Digital transformation, decision-making and governance in small-scale fisheries: a narrative review with implications for Somalia

1 Introduction

Small-scale fisheries are central to livelihoods, food and nutrition security, employment, and coastal economies, yet their contributions remain persistently undervalued in many policy and information systems (Basurto et al., 2025; Harper et al., 2026). Their diversity, geographic dispersion, informality, and limited monitoring coverage make fishing activities difficult to characterize, particularly in data-limited settings (Aguión et al., 2025; Demanèche et al., 2025). Incomplete information on catch, fishing effort, fishing locations, and socioeconomic conditions can constrain assessment of fishing pressure and the design of management responses suited to heterogeneous fisheries (Bradley et al., 2019; Demanèche et al., 2025). These challenges are compounded by ecological variability, changing markets, and institutional conditions that require decisions to be made under uncertainty (Nyiawung et al., 2023; Stacey et al., 2021). Consequently, effective fisheries decision-making depends not only on whether data exist, but also on whether information is timely, reliable, accessible, and usable by relevant actors (Aguión et al., 2025; Bradley et al., 2019). When information is fragmented or delayed, the capacity to connect knowledge of fisheries conditions with appropriate decisions and management action is weakened. This information-to-decision challenge provides a basis for examining digital transformation as a potential means of improving fisheries information flows.

Digital transformation can reshape fisheries information systems by changing how information is generated, collected, transmitted, integrated, analysed, and used by fishers, managers, and other stakeholders (Bradley et al., 2019; Merrifield et al., 2019). Its significance is better understood through the decisions it supports than through technologies themselves. Digital communication and location-based systems can support operational and safety decisions, while digital catch, spatial, and environmental information can contribute to resource assessment and fisheries management (Merrifield et al., 2019; Natsir et al., 2022). Digital information can also improve market transparency, traceability, and value-chain coordination, supporting livelihood and market decisions (Ding et al., 2026; Merrifield et al., 2019). For management and compliance, electronic reporting, monitoring, and surveillance can expand information available for assessing fishing activity and regulatory responses (Fernandes-Salvador et al., 2026; Toonen and Bush, 2020). However, greater data availability does not automatically produce better decisions. Connectivity, affordability, digital literacy, institutional capacity, data quality, trust, and the ability of users to act on information can determine whether digital systems generate practical benefits (Bradley et al., 2019; Fernandes-Salvador et al., 2026). Digital transformation therefore concerns not merely technology adoption, but how information enters decision processes and influences fisheries management.

When digital systems influence who generates, accesses, validates, and uses fisheries information, their implications extend beyond individual decisions to broader governance relationships (Toonen and Bush, 2020). Digital information can strengthen coordination, transparency, monitoring, and responsiveness, but these effects depend on how authority, expertise, participation, and data are organized within institutions (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018; Toonen and Bush, 2020). From a socio-technical perspective, digitalization emerges through interactions among technologies, institutions, actors, and social practices, while adaptive governance emphasizes institutional learning and the capacity to adjust management in response to changing information (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018; Toonen and Bush, 2020). Digital inclusion further highlights how unequal access, affordability, participation, and digital capacity can shape who benefits from digital systems (Tilley et al., 2021). Digitalization may therefore strengthen transparency and accountability while simultaneously increasing surveillance, exclusion, centralized control, or technological dependency when participation and data governance are weak (Tilley et al., 2021; Toonen and Bush, 2020). The analytical premise of this review is that digital information generates governance value only when it can move through accessible, credible, interpretable, and trusted decision processes into institutional action. This perspective also allows the review to examine where evidence converges or diverges and why similar digital interventions produce different governance consequences across contexts.

Somalia offers a particularly relevant context for examining the governance consequences of digital transformation in small-scale fisheries. Fisheries support livelihoods, nutrition, and the country’s blue-economy potential, yet fisheries governance remains constrained by institutional weaknesses, IUU fishing, and limited monitoring and compliance capacity (Glaser et al., 2019; Mohamed et al., 2026a). Recent evidence also indicates that institutional quality is linked to fisheries performance, while persistent governance weaknesses and illegal fishing pressures can undermine fisheries sustainability and coastal livelihoods (Mohamed et al., 2026a; Omar et al., 2026). These circumstances raise a broader question of whether digital information can move beyond improved data availability to support credible decisions and effective institutional action. Existing reviews have established the growing role of digital technologies in fisheries, but their evidence is distributed across technological applications, fisheries information, decision-making, governance, and institutional and social conditions (Ding et al., 2026). This review therefore focuses on the integration gap between these dimensions, asking not simply what digital technologies do, but why their outcomes differ across contexts and when they contribute to meaningful governance transformation. It develops a governance-centred analytical synthesis that examines evidence convergence and divergence, contextual determinants, and governance trade-offs, and uses these insights to interpret the opportunities and constraints for Somalia. The review asks how digital information shapes fisheries decisions and governance action, which conditions explain variation in outcomes, and what trade-offs should guide digital transformation in Somalia. Figure 1 summarizes the conceptual pathway through which digital technologies generate fisheries information, support decision-making, enable governance action, and contribute to sustainable and inclusive fisheries governance.

2 Methodology

2.1 Review design and reporting approach

This study employed a structured narrative review to synthesize interdisciplinary evidence on digital technologies, fisheries information, decision-making, and governance in small-scale fisheries, with particular attention to implications for Somalia. A narrative approach was appropriate because the evidence encompasses diverse digital applications, fisheries systems, governance arrangements, and geographical and socioeconomic contexts that require qualitative and comparative interpretation rather than statistical aggregation. The review was guided by the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) to strengthen methodological clarity, transparency, and critical interpretation, while relevant principles of PRISMA 2020 were applied to transparently document literature identification, screening, selection, and synthesis without treating the review as a systematic review or meta-analysis. The methodological approach was organized around the review’s central analytical pathway of digital technologies, fisheries information, fisheries decision-making, governance action, and sustainable and inclusive fisheries governance, enabling the synthesis to move beyond sequential description toward comparison of evidence across geographical, institutional, and socioeconomic contexts. This approach also supported identification of areas of convergence and divergence, evidence limitations, and unresolved questions, while interpreting international evidence in relation to Somalia’s institutional, infrastructural, socioeconomic, and governance context.

2.2 Literature search strategy

A structured literature search was conducted across Scopus, Web of Science (Core Collection), and Google Scholar to identify peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2026. Search terms were developed from the review objectives and combined concepts related to small-scale fisheries, digital technologies, fisheries information, decision-making, and governance using Boolean operators such as AND OR. Additional targeted searches incorporated Somalia-specific terms to identify relevant evidence on fisheries digitalization, information systems, monitoring, and governance. Reference lists of relevant articles were also examined to identify additional eligible studies. The search strategies, database fields, and limits are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Search strategies applied across the three electronic databases.

2.3 Eligibility criteria

2.3.1 Inclusion criteria

Studies were included if they were peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2026 and available in English. Eligible studies addressed small-scale or artisanal fisheries and examined digital technologies or digital transformation in relation to fisheries information, communication, monitoring, decision-making, fisheries management, or governance. Studies were also included when they examined how institutional, socioeconomic, technological, or participatory conditions influence the use or outcomes of digitalization in fisheries. International studies were included to provide comparative evidence, while Somalia-specific studies were included where they contributed evidence on fisheries, information systems, digitalization, monitoring, decision-making, management, or governance relevant to the review objectives.

2.3.2 Exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded if they were not peer-reviewed journal articles, were published outside the 2000–2026 period, or were not available in English. Studies were also excluded when they focused exclusively on non-fisheries applications of digital technologies, large-scale or industrial fisheries without relevant implications for small-scale fisheries, or technical aspects of digital systems without substantive relevance to fisheries information, decision-making, management, or governance. Duplicate records and studies with only incidental or peripheral relevance to the review objectives were excluded. Studies lacking sufficient scientific or methodological information to support interpretation were also excluded.

2.4 Study selection process

Source selection followed a structured and progressively restrictive process consistent with the narrative review design. The initial database and targeted searches identified 150 records. This identification stage was intentionally broad to capture the multidisciplinary literature relevant to digital technologies, fisheries information, decision-making, governance, monitoring, and small-scale fisheries. Following the removal of 30 records comprising duplicates and records excluded during title and abstract screening, 120 sources proceeded to full-text assessment. Full-text assessment resulted in the exclusion of 16 sources that did not meet the predefined relevance or evidentiary criteria. A total of 104 sources were therefore retained for the core thematic synthesis, comprising peer-reviewed studies and relevant scholarly and institutional sources. This staged selection process ensured broad evidence identification while maintaining a rigorous and focused final evidence base. The identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of sources are summarized in Figure 2. A distinction was maintained between sources included in the core thematic synthesis and additional references used for conceptual or contextual support.

2.5 Evidence quality and credibility assessment

Because the review integrates heterogeneous peer-reviewed empirical studies, review articles, and conceptual studies, a single formal risk-of-bias or meta-analytic appraisal instrument was not applied to the full evidence base. Instead, each source was assessed according to methodological transparency, appropriateness of study design, relevance and directness to digital technologies in small-scale fisheries, and consistency of findings with the broader evidence base. Greater interpretive weight was given to empirical studies and reviews that directly examined digital fisheries information, decision-making, monitoring, management, or governance, whereas conceptual and less direct studies were used primarily to inform theoretical interpretation and contextual comparison. Particular attention was given to differences in evidence strength across geographical, institutional, and socioeconomic settings, as well as to the limited availability of fisheries-specific digitalization evidence from Somalia. Conflicting, indirect, or limited evidence was interpreted cautiously rather than treated as equivalent to stronger empirical findings. This approach supported a critical and context-sensitive synthesis while maintaining the flexibility appropriate to a structured narrative review.

2.6 Data extraction and narrative synthesis

Key information from the selected studies was systematically charted according to study context, digital technology or application, fisheries information function, decision-making function, governance implications, implementation conditions, key findings, and relevance to Somalia. The extracted evidence was organized thematically rather than in a formal quantitative extraction framework, consistent with the interpretive nature of a structured narrative review. A thematic narrative synthesis was then used to integrate findings across digital technologies and fisheries information, fisheries decision-making, governance transformation, implementation conditions and trade-offs, and implications for Somalia. Evidence was compared across geographical, institutional, and socioeconomic contexts to identify areas of convergence and divergence and to examine why digitalization produced different outcomes across settings. Particular attention was given to the strength, consistency, limitations, and transferability of evidence, including the comparatively limited Somalia-specific evidence. Conflicting or uncertain findings were retained and interpreted cautiously rather than treated as equivalent to consistent evidence. This approach enabled the review to move beyond study-by-study description toward a critical and comparative synthesis of how, and under what conditions, digitalization can contribute to sustainable, inclusive, and effective fisheries governance.

3 Digitalization and fisheries decisions

Operational and safety decisions in small-scale fisheries involve trip planning, navigation, fishing-location selection, communication, and responses to changing sea conditions. Digital information can support these decisions when it is timely, spatially relevant, accessible, and presented in usable forms (Bradley et al., 2019; Kelly et al., 2022). Mobile communication can improve information exchange among fishers and households, although evidence often concerns perceived usefulness rather than measured safety outcomes (Mohamed Shaffril et al., 2015; Salia et al., 2011). Vessel tracking and geospatial systems provide more direct decision support by characterizing vessel movements, identifying fishing areas, and improving spatial awareness (James et al., 2018; Mendo et al., 2019). Weather and environmental forecasting can further inform departure, routing, and storm-avoidance decisions, although fishers may combine formal forecasts with experience and local knowledge (Finnis et al., 2019; Simonee et al., 2021). Evidence therefore converges on improved information access but is less consistent on measurable safety outcomes (Okeke-Ogbuafor et al., 2022; Pfeiffer, 2020). Connectivity, affordability, forecast credibility, power supply, and digital literacy can constrain uptake (Ahmed et al., 2021; Ramadhani and Seme, 2023). Digital access alone therefore does not guarantee safer decisions, particularly in low-capacity coastal settings such as Somalia.

Environmental and resource decisions involve identifying fishing areas, interpreting catch and effort, assessing environmental conditions, and adapting fishing or management practices. Digital tracking and spatial systems can generate fine-scale information on fishing activity, supporting effort estimation, spatial planning, resource assessment, and localized management (Birchenough et al., 2021; James et al., 2018). Evidence across fisheries indicates that high-resolution tracking can reveal patterns of small-scale fishing effort that conventional monitoring may overlook (Rufino et al., 2023; Tassetti et al., 2022). Participatory digital reporting can complement these systems by incorporating fishers’ observations and identifying seasonal patterns and discard hotspots (Mendo et al., 2022; Porriños et al., 2026). However, evidence is less consistent on whether richer digital information produces better ecological decisions or outcomes. Data validation, spatial and temporal resolution, analytical capacity, participation, and institutional uptake affect whether information changes behaviour or management responses (Bradley et al., 2019; Porriños et al., 2026). Digital information may also increase fishing pressure when productive areas become easier to identify without effective safeguards (Ding et al., 2026; Uriondo et al., 2024). Thus, evidence is stronger for improved information and decision support than for demonstrated ecological improvements, leaving unresolved when digital feedback promotes sustainable resource decisions.

Market and livelihood decisions concern how fishers and value-chain actors obtain price information, select buyers and markets, negotiate transactions, receive payments, and manage livelihood opportunities. Mobile communication can reduce information barriers and improve market coordination; evidence from artisanal fisheries in Ghana links mobile-phone use with improved market efficiency, market access, business relationships, and livelihoods (Salia et al., 2011). Communication technologies can also support market information and planning across distance, although benefits vary with market organization and access (Chimseu et al., 2025; Kitole et al., 2023). Digital applications may facilitate direct sales, traceability, payments, and supply coordination, but information access does not automatically create bargaining power or equitable economic gains (Calderwood, 2022; Ding et al., 2026). Research shows that price information can have limited effects where intermediaries and existing power relations remain dominant (Burrell and Oreglia, 2015; Wyche and Steinfield, 2016). Outcomes therefore differ according to connectivity, affordability, digital literacy, trust, market structure, and infrastructure (Hossain et al., 2025; Kitole et al., 2023). Evidence consequently supports improved market information more strongly than uniform livelihood gains. For Somalia, digital services may improve price discovery and coordination, but direct fisheries evidence of sustained changes in income, bargaining power, or livelihood security remains limited.

Management, monitoring, and compliance decisions involve reporting, surveillance, enforcement, regulatory assessment, and evidence used to evaluate fisheries management. Digital reporting, electronic monitoring, and vessel-tracking systems can improve the coverage, timeliness, and spatial detail of information available to managers (Kritzer, 2020; van Helmond et al., 2020). Electronic monitoring can strengthen documentation of fishing activity and compliance, while satellite and vessel data can help identify potentially illegal activity and target enforcement (Kurekin et al., 2019; van Helmond et al., 2020). However, evidence across contexts shows that greater visibility does not necessarily produce stronger management outcomes. In the Republic of the Congo, monitoring data revealed illegal fishing activity, yet weaknesses in coordinated analysis and enforcement limited translation of information into action (Doherty et al., 2021). Outcomes also vary with data quality, interoperability, costs, institutional capacity, enforcement authority, and trust (Sohns et al., 2022; van Helmond et al., 2020). Concerns about surveillance, privacy, and unequal control can further affect acceptance and participation (Song et al., 2020; Standal and Hersoug, 2023). Evidence therefore supports improved monitoring and information availability more consistently than actual compliance or sustainability gains. For Somalia, digital monitoring will be valuable only if institutions can interpret evidence and act upon violations. The main digital applications, decision functions, governance implications, implementation barriers, institutional requirements, and relevance to Somalia are synthesized in Table 2.

Table 2. Digital technologies, fisheries decision functions, governance implications, implementation barriers, institutional requirements, and key references.

4 Conditions shaping digitalization outcomes

Infrastructure, connectivity, and affordability shape whether digitalization can produce meaningful benefits in small-scale fisheries, but technological access alone does not ensure effective use. Research among fishing communities in Bangladesh shows that mobile access can coexist with information gaps caused by unreliable connectivity, affordability constraints, and limited digital capabilities (Ahmed et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2025). Similar evidence indicates that geographic remoteness, weak network coverage, device costs, and limited electricity can restrict digital participation even where services are technically available (Hossain et al., 2026). Evidence from China further shows that digitalization can improve fisheries productivity and sustainability, while its effects vary across regions according to infrastructure, economic development, and adoption conditions (Li et al., 2025; Li and Ji, 2024). Thus, studies converge on the importance of infrastructure but demonstrate contextual variation in outcomes, indicating that connectivity interacts with wider socioeconomic and institutional conditions (Ding et al., 2026; Xia et al., 2025). Affordability is equally important because unequal capacity to obtain devices, data, and digital services can reproduce existing inequalities (Adebayo et al., 2025; Rakoma et al., 2026). For Somalia, uneven coastal infrastructure makes the distinction between nominal access and meaningful digital use particularly important, although direct evidence remains limited.

Digital literacy and institutional capacity shape whether accessible digital information can be converted into usable evidence, decisions, and organizational action. Studies of fishing communities indicate that limited digital and information literacy can constrain participation in electronic services even where mobile technologies are available (Enayati et al., 2024; Hossain et al., 2025). Evidence from fisheries and small-enterprise contexts similarly indicates that organizational readiness, technical expertise, financial resources, and managerial capacity influence whether digital investments generate measurable improvements (Kallmuenzer et al., 2024; Uriondo et al., 2024). The literature therefore agrees that skills and institutional readiness are important, but their relative importance varies across contexts (Guo et al., 2026; Kallmuenzer et al., 2024). In stronger institutional environments, digitalization can support productivity and innovation while benefits remain uneven across organizations, showing that capacity does not guarantee equitable outcomes (Li et al., 2025; Shen et al., 2025). Conversely, weak data standards, limited interoperability, inadequate financing, and insufficient technical support can prevent collected information from becoming actionable (Bradley et al., 2019; Uriondo et al., 2024). This reinforces the information-to-action problem: digital systems create value only when users can interpret information and institutions can respond. For Somalia, these constraints may be consequential, but empirical evidence remains scarce.

Trust, participation, legitimacy, and local ownership shape whether digital systems are accepted, sustained, and translated into equitable outcomes. Evidence from fisheries information systems shows that limited trust and stakeholder buy-in can constrain adoption, particularly when technologies are perceived as externally imposed or disconnected from fishers’ needs and knowledge (Bradley et al., 2019; Uriondo et al., 2024). Research with fishing communities also shows that users may prefer trusted interpersonal networks over formal institutional channels, indicating that credibility depends on social relationships as well as technical accuracy (Ahmed et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2025). Participatory approaches can improve the contextual relevance of digital tools by incorporating local knowledge and involving users in system design, although evidence on long-term effects on trust and ownership remains limited (Cromwell et al., 2025; Hossain et al., 2026). Digitalization may also reproduce unequal participation when access to platforms, information, skills, or decision-making is concentrated among better-connected actors (Abdulai et al., 2023; Rakoma et al., 2026). Data ownership therefore matters because digital systems can redistribute informational power toward governments, platforms, or external actors when governance arrangements are weak (Cromwell et al., 2025; Uriondo et al., 2024). Overall, evidence indicates that digitalization outcomes are context-dependent rather than technology-determined, providing the basis for examining digital governance transformation.

5 Digital fisheries governance transformation

Digitalization can transform fisheries governance by changing how information moves among fishers, communities, government agencies, researchers, and other stakeholders, but greater information availability does not necessarily produce better coordination or institutional learning (Bradley et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2026). Digital reporting and data systems can shorten information-feedback cycles and increase the timeliness of evidence available for management responses, particularly where institutions have established procedures for interpreting and using digital information (Kritzer, 2020; van Helmond et al., 2020). Evidence nevertheless varies across governance settings. Participatory arrangements in Uruguay demonstrate that collaborative governance can support institutional learning and co-created responses, while communication structures may still leave important actors peripheral to decision processes (Bausero-Jorcin et al., 2024). Conversely, digitalization can create additional administrative dependencies where authority is fragmented or responsibilities are poorly coordinated, showing that increased information exchange does not necessarily resolve institutional fragmentation (Ding et al., 2026; Purwanto et al., 2026). These differences indicate that digital coordination is shaped by existing governance arrangements rather than determined by information volume alone (Bausero-Jorcin et al., 2024; Bradley et al., 2019). In Somalia, where small-scale fisheries operate within complex formal and informal governance arrangements, digital information could improve coordination, but evidence on whether it strengthens sustained institutional learning remains limited (Frawley et al., 2024; Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022). A key unresolved issue is therefore whether digital information systems produce durable improvements in inter-institutional coordination and adaptive learning rather than simply increasing the speed and quantity of information exchange.

Digitalization can also reshape participation, transparency, legitimacy, and accountability by changing who can access fisheries information and how stakeholders interact with governance processes (Ding et al., 2026; Gammage et al., 2025). However, greater informational visibility should not be equated with meaningful participation or accountability, because governance outcomes depend on whether stakeholders can influence decisions and whether institutions respond to the information available (Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022; Okyere et al., 2023). Evidence from co-management shows that participatory and cooperative arrangements can produce more equitable outcomes than consultative arrangements, indicating that institutional design is consequential for the distribution of governance benefits (Gammage et al., 2025). Similarly, evidence from Ghana demonstrates that artisanal fishers may remain marginalized from decision-making despite formal governance structures, suggesting that information access alone cannot overcome entrenched participation deficits (Okyere et al., 2023). Participatory governance research further indicates that collaborative processes can facilitate institutional learning while retaining communication asymmetries that leave some stakeholders less influential (Bausero-Jorcin et al., 2024). These findings suggest that digital platforms may widen access to governance information without necessarily redistributing decision-making authority (Gammage et al., 2025; Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022). For Somalia, where small-scale fishers face documented governance and representation challenges, digital participation could strengthen their visibility and engagement only when institutional arrangements provide meaningful opportunities to influence decisions (Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022; Okyere et al., 2023). Evidence remains limited on whether digitally supported participation produces durable improvements in procedural legitimacy and accountability, particularly in governance contexts characterized by institutional constraints.

The most consequential governance transformation concerns data ownership, informational power, and institutional control because digitalization can alter who generates, validates, accesses, interprets, and acts upon fisheries information (Ding et al., 2026; Purwanto et al., 2026). Datafication can make fishing activity more visible to authorities and other governance actors, but increased visibility may simultaneously create dependence on centralized systems when fishers have limited control over the data they generate (Cromwell et al., 2025; Purwanto et al., 2026). This creates an important distinction between being represented within a digital governance system and having meaningful authority over how information is interpreted and used (Ding et al., 2026; Purwanto et al., 2026). Digital traceability and data systems may improve transparency across fisheries value chains, yet questions concerning data ownership, access, control, and distribution of benefits remain insufficiently resolved (Cromwell et al., 2025; Ding et al., 2026). Evidence therefore suggests that digitalization can either redistribute informational power toward fishers and communities or reinforce centralized institutional control, depending on governance arrangements and ownership structures (Cromwell et al., 2025; Purwanto et al., 2026). For Somalia, where fisheries information remains limited and institutional coordination is developing, reliance on externally controlled digital infrastructures could create new forms of informational dependency unless governance arrangements establish appropriate local access, participation, and control (Aguión et al., 2025; Ding et al., 2026). Yet empirical evidence on community-led fisheries data governance remains geographically narrow and concentrated in emerging or pilot applications, limiting confidence about long-term institutional effects (Cromwell et al., 2025; Said, 2026). Overall, digitalization should be understood as a transformation of governance relationships in which information can reshape coordination, participation, accountability, and institutional authority, while its consequences remain contingent on who controls information and how governance institutions respond to it.

6 Digital fisheries governance challenges and trade-offs

Digitalization can broaden access to fisheries information and create new opportunities for participation, yet access to digital systems does not necessarily produce equitable participation or equal distribution of benefits (Bradley et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2026). Evidence from small-scale fisheries indicates that digital divides can persist along socioeconomic, geographic, gender, and age dimensions, particularly where disadvantaged groups have fewer opportunities to access devices, training, or digital decision-making processes (Fernandes-Salvador et al., 2026; Lopez-Ercilla et al., 2021). At the same time, digital technologies can reduce information barriers and strengthen the visibility of previously underrepresented actors when systems are designed around inclusive participation and accessible information channels (Bradley et al., 2019; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018). These contrasting outcomes suggest that digitalization may reduce some forms of exclusion while reproducing others when participation depends on unequal digital capabilities or socioeconomic resources (Ding et al., 2026; Lopez-Ercilla et al., 2021). The distributional problem therefore extends beyond whether fishers can access technology to whether they can use digital information to influence decisions and capture resulting benefits (Bradley et al., 2019; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018). Evidence remains uneven because many studies examine adoption, access, or perceived usefulness rather than longitudinal changes in equity and participation (Ding et al., 2026; Fernandes-Salvador et al., 2026). For Somalia, where direct empirical evidence on digital fisheries inclusion remains limited, international findings should therefore be treated as contextual evidence rather than assumed outcomes. The unresolved issue is whether digitalization reduces structural exclusion or merely reproduces existing inequalities through new digital channels (Ding et al., 2026; Lopez-Ercilla et al., 2021).

Greater digital visibility can strengthen fisheries transparency and accountability, but the same systems can expand surveillance, create privacy concerns, and increase the volume of information collected about fishers and vessels (Guggisberg et al., 2022; Orofino et al., 2023). Electronic monitoring and vessel-tracking systems can improve the availability, spatial resolution, and timeliness of fisheries information, providing stronger evidence for management and compliance decisions than fragmented conventional reporting systems (Orofino et al., 2023; van Helmond et al., 2020). However, greater monitoring capacity does not automatically produce better governance because accountability depends on how information is interpreted, disclosed, and connected to legitimate regulatory action (Guggisberg et al., 2022; Probst, 2020). Evidence also indicates that concerns about privacy, costs, data use, and perceived intrusiveness can generate resistance or weaken trust in monitoring arrangements (Lennox et al., 2022; van Helmond et al., 2020). This creates a fundamental governance tension: information that improves transparency for regulators may simultaneously increase perceived surveillance for fishers, particularly where safeguards governing data collection and use are unclear (Orofino et al., 2023; Probst, 2020). The strength of current evidence is greater for improved monitoring and information availability than for long-term effects on trust, privacy, or compliance behaviour (Orofino et al., 2023; van Helmond et al., 2020). For Somalia, where IUU fishing and limited monitoring capacity create legitimate demand for better fisheries information, the appropriate balance between monitoring effectiveness, fisher trust, and responsible data governance remains empirically unresolved. Future research should therefore examine not only whether digital monitoring increases visibility but also whether its implementation is proportionate, transparent, trusted, and institutionally accountable (Fernandes-Salvador et al., 2026; Guggisberg et al., 2022).

A deeper trade-off concerns the distribution of informational power because digitalization can either strengthen local control over fisheries knowledge or concentrate authority among governments, technology providers, platforms, and other actors controlling digital infrastructures (Ding et al., 2026; Montana, 2025). Digital data systems can support co-production and wider access to fisheries information, potentially enabling fishers and local institutions to participate more effectively in governance processes (Bradley et al., 2019; Montana, 2025). Conversely, platform-based systems can create dependency when communities generate data but have limited influence over how those data are stored, interpreted, commercialized, or used for regulatory purposes (Purwanto et al., 2026; Sarku and Ayamga, 2025). Evidence from data-intensive governance therefore suggests that digitalization can redistribute power, but the direction of redistribution depends on ownership arrangements, institutional authority, and the degree of control retained by local stakeholders (Ding et al., 2026; Purwanto et al., 2026). This issue is particularly important for small-scale fisheries because technological dependence may transform fishers from participants in knowledge production into data providers within systems controlled by more powerful institutions or external platforms (Montana, 2025; Sarku and Ayamga, 2025). Evidence for empowerment remains comparatively limited by the prevalence of pilots, emerging applications, and short-term evaluations, while long-term evidence on data sovereignty and sustained redistribution of governance power remains scarce (Bradley et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2026). In Somalia, where fisheries information systems and institutional coordination remain developing, dependence on externally controlled digital infrastructures could create informational vulnerabilities, although this proposition requires direct empirical investigation rather than assumption (Ding et al., 2026; Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022). Overall, the literature indicates that digitalization is neither inherently empowering nor inherently exclusionary; its consequences depend on how access, surveillance, participation, privacy, ownership, and informational authority are distributed across governance actors (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018; Ding et al., 2026).

7 Comparative synthesis of evidence

Across the literature, the strongest convergence is that digitalization expands the availability, timeliness, circulation, and analytical accessibility of fisheries information, thereby strengthening decision support, communication, and coordination among fishers, managers, researchers, and other stakeholders (Bradley et al., 2019; Fahrudin et al., 2026). Evidence also indicates that digital systems can improve monitoring visibility, transparency, and administrative responsiveness when information is incorporated into established management and decision-making processes (Ding et al., 2026; Probst, 2020). However, convergence becomes weaker when outcomes move beyond information provision toward behavioural change, governance performance, livelihood improvement, and ecological sustainability, because improved information does not necessarily alter incentives, institutional authority, fishing practices, or resource-use pressures (Bradley et al., 2019; Ji and Li, 2024). Comparative evidence therefore suggests a gradient of outcomes: informational and decision-support benefits are relatively consistent, governance effects are conditional, and measurable socioeconomic and ecological outcomes remain mixed or insufficiently demonstrated (Li and Ji, 2024; Roscher et al., 2022). Participation, collaboration, and institutional learning are also more frequently documented than sustained improvements in resource conditions, poverty reduction, or livelihood security, indicating that process-level benefits should not be equated with long-term development outcomes (d’Armengol et al., 2018; Tilley et al., 2024). The comparative evidence consequently supports evaluating digitalization not simply by whether information becomes more available, but by whether that information is interpreted, trusted, incorporated into institutional processes, and translated into measurable decisions and outcomes (Bradley et al., 2019; Goethel et al., 2023).

The major divergence across studies reflects differences in the institutional, geographic, socioeconomic, and governance environments into which digital interventions are introduced (Ding et al., 2026; Tilley et al., 2024). In stronger institutional settings, digital systems can reinforce established monitoring, regulatory, analytical, and adaptive-management processes, whereas fragmented or lower-capacity institutions may generate data without possessing sufficient organizational mechanisms to validate, integrate, interpret, or act upon them (Bradley et al., 2019; Ji and Li, 2024). Geographic and socioeconomic conditions similarly influence outcomes because connectivity, affordability, infrastructure, and digital capabilities affect who can access information and who can convert it into practical benefits, potentially concentrating advantages among better-connected actors (Hossain et al., 2025; Tilley et al., 2024). Governance arrangements further differentiate outcomes because participatory and trusted institutions can facilitate information sharing, collective learning, and acceptance, while weak participation and institutional distrust can restrict these effects even when digital information is technically available (d’Armengol et al., 2018; Goethel et al., 2023). Thus, the literature shows greater agreement that context matters than on the extent to which digitalization can compensate for weak governance, with evidence suggesting both that digital systems can strengthen coordination under constrained conditions and that poorly governed systems may reproduce exclusion or concentrate informational power (Ding et al., 2026; Probst, 2020). These differences demonstrate that digitalization does not follow a universal pathway from technological adoption to improved fisheries outcomes; rather, outcomes emerge from interactions between digital systems and the institutional, socioeconomic, and governance structures in which they operate (Alsaleh and Yang, 2023; Ding et al., 2026).

Confidence in these conclusions remains moderate because the evidence base is geographically uneven and relies substantially on case studies, pilot interventions, short observation periods, and measures of adoption or perceived usefulness rather than longitudinal assessments of behavioural, institutional, livelihood, and ecological outcomes (Chandravanshi et al., 2025; Stacey et al., 2021). Causal evidence and cost-effectiveness assessments are also limited, making it difficult to distinguish the independent effects of digitalization from those of accompanying institutional reforms, financial investments, organizational changes, or broader socioeconomic conditions (Roscher et al., 2022; Tilley et al., 2024). The underrepresentation of fragile and low-capacity governance contexts further limits the generalizability of findings from settings where institutions, infrastructure, and stakeholder relationships differ substantially from those dominating the evidence base (Chandravanshi et al., 2025; Ding et al., 2026). For Somalia, the available literature provides stronger evidence concerning fisheries-governance constraints and broader digital-governance challenges than direct empirical evidence demonstrating fisheries-specific digitalization outcomes, requiring international findings to be interpreted cautiously rather than transferred as established effects (Hashi, 2025; Osman A. I. et al., 2026). Comparable evidence can nevertheless identify potentially relevant mechanisms for Somalia, particularly the importance of converting information into trusted, actionable, and institutionally embedded knowledge (Bradley et al., 2019; Hossain et al., 2025). Important unresolved questions therefore concern when digital information produces sustained behavioural and fisheries outcomes, when digitalization broadens rather than concentrates governance power, and which institutional arrangements can sustain equitable digital fisheries governance in fragile contexts (Ding et al., 2026; Goethel et al., 2023). Overall, the comparative evidence indicates that digitalization outcomes are context-dependent rather than technology-determined, providing the basis for examining how these broader patterns apply to the specific governance challenges and opportunities of Somalia.

8 Digital fisheries governance in Somalia: context and priorities

Somalia’s starting point for digital fisheries governance is not simply a condition of limited technology access but a fisheries system characterized by the importance of small-scale livelihoods, pressure from foreign fishing, persistent IUU fishing, and fragmented governance that constrains monitoring and public benefit capture (Glaser et al., 2019; Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022). Somalia-specific evidence indicates that foreign catches have at times exceeded domestic production and that IUU fishing has affected fisheries production and livelihood security, making weaknesses in fisheries information and monitoring consequential for both resource governance and coastal livelihoods (Glaser et al., 2019; Mohamed et al., 2026a). In contrast, many digital fisheries systems documented internationally operate within comparatively stable reporting arrangements, established management institutions, and more integrated administrative systems, creating important limits to direct transferability to Somalia (Chuenpagdee et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2026). Small-scale fisheries are particularly difficult to represent because fishing activities are geographically dispersed, heterogeneous, and often inadequately captured by conventional fisheries statistics, while fragmented research and administrative systems can further restrict the availability of fine-scale information (Chuenpagdee et al., 2019; Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022). Existing evidence therefore suggests that Somalia’s principal challenge is not simply introducing digital tools but developing information systems that connect dispersed fishing activities with institutions capable of interpreting and acting upon the information generated (Bradley et al., 2019; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022). However, direct peer-reviewed evidence evaluating existing digital fisheries initiatives in Somalia remains limited, meaning that international evidence provides mechanisms and comparative lessons rather than established evidence of national-level digital outcomes (Bradley et al., 2019; Ding et al., 2026). Figure 3 synthesizes the baseline context of Somalia’s small-scale fisheries by bringing together the principal actors, current fisheries information and monitoring conditions, governance constraints, and key fisheries pressures. These interconnected conditions shape how fisheries information is generated, shared, and translated into management and decision-making.

The baseline conditions summarized in Figure 3 therefore provide the principal context for interpreting the international evidence reviewed above and for assessing its relevance to Somalia’s small-scale fisheries. Against this context, international evidence indicates several potentially relevant pathways for Somalia, particularly low-burden digital systems that improve information collection, communication, and coordination without requiring highly complex enforcement infrastructures from the outset (Bradley et al., 2019; March and Failler, 2022). Participatory and app-based catch monitoring has demonstrated the potential to generate more timely and fine-scale information for small-scale fisheries when data collection is understandable to users, linked to management processes, and supported by appropriate institutional arrangements (Porriños et al., 2026; Tilley et al., 2020). Such approaches may be particularly relevant to Somalia because enumerator-assisted landing records, fisher communication, safety information, and integrated fisheries information systems could address information gaps while accommodating dispersed fishing communities and limited administrative reach (Grantham et al., 2022; Sari et al., 2021). Digital mapping, remote sensing, and vessel-monitoring approaches may also contribute to monitoring offshore fishing activity and supporting responses to IUU fishing, but evidence from other contexts shows that technological detection does not by itself produce enforcement outcomes without legal authority, institutional coordination, and follow-through (Fujii et al., 2021; Probst, 2020). Similarly, advanced applications such as blockchain-based traceability and artificial intelligence may offer longer-term possibilities, but their relevance to Somalia should be assessed against demonstrated information needs, institutional readiness, costs, and local usability rather than technological novelty alone (Ding et al., 2026; Grantham et al., 2022). The comparative evidence therefore supports adaptation rather than direct replication: digital approaches developed in stronger institutional settings may provide useful models, but their design, scale, and sequencing would need to reflect Somalia’s governance and socioeconomic realities (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022; Schlüter et al., 2021).

The long-term value of digital fisheries governance in Somalia will ultimately depend on whether digital systems are embedded within institutions that provide meaningful fisher participation, local ownership, data governance, inter-institutional coordination, and sustainable financial and technical support (Bradley et al., 2019; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022). Evidence from small-scale fisheries indicates that participatory design, continuous feedback, and alignment with users’ needs can strengthen the sustainability of information systems, whereas externally imposed interventions may reproduce exclusion or become difficult to maintain after project-based support ends (Schlüter et al., 2021; Tilley et al., 2020). For Somalia, this supports a gradual implementation pathway in which basic fishery characterization and low-burden data collection are strengthened before more intensive monitoring and surveillance systems are expanded, thereby linking technological development with institutional learning and stakeholder acceptance (Aguión et al., 2025; van Helmond et al., 2020). Data ownership and control also require explicit safeguards because dependence on externally controlled platforms could create new informational asymmetries if local institutions and fishing communities generate data without meaningful access to, or influence over, its subsequent use (Ding et al., 2026; Purwanto et al., 2026). At the same time, the evidence base remains insufficient to determine how Somali fishers would respond to specific digital systems, how digitalization would affect safety and market outcomes, or how effects would vary across different coastal fisheries and governance settings (Dias et al., 2023; Ding et al., 2026). These gaps are especially important because evidence from other fragile or low-capacity fisheries remains comparatively limited, restricting confidence in transferring findings from better-resourced governance contexts to Somalia (Ding et al., 2026; March and Failler, 2022). Somalia therefore represents an important empirical case for testing how institutional strengthening, inclusive participation, local data governance, and appropriately sequenced digital systems can interact to produce legitimate and sustainable fisheries governance under institutional constraint (Ding et al., 2026; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022).

8.1 Ideal scenario for digital fisheries governance in Somalia

Somalia’s artisanal fisheries face pressures including discrepancies between reconstructed and officially reported catches, foreign fishing and IUU pressure, limited monitoring, and institutional weaknesses, while recent evidence also highlights the vulnerability of artisanal fishing livelihoods to environmental change (Cashion et al., 2018; Glaser et al., 2019; Osman H. I. et al., 2026). Against this baseline, the ideal digital governance scenario is not simply expanded digital reporting, but an integrated information–governance arrangement in which fisheries information is generated, validated, shared, and used across fishers, fishing communities, fisheries authorities, researchers, and enforcement actors. Such integration could reduce informational fragmentation and improve the movement of evidence into management decisions, while participatory data generation would allow fishers to contribute local knowledge and interpretation rather than function only as data providers (Grati et al., 2022; Obregón et al., 2020). Accountability would require decisions and enforcement actions to be traceable to credible information and open to scrutiny (Guggisberg et al., 2022; Harrison, 2022). Institutional authority would ensure that fisheries institutions can translate validated information into legitimate management action, while responsible control of information would establish clear arrangements for access, consent, use, and ownership, reducing concentrated informational power or fisher exclusion (Amar et al., 2026; Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022).

As a practical reference for national measures, this ideal scenario translates the five governance priorities into solution-oriented directions for designing and assessing digital fisheries governance in Somalia. First, coordination should connect fisheries information across fishing communities and relevant institutions and enable evidence to enter management processes, addressing fragmentation documented in Somalia’s fisheries context (Cashion et al., 2018; Glaser et al., 2019; Obregón et al., 2020). Second, participation should give artisanal fishers meaningful roles in generating, interpreting, and discussing information, with attention to inclusion where social and resource-access inequalities can limit participation (Gammage et al., 2025; Mohamed et al., 2026b). Third, accountability should make decisions and enforcement actions traceable and reviewable through credible records, rather than assuming that data visibility automatically produces accountability (Guggisberg et al., 2022; Harrison, 2022). Fourth, institutional authority should connect information to legitimate mandates and capacity for management action, particularly where governance constraints affect fisheries performance (Glaser et al., 2019; Okafor-Yarwood et al., 2022). Fifth, control of information should establish fair rules for access, consent, use, and ownership so digital systems strengthen rather than marginalize fishing communities (Amar et al., 2026; Tilley et al., 2019). Together, these solution-oriented priorities provide a practical reference for designing, implementing, and assessing future national measures for digital fisheries governance in Somalia.

9 Discussion: from digitalization to sustainable fisheries governance

The central implication of this review is that digitalization in small-scale fisheries should be understood as an institutional and governance process rather than as the simple adoption of new technologies (Chandravanshi et al., 2025; Ding et al., 2026). Across the reviewed literature, the most consistent benefits concern improved information availability, monitoring resolution, communication, and decision support, whereas evidence for sustained improvements in fisher behaviour, livelihoods, governance performance, and ecological conditions remains more heterogeneous (Porriños et al., 2026; Tilley et al., 2024). Participatory digital monitoring in São Tomé and Príncipe generated higher-resolution fisheries information and actionable management insights, while experience from Timor-Leste indicates that digital transformation can strengthen capacity, collaboration, and evidence-informed fisheries policy (Porriños et al., 2026; Tilley et al., 2024). However, improved information does not automatically generate sustainable outcomes because its effects depend on institutional uptake, stakeholder engagement, and the capacity of governance systems to translate evidence into legitimate management responses (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018). The literature therefore converges on the informational and decision-support value of digitalization but diverges more strongly regarding downstream behavioural, socioeconomic, institutional, and ecological outcomes (Ding et al., 2026; Stacey et al., 2021). This distinction is important because successful deployment of a digital system should not itself be treated as evidence of successful fisheries governance; evaluation should instead consider whether digital information becomes institutionally embedded and contributes to measurable improvements in governance and sustainability (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; McClanahan et al., 2025).

The information-to-action gap provides a central explanation for the variation observed across fisheries contexts because digital information becomes consequential only when users and institutions can interpret, validate, trust, and apply it within legitimate decision-making processes (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022). Evidence from Indonesia illustrates how monitoring and data systems can remain constrained by fragmented institutional responsibilities and limited policy uptake, whereas participatory and adaptive arrangements can more effectively connect information with collective learning and management action (Aprian et al., 2026; d’Armengol et al., 2018). Similarly, evidence from Bangladesh shows that affordability, literacy, infrastructure, fragmented information channels, and trust influence whether fishers can convert available information into usable knowledge and decisions (Hossain et al., 2025; Tilley et al., 2024). These geographical, institutional, and socioeconomic differences indicate that digitalization does not follow a universal pathway because outcomes depend on the governance arrangements, capabilities, resources, and social relationships surrounding technology use (Ding et al., 2026; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022). The comparative evidence therefore suggests that digitalization is more likely to strengthen existing institutional capacity than substitute for weak governance, although digitally supported arrangements can still generate incremental improvements under constrained conditions (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018; Tilley et al., 2024). This finding directly addresses the review’s central analytical problem: the decisive issue is not simply whether fisheries information is generated, but whether institutional systems possess the capacity, legitimacy, and authority required to convert that information into action (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022). Consequently, digital fisheries interventions should be assessed according to their ability to close the information-to-action gap rather than according to technological sophistication, data volume, or adoption rates alone (Ding et al., 2026; McClanahan et al., 2025).

A further implication is a governance paradox in which the same digital infrastructures that can improve transparency, coordination, traceability, and accountability can also intensify surveillance, exclusion, dependency, and concentration of informational power (Ding et al., 2026; Toonen and Bush, 2020). Greater visibility of fishing activities can strengthen regulatory oversight, but it can simultaneously expand the authority of actors controlling digital infrastructures, classifications, databases, and information flows (Purwanto et al., 2026; Toonen and Bush, 2020). Evidence from Indonesia demonstrates how datafication can make administrative recognition increasingly dependent on digital visibility, potentially shifting fishers from participants in knowledge production toward subjects of centralized data systems (Ding et al., 2026; Purwanto et al., 2026). Conversely, the Abalobi experience in South Africa illustrates that digital platforms can support collective action and more democratic governance when fishers participate in shaping the platform rather than functioning solely as data providers (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2022; Nthane et al., 2020). These contrasting experiences indicate that the key issue is not whether digitalization is inherently empowering or harmful, but how participation, privacy, ownership, authority, and informational power are organized within governance institutions (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018; Toonen and Bush, 2020). This interpretation also highlights a major limitation of the evidence base because much of the literature remains dominated by pilots, case studies, short project cycles, and assessments of adoption or perceived usefulness rather than longitudinal causal evaluations of institutional transformation (Chandravanshi et al., 2025; Stacey et al., 2021). Thus, greater digital transparency should not automatically be equated with greater accountability, nor should greater data availability be assumed to produce greater fisher empowerment (Ding et al., 2026; Purwanto et al., 2026).

The principal contribution of this review is to integrate digital fisheries transformation with social-ecological systems, adaptive governance, ICT4D, socio-technical perspectives, fisheries decision-making, and informational power to explain why digitalization produces different governance outcomes across contexts (d’Armengol et al., 2018; Frawley et al., 2024). Rather than adding another inventory of digital technologies, the review demonstrates that outcomes emerge from interactions among technological capabilities, institutional arrangements, socioeconomic conditions, participation, social relationships, and control over information (Chandravanshi et al., 2025; Ding et al., 2026). This synthesis is particularly relevant to Somalia because its institutional and governance constraints make the distinction between generating fisheries information and possessing the capacity and authority to convert that information into legitimate action especially important (Aguión et al., 2025; Frawley et al., 2024). However, conclusions for Somalia must remain cautious because the literature contains limited empirical evidence from fragile and low-capacity governance settings and insufficient direct evidence on the long-term effects of digital fisheries interventions in Somalia itself (Ding et al., 2026; Said, 2026). The major unresolved questions therefore concern whether digitalization produces durable behavioural and institutional change, whether benefits are distributed equitably, how cost-effectiveness should be assessed, and whether digital systems redistribute or concentrate governance power (Chandravanshi et al., 2025; McClanahan et al., 2025). Future research should prioritize longitudinal, comparative, and causal studies examining institutional change, participation, legitimacy, data ownership, power redistribution, socioeconomic outcomes, and ecological effects, particularly in fragile governance contexts such as Somalia (Arseneault-Deraps et al., 2024; Stacey et al., 2021). Overall, the evidence supports a shift from measuring digital adoption toward evaluating whether digital systems become institutionally embedded in ways that contribute to sustainable, inclusive, legitimate, and accountable fisheries governance (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2018; Ding et al., 2026).

10 Conclusion

Digitalization can strengthen small-scale fisheries by improving the availability, timeliness, circulation, and usability of information for monitoring, communication, coordination, and decision-making. However, the evidence reviewed indicates that digitalization should not be equated with technology adoption or increased data availability. Its contribution depends on whether information is accessible, credible, interpretable, trusted, and connected to decision processes capable of translating knowledge into legitimate institutional action. Evidence is strongest for improvements in information provision, monitoring, coordination, and decision support, whereas sustained behavioural, socioeconomic, ecological, and governance improvements remain more heterogeneous. The review therefore supports a governance-centred interpretation in which digital fisheries transformation is shaped by institutional capacity, participation, data governance, trust, and the distribution of informational power. Digital systems can strengthen transparency, accountability, and responsiveness, but may also reproduce exclusion, dependency, surveillance, or informational asymmetries when access, participation, and control are unevenly distributed.

For Somalia, the review shows that digitalization must be considered in relation to the baseline conditions of dispersed small-scale fisheries, fragmented fisheries information and monitoring, governance constraints, and continuing fisheries pressures. The Somalia-specific baseline framework highlights how these actors, information conditions, governance structures, and fisheries issues interact to create an information–governance gap. Building on this baseline, the proposed ideal scenario identifies coordination, participation, accountability, institutional authority, and responsible control of information as interconnected priorities for future digital fisheries governance. These priorities provide a practical reference for considering how future national measures can connect fisheries information with inclusive participation, accountable decision-making, legitimate institutional action, and locally appropriate information governance. Nevertheless, direct empirical evidence on fisheries-specific digitalization in Somalia remains limited, particularly concerning long-term effects on livelihoods, participation, institutional change, ecological outcomes, and informational power. Future research should therefore evaluate how digital systems perform across Somalia’s diverse fisheries and governance settings and whether they can become institutionally embedded in ways that support sustainable, inclusive, and accountable fisheries governance.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT for paraphrasing, improving sentence connections, correcting grammar, and enhancing language clarity. The tool was not used to generate original ideas, arguments, or interpretations and was used solely to support writing quality and readability. After using this tool, the authors carefully reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Pablo Presa, University of Vigo, Spain

Reviewed by: Abdulahi Jimale Said, East Africa University, Somalia

Alexander Muhammad Akbar Khan, Padjadjaran University, Indonesia