for decades, fishers in certain regions have crossed borders to continue their operations, and legislations frequently recognise this through provisions granting access to nationals from neighbouring countries, or even from the region or the subregion (such as ECOWAS nationals in the case of Guinea). Bilateral agreements also allow for access across borders.
Yet, this also comes with conflicts between small-scale fishers. In Guinea Bissau fishers complain that “fishers both from Senegal and Guinea are using more advanced fishing gear” than local fishers, “and also smaller mesh sizes, which are illegal,” reports Papa Cá.
Finally, access needs to be safe. In some cases, biological rest and seasonal closures, agreed upon by fishers for breeding and recuperation of the stocks, push fishers further out at sea. In Seychelles, the key challenge for fishers now is access further away from the coast, and even beyond their reserved area, as they are facing the impacts of climate change and rougher seas.
2.3 UNCLEAR CONTOURS OF IEZs, OFTEN BEING NIBBLED AWAY AT
The lack of clarity about the limits of IEZs makes it also difficult for fishers to detect incursions and raise the issue to competent authority. In our previous article, we mentioned the example of unclear legislation, with several amendments changing the size and the exceptions for access to the IEZs, notably The Gambia legislations.
The previous legislation in Ghana offers another example: the definition of the IEZ, “from the coastline to the 30-m isobath line or 6nm, whichever is further”, resulted in a very irregular nautical map (see image below) which, according to several researchers averaged to 12nm. However, it was difficult for fishers to navigate. “The previous demarcation allowed trawling just around 6nm and the ease to rush into the zone,” explains Nana Kweigyah of the Canoe and Fishing Gear Owners Association of Ghana (CaFGOAG): “With the expansion to 12nm, several places with depth below 30m, and even 50m or beyond are falling within the 12nm zone, effectively protecting all those areas from bottom trawling.” The new legislation establishing a fix distance from the coast of 12 nm allows for more clarity for fishers.
There are also cases like in the northern area of Mauritania, where the area reserved to artisanal fishing “is very narrow and there are often conflicts between fishers and trawlers,” explains Eida Bamba, former captain and representative of the artisanal fishing section of the Fédération Nationale des Pêches (FNP). For Harouna Lebaye, it would be great if there was a buffer zone to avoid these kinds of conflicts. In a recent study, however, authors explain that the concentration of industrial vessels’ effort right outside the IEZ is an obvious consequence of the creation of an IEZ: “a discontinuous increase in industrial fishing vessel presence just outside a country’s IEZ boundary can be attributed to the IEZ.” Yet, what most fishers denounce is that in many cases, “these shrimp and pelagic trawlers switch off their VMS” and enter the IEZ anyway.
Sometimes the definition of the limits of IEZs is complicated to navigate for fishers. For example, Ghana’s former legislation “from the coastline to the 30-m isobath line or 6nm, whichever is further”, resulted in a very irregular nautical map. Image: Delineation of territorial waters (12 nm) and the area extending from the coast to the 50-meter isobath line. Courtesy of the Canoe and Fishing Gears Owners Association of Ghana and Blue Ventures.
There are other examples where the exclusivity of IEZs is being nibbled away, this time coming from inside and that is: the establishment of no-take Marine Protected Areas in areas where fishers have traditionally fished. Most of these initiatives come from the global pressure towards achieving goal 30x30 and are implemented top-down without the consent of the local communities. Fishers find themselves kicked out of areas and find they have to operate further away from their homes. This is reducing their profit and endangering their livelihoods.
Fishers also lack the means to identify the delimitations of these MPAs and are regularly arrested by coast guards, as in the case of Guinea Bissau: “Fishers ask whether the Framework Law on Marine Protected Areas could be amended or modified to allow access for those fishers living near MPAs,” explains Papa Cá. Lack of meaningful and effective participation results in a lack of ownership by fishers and here is where the concept of stewardship should step in.
There are good examples of good conservation, which includes communities in the management of the areas, such as the Grand-Béréby MPA in Côte d’Ivoire, where the zones were identified and agreed with local communities: “a small 'buffer' strip of subsistence fishing for local communities, a zone for artisanal fishing but free of trawling and closed to industrial fishing, and fully protected areas, which are mainly located at the mouths of the most important rivers and breeding grounds for fish species (mangroves).” Authorities and civil society involved in conservation work hand-in-hand with fishing communities and sensitise them on the different zones.
3. The dark clouds of blue economy sectors
Beyond industrial fisheries, other sectors are also threatening small-scale fisheries. Marine spatial planning is presented as a panacea for reducing the conflicts between conflicting industrial sectors that want to access the ocean and coasts. Yet, in this sharing of the cake, fishers are the ones that are most vulnerable, for their position, access and because their sector not being considered “profitable enough”.
If they obtain small victories in excluding industrial vessels from certain areas, they are facing other competition from gas and oil exploitation at sea, to coastal tourism privatising their landing sites, to fishmeal factories. For such developments, fishers ask that “the precautionary approach and transparency and effective participation of small-scale fisheries should guide any new ocean use.” They also ask that their value is recognized beyond profit, for the benefits they bring to coastal communities and the environment, in terms of livelihoods, food security, culture, well-being and as the best-informed stewards, with the most at stake: “We are the only blue sector that provides healthy, nutritious and affordable food the poorest of the population,” they recall.
In Africa, marine spatial planning (MSP), typically introduced as a tool for making management of the seas more inclusive, in fact often excludes affected communities or reduces them to passive participants, facing more powerful and better resourced sectors. Furthermore, MSP processes are often set up with the only purpose to whitewash a decision that has already been made. When MSP is applied that way, it becomes a tool of dispossession.
MSP should instead be guided by principles of social and environmental justice, ecosystem-based approach for all marine uses and full awareness of the existing power structures. The processes should follow the precautionary approach, transparency, inclusiveness, and stakeholders’ informed participation, with a particular attention to the needs of the most numerous, albeit vulnerable, users like African small scale fishing communities. In this regard, social impact assessments should be included on top of environmental ones and access and tenure rights and preferential treatment for small-scale fisheries should be guaranteed.
“Instead of reducing communities to passive participants, marine spatial planning should be used as a tool for making management of the seas more inclusive.””
Moreover, there should be safeguards to ensure fair processes. For example, it is essential to clearly define the interested parties – avoiding keeping stakeholders’ definition vague as this is an opportunity to ignore inconvenient voices. The criteria for decision-making and means of resolving conflicts need also to be clear from the outset as should the means to appeal decisions through an independent party. Lastly, there should be clear consequences for non-observance of procedures or agreements to avoid “fait accompli” outcomes, such as the possibility to invalidate decisions and to receive financial compensation.
Conclusion: how can the EU boost food security and conservation through African small-scale fisheries’ stewardship
In view of the next Multiannual Funding Framework (2028-2034), the European Commission has “merged” fisheries with other sector’s funding, which is likely to result in an overall reduction of the fisheries budget. The proposal, however, increases funding for Global Europe, although it has not yet specified how the budget lines will be shared. Everything points to external policies geared towards defending EU’s strategic interests, such as trade, security and migration, instead of more traditional development goals. We urge the EU to gear its external partnerships also towards the EU’s shared values, that is, democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights, and an enhanced focus on policy coherence.
In fisheries and ocean policy, this should translate in practice into an emphasis on stakeholder participation and information, combining social justice, marine conservation and food security for the benefit of current and future generations. Artisanal fishing zones or Inshore Exclusion Zones (IEZs) have the potential to contribute to these goals, on the condition that African countries are sufficiently effective in deterring industrial vessels from making incursions and in protecting small-scale fisheries from the unfair competition of more powerful “blue” industries, and provided small-scale fishing communities are efficiently included in the management of the resources.
Through its relations with African countries, the EU can support Artisanal Stewardship Areas, including by:
no competition of EU and EU-origin fleet with SSF in the areas reserved to them
The EU should ensure that no Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA) allows for access to IEZs nor access to stocks which are essential for SSF, such as small pelagics and some demersal species. There are cases where EU trawlers’ bycatch consists of species that are also targeted by locals. The EU should also discuss with third countries to establish a framework for joint fishing ventures, making sure their operations are transparent, socially, and environmentally sustainable, and do not compete with small-scale fishers. The EU should particularly better control its own beneficial owners. The LDAC advice on joint ventures provides key recommendations on how the EU could advance on sustainability of joint ventures.
the enforcement of current Inshore Exclusion Zones
The EU should support the development of legislation improving and clarifying IEZs delimitations so that they cover the appropriate area and fish stocks. The EU should continue reinforcing the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) capacities of its partner countries, as is the case under the MCS component of projects such as WASOP, which will be carried out by the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). When implementing these programs, the EU should particularly look at the challenges in the IEZs and support participatory surveillance.
Stakeholder participation and co-management
The EU should support the consultation of local communities before any project is undertaken. This includes the necessary transparency for stakeholders to be duly informed for an effective participation. As a reliable partner, the EU should encourage the third country to consult and facilitate the participation of communities, and if possible, to encourage and financially support fisheries co-management.
a Precautionary approach
Along with participation of affected communities, the EU should also make sure that due diligence is carried out for any EU-funded or EU-supported developments or projects carried out in coastal areas or areas reserved for artisanal fishers. This includes social and environmental impact assessments, for example, of projects funded under the Global Gateway initiative.
An inclusive conservation
In its funding towards nature conservation, the EU should remember that fishing communities are the best stewards of the ecosystems they depend on. It is essential that the EU envisages participative and inclusive conservation, one that comes from the grassroots and guarantees local ownership.
Banner photo: Women fish processor working on Sanyang landing site in Gambia.
SSF communities depend on the coast and inshore waters for their livelihoods. Many African countries now recognise small-scale fisheries’ role in achieving climate and biodiversity goals. The EU should support this by strengthening priority access and funding co-management in coastal waters.