Climate change and food security in sub-Saharan Africa: insights for fisheries and aquaculture


This paper reviews some of the foundations and upshots of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture productivity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the implications for food security. It further highlights possible measures for adaptation and mitigation of the impacts and this is borne out of the need for urgent attention and further inquiry into the relationship between climate change and fish food security in the region. Though fish is the most important source of cheap, quality animal protein, it is grossly insufficient in most SSA diets. To guarantee the nutritional well-being of its population, a consistent supply of fish is essential. However, the region ranks high in terms of susceptibility to climate change amidst several challenges bedeviling fish production and this further threatens its efficacy. Therefore, to achieve effective management of fisheries and aquaculture through adaptation and mitigation in the face of climate fluctuations and change, it is quintessential for stakeholders to drive co-management methodologies which comprise the livelihoods, ecosystem-based and community-based approaches which are deemed to positively impact the four dimensions of food security thus contributing to the achievement of a climate friendly and food secure economy.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at