The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.
Coastal Indigenous peoples rely on ocean resources and are highly vulnerable to ecosystem and economic change. Their challenges have been observed and recognized at local and regional scales, yet there are no global-scale analyses to inform international policies. We compile available data for over 1,900 coastal Indigenous communities around the world representing 27 million people across 87 countries. Based on available data at local and regional levels, we estimate a total global yearly seafood consumption of 2.1 million (1.5 million–2.8 million) metric tonnes by coastal Indigenous peoples, equal to around 2% of global yearly commercial fisheries catch. Results reflect the crucial role of seafood for these communities; on average, consumption per capita is 15 times higher than non-Indigenous country populations. These findings contribute to an urgently needed sense of scale to coastal Indigenous issues, and will hopefully prompt increased recognition and directed research regarding the marine knowledge and resource needs of Indigenous peoples. Marine resources are crucial to the continued existence of coastal Indigenous peoples, and their needs must be explicitly incorporated into management policies.
Indigenous groups include some 370 million people, 5% of the global population, and an overwhelming number exist in precarious socioeconomic and political conditions [
In the context of globalization, exogenous economic and political pressures affect both the ecological setting [
The critical status of Indigenous peoples and their relation to marine resources in particular have been recognized in a number of international agreements. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People [
Despite this recognition, no quantitative studies exist that provide a sense of scale to coastal Indigenous issues at the global level. This is partly due to research difficulties in what are often small and remote communities (e.g., [
The objective of this study is to provide an initial estimate of the marine coastal Indigenous population and the yearly amount of seafood necessary to meet their consumptive needs. We develop a methodological framework that draws on available research at local scales to arrive at regional and global estimates, while highlighting existing knowledge gaps. The ultimate goal of this study is to bring Indigenous issues to the forefront of ocean sustainability and food sovereignty discussions, providing quantitative data to update our understanding of diversity in global marine management and research, and stimulate further directed research at multiple scales.
A universal definition of “Indigenous peoples” is considered unnecessary and undesirable by both Indigenous peoples and international organizations [
Following from the above, and solely for the purposes of this study, “coastal Indigenous peoples” (CIPs) here include recognized Indigenous groups, and unrecognized but self-identified ethnic minority groups, whose cultural heritage and socio-economic practices are connected to marine ecosystems that are central to their daily lives and key to their nature-culture dynamics and concepts of surroundings, language, and world views [
Only for the purposes of this analysis, a Coastal Indigenous People (CIP) is a recognized or self-identified ethnic minority (or Small Island Developing State) community or group residing on a marine coast.
Although they are often not demographic minorities, Indigenous peoples in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are included in the above definition as their relationships to surrounding marine environments hold similar social and cultural importance to CIPs as defined above. With the exception of distinctively highland groups (e.g., in Papua New Guinea), populations in SIDS are thus inextricably linked with marine ecosystems. We therefore include ethnic Indigenous populations (based on census data) of the SIDS as CIPs regardless of whether they are minorities, though we present these results separately to maintain consistency in our method (
Following from the above (
Information sources on CIPs were examined for data related to seafood (here meant as fish, invertebrates, and other marine living resources) consumption at the group or community scale. This included reviewing available ethnographies and public health data and publications on CIPs to find quantitative information on seafood consumption. Conversely, quantitative research on fisheries catch was examined to identify subsistence catch of CIPs specifically. The data included represent direct measures of consumption (e.g., from diet or subsistence fishery studies) rather than inferences based on production and net trade (i.e., ‘apparent consumption’). All references for data included in the analysis are presented in
For each CIP with seafood consumption data, we calculated the ratio between per capita consumption and the per capita consumption of the country (or, for transboundary groups, the subregion) where it is located. This ratio addresses potential inter-country differences in fish consumption due to wider environmental, cultural, or social characteristics, and is used as a multiplier (
When community-specific data were not available, a meta-analytical value-transfer model was used to estimate seafood consumption. This is a step-wise approach to estimating missing data, under the key assumption that missing data points can be imputed using available data from similar cases [
Grouping records into meaningful socio-economic, political, geographic, and ecological sets is key for this analysis, so we used UN-defined ocean areas and global regions [
Population data were often available, but, where absent, we assumed that the population was equal to half of the value of the first quantile for CIPs with available population data. This assumes that communities or groups without any available population estimates are most likely small. This very conservative estimate may be a source of underestimation of results, yet is necessary given the scope of the analysis and can easily be updated as data become available. To provide a range for global estimates, the standard deviation of estimated yearly fish consumption is used for CIPs where data are available, and the mean of all standard deviation data is used for CIPs without such data.
In order to test the sensitivity of consumption estimates to starting data, we use a jackknife approach [
The coastal Indigenous group database includes 1,924 CIP records and 611 unique groups; 87 countries are represented, spanning all five FAO regions and 20 of the 21 FAO subregions. Fish consumption data were found for 156 CIPs belonging to 110 Indigenous groups, representing over 3.5 million people. CIP locations are shown in
Colors denote the amount of data available for each CIP (i.e., location, population, seafood consumption rate).
Seafood consumption data at the community or group level were available for 16% of CIPs (including SIDS). For the meta-analytical estimation, 73% of CIPs had data available at the country level (or, for large countries, ocean area) and 10% at the sub-region level; only 1% of CIP consumption estimates for smaller countries were based on data at the ocean area level; use of regional-level estimates was not necessary.
There were significant differences in consumption per capita ratios (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05;
Values are average over all CIPs in each subregion, including both primary and estimated data. Global mean consumption per capita (dashed line) is for world population based on FAO data [
Based on available data, we estimate that 26.6 million coastal Indigenous peoples globally account for a yearly seafood consumption of 1.9 million (1.3 million—2.5 million). Indigenous coastal inhabitants of SIDS consume a further 231 thousand tonnes (167 thousand—295 thousand) of seafood per year. Result from sensitivity analyses show that the range of consumption estimates given fewer initial data was narrow (CV = 3.6%), with a tendency to underestimate consumption relative to the baseline estimate using all available data (
For each of 5,000 model runs (points), each model iteration randomly omits 10% of initial (observed) data points. Grey area is the confidence bound for each model estimation. Dashed lines show mean (2.1 million tonnes), lower (1.5 million tonnes), and upper (2.8 million tonnes) consumption estimates averaged over all iterations.
Values are mean, or total, for all CIPs (
Region | n | N | Fish consumption (kg·capita-1·year-1) | Consumption ratio | Total consumption (t 103·year-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eastern Africa | 11 | 28 | 142 | 25.9 | 315 |
Middle Africa | 5 | 18 | 164 | 9.7 | 50 |
Northern Africa | 6 | 44 | 67 | 162 | 26 |
Southern Africa | 1 | 1 | 145 | 25.5 | 0.03 |
Western Africa | 1 | 42 | 107 | 7.4 | 436 |
Caribbean | 1 | 5 | 52 | 2.4 | 1 |
Central America | 3 | 28 | 39 | 3.8 | 76 |
Northern America | 111 | 374 | 69 | 3.1 | 41 |
South America | 4 | 36 | 47 | 3.5 | 56 |
Eastern Asia | - | 2 | 144 | 3.8 | 7 |
Southeastern Asia | 9 | 167 | 91 | 2.6 | 164 |
Southern Asia | - | 8 | 90 | 71.3 | 777 |
Western Asia | - | 7 | 80 | 61.6 | 6 |
Eastern Europe | 1 | 19 | 71 | 3.2 | 14 |
Northern Europe | 3 | 3 | 69 | 1.6 | 10 |
Australia & New Zealand | 119 | 332 | 48 | 1.8 | 47 |
Melanesia | 15 | 758 | 24 | 1.6 | 100 |
Micronesia | 9 | 29 | 85 | 1.5 | 30 |
Polynesia | 9 | 23 | 66 | 1.1 | 35 |
Decreasing the total number of data points included in the analysis was directly correlated with increases in the CV of total consumption estimates, but also with relatively small decreases in estimated total consumption (
The average annual fish consumption per capita (in kg, henceforth ‘kyc’) for groups in the database was 74 kyc (
The highest total consumption occurs in tropical areas with large coastal Indigenous populations and high per capita consumption rates (
Values for individual CIPs are summed by Exclusive Economic Zones.
Values for individual CIPs are averaged by Exclusive Economic Zone.
The scale of coastal Indigenous seafood consumption is highly relevant to international policies for the recognition and protection of Indigenous peoples’ livelihoods, and significant for fisheries management at international and national scales. Drawing from research in various disciplines, a wealth of information exists to inform this and future interdisciplinary studies on Indigenous issues, highlighted by the wide range of case studies found across the world (
Seafood consumption rates among coastal Indigenous peoples (CIPs) (74 kg·capita-1·year-1) are, unsurprisingly, higher than national averages (19 kg·capita-1·year-1), though comparisons between consumption of Indigenous peoples and the regions in which they are located (
Total and per-capita seafood demand of CIPs is concentrated around equatorial regions in Africa and Asia, and in the Arctic (Figs
As international environmental governance advances (e.g., 21), management decisions affecting Indigenous peoples should require their involvement and consent. The aggregated data presented here are no more important than the understanding developed from direct engagement with Indigenous peoples. It is, rather, a necessary step to add value to ongoing research by consolidating a platform for cross-scale and interdisciplinary discussion. This will increasingly rely both on continued ethnographic and public health studies, and integration of Indigenous issues in quantitative analyses regarding fisheries and coastal management policies [
Qualitative research on Indigenous fisheries has provided crucial perspectives by addressing their cultural meaning and social organization. Applied studies on broader small-scale fisheries usually explore the engagement of local fishers with management or conservation strategies (e.g., [
A key benefit of our methodological framework is that it can be refined through examination of assumptions, added data, and independent estimates. Sensitivity analyses (
We note that this global overview requires collecting and categorizing group and community-level information without fully reflecting its historical context, which can be controversial when group identity and membership continue to be exogenously and endogenously contested. For example, ethnicity in some regions (e.g., India) is tied to social class struggles and discrimination, an issue which we do not address here. Moreover, applying fisheries and economics concepts to interpret cultural uses of fish can make our estimates less appropriate in terms of defining the practice of fishing from a cultural perspective. If fish are not caught or exchanged in a “traditional manner” or “ceremonial ritual”, for instance, or if “traditional ecological knowledge” is not directly applied, should this fishery be considered less culturally important? These issues are beyond the scope of this study, yet can be addressed through further integration of ethno-historical contexts in research, despite being unlikely to ever address in general terms all complexities of cultural identities [
International environmental sustainability strategies identify a need to recognize and support Indigenous fisheries and their contribution to culture and food sovereignty [
This study provides quantitative scale to marine Indigenous fisheries, while reinforcing the argument that the recognition of community practices—a defining characteristic of Indigenous peoples—is key to sustainable fisheries and oceans. The scale of ongoing ecological and socioeconomic challenges cannot be remediated by the actions of Indigenous peoples alone. Coastal Indigenous communities require increased recognition and support from the public and legitimate organizations, as well as interdisciplinary analyses that carefully consider cultural value and perspective as well as global ecological and economic trends.
Finally, we argue that recognizing the importance of access to natural resources for Indigenous peoples contributes to ensuring their human security. Virtually all groups reviewed in this study contend with resource competition with other communities, international corporations, and states, but also face security risks through broader conflicts and displacement. Threats to their security stem from both historical and contemporary dynamics, and are further exacerbated by risks from climate change [
For each exclusion ratio, a different random subset of initial data points was excluded from the analysis in each of 1,000 model runs. Points show mean consumption estimate; lines show coefficient of variation.
(TIF)
Each observed data point was omitted from model input and estimated from remaining data. Solid line is 1:1.
(TIF)
Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05) results comparing average seafood consumption ratio per capita by global subregion. Only primary data, not estimates, are used in this analysis. Pairs marked with asterisks have significantly different seafood consumption (*p<0.05; **p<0.01).
(DOCX)
CV is estimated based on 5,000 model runs, where a random 10% of data points are excluded from the analysis before each iteration.
(DOCX)
References can contain information for more than one coastal Indigenous community and/or group.
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
This is a product of the Nippon Foundation Nereus Program, a collaborative initiative by the Nippon Foundation and partners including The University of British Columbia. Daniel Pauly acknowledges support from the