New York, NY (November 21, 2025)—A new study by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) published in Coral Reefs reveals why many coral reef fishers remain in poverty, even as fish stocks decline and some fishers leave the profession. The research shows that ecological differences, economic pressures, and market incentives keep fishing effort high enough to suppress reef recovery – and trap remaining fishers below living wage thresholds.

Millions of people who rely on tropical coral reef fisheries around the world struggle to earn enough to meet basic needs. Although coral reefs are naturally productive, overfishing along populated coastlines is widespread, and the people managing fisheries often lack the guidance needed to balance sustainable catch with livable income. Traditional data collection and management approaches have failed to provide the information required to fully explain why poverty is so pervasive in fisheries and difficult to rectify.

To better understand these dynamics, Dr. Tim McClanahan, WCS Director of Marine Science, and Jesse Kosgei, WCS Kenya Research Scientist, analyzed three years of detailed landing site data from two distinct reef environments along the Kenyan coast. They examined fishing effort, areas fished, fish prices, and fisher revenue relative to poverty and living wage thresholds, pairing these data with fish population growth models to estimate sustainable production. 

Their findings show that fishers working in both high-productivity coastal fringing reefs and lower-productivity offshore island reefs ultimately earn similar incomes – just above the poverty line, but still below a living wage. Fishers tend to leave or reduce fishing effort and look for a new employment or source of income when their earnings fall below poverty thresholds. However, this behavior and rising fish prices keeps their effort high enough to prevent stocks from recovering to their maximum growth and catch potential.

“Our first major finding was that fisheries production is naturally higher along coastal fringing reefs than on offshore islands,” said Kosgei. “Many past fisheries production models assumed similar productivity everywhere, which has led to some unrealistic estimates of sustainable yields. We now know that coastal fringing reefs can support higher maximum sustainable fish yields than the more offshore island systems but this is not achieved due to national thresholds in minimum acceptable incomes.”

Despite productivity differences, both systems are currently harvested by fishers at levels that prevent optimal recovery for the fishery. Fringing reefs alone are losing more than twice their potential yield and revenue due to sustained fishing pressure. While Kenyan fishers have gradually reduced effort over the past 25 years, rising fish prices have simultaneously encouraged many to remain if they can still meet some basic needs. The rising price of fish has meant that fishers are getting slightly more money when capturing fewer fish, which hides the fact that their fisheries are actually declining in productivity and employment capacity over time. 

“It was surprising how often people were losing money and leaving fishing, and how few realized why,” said McClanahan. “Our results help explain why poverty persists in these fisheries and are provoking timely discussions where fishers are questioning why they fish, and reflecting on how to support their families while allowing stocks some time to recover.”

The study concludes that strategies focused solely on income support, like fishing gear subsidies or price incentives, are unlikely to help and may inadvertently prolong overfishing and the needed recovery of stocks. Instead, promoting policies to reduce fishing effort, protecting key fish aggregations, and banning capture of depleted species can allow fish biomass to rebound. Incorporating fisheries management restrictions that promote achieving living wage goals could increase recovery rates, food security, and ecological resilience.

“Knowing why this pervasive overfishing problem exists allows us to move toward solutions that are good for both people and nature,” McClanahan said. “Fisheries recovery is necessary, and possible. Rebuilding stocks can lift fisher families out of poverty, but it will require political will to set aside parts of fishing grounds in closures, restore missing and rare species, and develop alternative livelihood opportunities for fishers.”

Data collection and analysis efforts for this paper was supported by a United Kingdom International Development grant through the Blue Planet Fund’s COAST programme for the Asia-Africa BlueTech Superhighway project, the Bloomberg Ocean Initiative, and the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Fish managed by Mississippi State University through an award from USAID.

###