Much effort has been devoted to developing, constructing and refining fish passage facilities to enable target species to pass barriers on fluvial systems, and yet, fishway science, engineering and practice remain imperfect. In this review, 17 experts from different fish passage research fields (i.e., biology, ecology, physiology, ecohydraulics, engineering) and from different continents (i.e., North and South America, Europe, Africa, Australia) identified knowledge gaps and provided a roadmap for research priorities and technical developments. Once dominated by an engineering‐focused approach, fishway science today involves a wide range of disciplines from fish behaviour to socioeconomics to complex modelling of passage prioritization options in river networks. River barrier impacts on fish migration and dispersal are currently better understood than historically, but basic ecological knowledge underpinning the need for effective fish passage in many regions of the world, including in biodiversity hotspots (e.g., equatorial Africa, South‐East Asia), remains largely unknown. Designing efficient fishways, with minimal passage delay and post‐passage impacts, requires adaptive management and continued innovation. While the use of fishways in river restoration demands a transition towards fish passage at the community scale, advances in selective fishways are also needed to manage invasive fish colonization. Because of the erroneous view in some literature and communities of practice that fish passage is largely a proven technology, improved international collaboration, information sharing, method standardization and multidisciplinary training are needed. Further development of regional expertise is needed in South America, Asia and Africa where hydropower dams are currently being planned and constructed.

Fishmeal is the main source of dietary protein for most commercially farmed fish species. However, fishmeal prices have been raised even further because of competition with domestic animals, shortage in world fishmeal supply, and increased demand. Increased fishmeal prices have contributed to the quest for alternatives necessary to replace fishmeal as a global research priority. A literature search was conducted using these terms on Google Scholar and EBSCOhost; fishmeal replacement in fish feeds, fishmeal alternatives in fish feeds, animal protein sources in aquaculture, insects in fish feeds, terrestrial by-products, and fishery by-products. To calculate the variation between experiments, a random effect model was used. Results indicated that different fish species, sizes, and inclusion levels were used in the various studies and showed that the use of insects, terrestrial by-products, and fishery by-products has some limitations. Despite these drawbacks, the use of animal protein sources as a replacement for fishmeal in fish diets has had a positive impact on the feed conversion ratio, variable growth rate, final weight, and survival rate of different types of fish species of different size groups. Findings also showed that some animal by-products had not been assessed as a protein source in aquaculture or animal feeds, and future studies are recommended.

Environmental flows (e-flows) aim to mitigate the threat of altered hydrological regimes in river systems and connected waterbodies and are an important component of integrated strategies to address multiple threats to freshwater biodiversity. Expanding and accelerating implementation of e-flows can support river conservation and help to restore the biodiversity and resilience of hydrologically altered and water-stressed rivers and connected freshwater ecosystems. While there have been significant developments in e-flow science, assessment, and societal acceptance, implementation of e-flows within water resource management has been slower than required and geographically uneven. This review explores critical factors that enable successful e-flow implementation and biodiversity outcomes in particular, drawing on 13 case studies and the literature. It presents e-flow implementation as an adaptive management cycle enabled by 10 factors: legislation and governance, financial and human resourcing, stakeholder engagement and co-production of knowledge, collaborative monitoring of ecological and social-economic outcomes, capacity training and research, exploration of trade-offs among water users, removing or retrofitting water infrastructure to facilitate e-flows and connectivity, and adaptation to climate change. Recognising that there may be barriers and limitations to the full and effective enablement of each factor, the authors have identified corresponding options and generalizable recommendations for actions to overcome prominent constraints, drawing on the case studies and wider literature. The urgency of addressing flow-related freshwater biodiversity loss demands collaborative networks to train and empower a new generation of e-flow practitioners equipped with the latest tools and insights to lead adaptive environmental water management globally. Mainstreaming e-flows within conservation planning, integrated water resource management, river restoration strategies, and adaptations to climate change is imperative. The policy drivers and associated funding commitments of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework offer crucial opportunities to achieve the human benefits contributed by e-flows as nature-based solutions, such as flood risk management, floodplain fisheries restoration, and increased river resilience to climate change.

Environmental flow (E-flow) frameworks advocate holistic, regional-scale, probabilistic E-flow assessments that consider flow and non-flow drivers of change in a socio-ecological context as best practice. Regional-scale ecological risk assessments of multiple stressors to social and ecological endpoints, which address ecosystem dynamism, have been undertaken internationally at different spatial scales using the relative-risk model since the mid-1990s. With the recent incorporation of Bayesian belief networks into the relative-risk model, a robust regional-scale ecological risk assessment approach is available that can contribute to achieving the best practice recommendations of E-flow frameworks. PROBFLO is a holistic E-flow assessment method that incorporates the relative-risk model and Bayesian belief networks (BN-RRM) into a transparent probabilistic modelling tool that addresses uncertainty explicitly. PROBFLO has been developed to evaluate the socio-ecological consequences of historical, current and future water resource use scenarios and generate E-flow requirements on regional spatial scales. The approach has been implemented in two regional-scale case studies in Africa where its flexibility and functionality has been demonstrated. In both case studies the evidence-based outcomes facilitated informed environmental management decision making, with trade-off considerations in the context of social and ecological aspirations. This paper presents the PROBFLO approach as applied to the Senqu River catchment in Lesotho and further developments and application in the Mara River catchment in Kenya and Tanzania. The 10 BN-RRM procedural steps incorporated in PROBFLO are demonstrated with examples from both case studies. PROBFLO can contribute to the adaptive management of water resources and contribute to the allocation of resources for sustainable use of resources and address protection requirements.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are high on the agenda for most countries of the world. In its publication of the SDGs, the UN has provided the goals and target descriptions that, if implemented at a country level, would lead towards a sustainable future. The IAEG (InterAgency Expert Group of the SDGs) was tasked with disseminating indicators and methods to countries that can be used to gather data describing the global progress towards sustainability. However, 2030 Agenda leaves it to countries to adopt the targets with each government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances. At present, guidance on how to go about this is scant but it is clear that the responsibility is with countries to implement and that it is actions at a country level that will determine the success of the SDGs. Reporting on SDGs by country takes on two forms: i) global reporting using prescribed indicator methods and data; ii) National Voluntary Reviews where a country reports on its own progress in more detail but is also able to present data that are more appropriate for the country. For the latter, countries need to be able to adapt the global indicators to fit national priorities and context, thus the global description of an indicator could be reduced to describe only what is relevant to the country. Countries may also, for the National Voluntary Review, use indicators that are unique to the country but nevertheless contribute to measurement of progress towards the global SDG target. Importantly, for those indicators that relate to the security of natural resources security (e.g., water) indicators, there are no prescribed numerical targets/standards or benchmarks. Rather countries will need to set their own benchmarks or standards against which performance can be evaluated. This paper presents a procedure that would enable a country to describe national targets with associated benchmarks that are appropriate for the country. The procedure builds on precedent set in other countries but in particular on a procedure developed for the setting of Resource Quality Objectives in South Africa. The procedure focusses on those SDG targets that are natural resource-security focused, for example, extent of water-related ecosystems (6.6), desertification (15.3) and so forth, because the selection of indicator methods and benchmarks is based on the location of natural resources, their use and present state and how they fit into national strategies.

Irrigated agriculture and inland fisheries both make important contributions to food security, nutrition, livelihoods and wellbeing. Typically, in modern irrigation systems, these components operate independently. Some practices, commonly associated with water use and intensification of crop production can be in direct conflict with and have adverse effects on fisheries. Food security objectives may be compromised if fish are not considered in the design phases of irrigation systems. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides a framework that can serve as a backdrop to help integrate both sectors in policy discussions and optimise their contributions to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Inland fisheries systems do play an important role in supporting many SDG objectives, but these contributions can sometimes be at odds with irrigated agriculture. Using case studies of two globally important river catchments, namely the Lower Mekong and Murray–Darling basins, we highlight the conflicts and opportunities for improved outcomes between irrigated agriculture and inland fisheries. We explore SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) as a path to advance our irrigation systems as a means to benefit both agriculture and inland fisheries, preserving biodiversity and enhancing the economic, environmental and social benefits they both provide to people.2