WOA3, Section 5, Subsection 5A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1F: Trade

Trade

Writing team: Jessica A. Gephart (coordinating author), Frank Asche, Ian Butler (co-lead member), Carlos Chavez, Bolanle Erinosho, Anna Farmery, Senia Febrica, Cheol-Kyu Maeng, Carmen Pedroza-Gutiérrez, Cristina Pita, Cathy Roheim, Jörn Schmidt (lead member) and U. Rashid Sumaila.

Key points

  • The uneven distribution of aquatic resources has driven trade from the local to global levels for millenniums, but the share of marine production being exported has increased in recent decades. Specific trade patterns are mediated by differences in production and transport infrastructure, governance, economic factors and geopolitical relationships.
  • Seafood trade can have positive or negative impacts on local environments, economies and communities, depending on the institutional and governance context.
  • Trade regulations, certifications and traceability tools are emerging to support sustainable seafood trade, but their impacts and effectiveness require further analysis.

1. Introduction

Aquatic resources are unevenly distributed around the world and human population centres are often distant from areas of high abundance. As a result, fish and other aquatic organisms (i.e. aquatic foods) have been traded for millenniums, with some communities specializing in production and trade in order to obtain other goods that are often not available locally. Aquatic food continues to be caught and farmed for subsistence, gifting, bartering and trade within communities, subnationally and internationally. In the present subchapter, trade is considered to include all exchanges of aquatic food for monetary or non-monetary benefit, but focused most prominently on international trade. In addition, the focus is primarily on trade in marine fisheries and aquaculture products (referred to as "seafood"), but it is often not possible to fully separate marine products from inland products in reported trade statistics. Therefore, the collective group of all farmed and wild-caught foods from marine and inland habitats is sometimes referred to as "aquatic foods". At the international level, aquatic food is among the most highly traded foods, with around one third of all production traded and a higher export orientation for marine wild- caught and farmed products compared with inland products Ref 4 Ref 45.

While economic theory indicates that society as a whole benefits from trade, there are important distributional effects, along with potential social and environmental impacts. The specific effects of trade are shaped by the social, economic and institutional context in which it operates, and impacts often represent opposite sides of the same coin. For instance, sellers are willing to export products to obtain a higher price, but removing products from the local market increases local prices and reduces local seafood availability. Conversely, buyers usually purchase less expensive seafood from distant sources, which increases seafood availability and reduces prices for consumers, but cheaper imported products then compete with local products Ref 4. However, the net effect on affordability and broader food and nutrition security is not known.

Trade can also provide consumers with a wider set of species than what is available locally and allow producers with abundant resources and limited local markets to find buyers. Seafood is a highly heterogeneous resource, including over 1,990 wild and farmed marine species, which are used in diverse products, including fresh and frozen fillets, smoked fish and shelf-stable canned and pouch products, which are offered at a wide range of price points (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2024). The production of high-value marine species further incentivizes export to wealthy consumers, and correspondingly many of the top traded species groups such as salmon, shrimp and tuna are also high-value species Ref 45. High-value seafood exports can be particularly important for some national economies, with fisheries representing up to 80% of all exports for some island nations Ref 53. However, the distribution of economic benefits across society is context-dependent, and evidence of the impact of seafood exports on food security is mixed Ref 15. Recent work has demonstrated that the majority (63%) of countries gain nutrient supply from trade in marine fishery products, but of the 36% of countries that experience net nutrient losses, over half are small island developing States or African nations Ref 58.

Global seafood trade has evolved in recent decades along with shifts in global production patterns and practices. Although marine wild fish landings levelled off in the mid-1990s, total aquatic food exports nearly doubled from 1996 to 2020, with aquaculture responsible for the majority of that increase Ref 45. Over this period, interregional trade remained dominant for many regions, but Asia became increasingly important as a destination market for all regions. Correspondingly, there have been shifts in the top importers and exporters of marine products. For example, between 1996 and 2020, China and the Russian Federation emerged as the top two exporters of marine wild fish products Ref 45. However, a significant share of Chinese exports represents products imported for processing and re-exported, with China re-exporting an estimated 75% of its total aquatic food imports Ref 8. This pattern represents another important change in aquatic food trade: the commodification of aquatic foods and regional specialization in processing.

In the present subchapter, the focus is first on the drivers underlying increased trade. An overview of the risks to trade from both slow-moving pressures and sudden disruptions is then provided. Next, the environmental impacts associated with trade are reviewed, followed by key social and economic considerations. Lastly, key governance aspects related to trade are covered before describing sustainability pathways for marine resource trade.

2. Pressures and impacts

Drivers of increasing trade

The uneven distribution of fisheries resources and suitable production environments underpins trade, but there are a number of economic, logistical and governance factors driving increased trade in recent decades. Population and economic growth have increased demand for all types of food products. Aquatic foods play an important role in meeting this demand as global aquatic food production has increased more rapidly than the human population (FAO, 2024), with aquaculture (dominated by inland production) playing a crucial role in meeting recent and projected future demand as the scope for increasing supply from wild fisheries is low Ref 27.

Whether and where seafood is exported depends on consumers' willingness and ability to pay, along with the presence of infrastructure to support transport to those markets. The globalization of seafood markets has been facilitated by improved logistics that reduce transportation costs, thereby increasing the competitiveness of distant producers or distant markets Ref 3. Lower logistics costs and improved supply chains, such as cold chains, enhance producer and consumer access to seafood markets, but such improvements have disproportionately been realized in wealthier countries. However, in recent years logistics have improved globally, and the share of seafood traded to the wealthiest countries has diminished correspondingly Ref 4. Relatedly, a lack of local processing facilities, wage differentials and differences in regulatory stringency across nations have likely contributed to increased exports for processing and re-exports.

International governance systems have also accelerated trade. The introduction of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) extending to 200 nautical miles in the 1970s, with broader adoption in 1982 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, excluded distant water fishing activities from fishery access without a formal access agreement and, in many cases, the domestic fishers who assumed control continued to supply the same markets through exports. For instance, in Japan this drove the transition from a distant-water fishing nation to a major seafood importer Ref 100. Lastly, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, regards seafood as an industrial rather than an agricultural product. This contributes to increased trade as tariffs are generally lower for industrial products, and there have been several general reductions in the maximum tariff rate in this category Ref 12. There are also numerous agreements giving some countries preferential treatment in the form of lower tariffs, sometimes zero or tariff-free export quotas that have an impact on trade flows and market access (Roheim, 2004).

Slow-moving pressures on seafood trade

Although seafood trade has continued to grow in recent decades, evolving economic, regulatory and geopolitical conditions, along with changing environmental conditions, serve as pressures that inhibit and reshape trade.

Although aquatic foods are generally subject to low tariffs, many countries seek to protect domestic processing industries by escalating tariffs on products that are more processed. Aquatic food has also appeared in numerous anti-dumping cases, particularly in the European Union and the United States of America. While there may be legitimate reasons for this, there has been a significant increase in such cases in general, as well as for seafood specifically, and following the establishment of WTO, countries have limited possibilities for increasing tariffs Ref 4. A similar situation exists for so-called non-tariff barriers. These come in a number of forms such as heightened food safety regulations, which are legitimate under the WTO Agreement as long as they are not discriminatory Ref 12. However, such regulations have increasingly been used with some indication that they serve as a substitute for tariffs, sometimes as short-term measures that slow imports until a broader agreement is reached Ref 4.

It has also become legal to implement trade measures to prevent seafood produced with what the importing country considers environmentally unacceptable production practices, as long as these are not discriminatory Ref 88. For instance, the United States has import restrictions on tuna with a high by-catch of swordfish, as well as on shrimp with a high by-catch of turtles. More recently, a Seafood Import Monitoring Program was implemented by the United States to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Similarly, the European Union has had a programme using import restrictions to combat IUU fishing since 2008 Ref 98.

Environmental change is simultaneously shifting production, with the potential to reshape global trade. Climate change is modifying ocean biophysics and thus generating diverse ecological, economic, nutritional and social impacts Ref 25 Ref 54 Ref 69. Fisheries productivity is also projected to shift, with large decreases around the equator and increases in Arctic waters Ref 25 (for more on the climate impacts on fisheries, see sect. 4, subchap. 4D; and subsect. 5A, subchaps. 1A and 1B). Climate impacts can compound existing challenges in marine fishery production, which have already stagnated global catches, and an estimated 28-33% of all stocks are overexploited and 7-13% of stocks have collapsed Ref 18. Changes in local fish abundance can also incentivize trade as local consumption may be maintained by increased imports and increases in fish abundance may incentivize exports. The higher degree of control in the aquaculture production process can allow it to be more climate-resilient Ref 5, though the impacts of climate change on marine aquaculture (mariculture) production potential are projected to be heterogeneous Ref 43.

Disruptions to seafood trade

Sudden disruptions, or shocks, to seafood trade can occur due to a range of environmental, policy, economic and logistical events Ref 30. Production shocks represent drops in landings or mariculture harvest, which can potentially reduce exports, creating a risk of the shock propagating to other countries. Theoretical work suggests that net importers, low-income nations and countries with low food stocks tend to be more exposed to the effects of such shocks, but there is limited empirical evidence of this risk Ref 49 Ref 75 Ref 101. Industrial-scale producers also have better access to more diversified markets, enabling them to avoid the impact of many shocks by reallocating their exports to alternative markets Ref 97. Conversely, trade also allows countries to buffer drops in their own production through increased imports. Analysis of past aquatic food production shocks suggests that exports decrease about as often as imports increase, although the exact combination is highly context-dependent Ref 46.

Disruptions can also occur at other points along the supply chain, including events that specifically have an impact on trade, such as those affecting transportation logistics and the implementation of trade barriers Ref 30. As an ocean-based resource, seafood production is exposed to natural hazards that have an impact on associated infrastructure, such as tropical storms, tsunamis and flooding that affects fishing vessels, coastal aquaculture farms and coastal ports. Disturbances create uncertainty in landings, prices and incomes that can affect actors along the supply chain from fishers to processors to wholesalers and retailers Ref 86. Meanwhile, shipping bottlenecks and long waiting times in ports pose a risk to highly perishable products. Trade barriers, such as tariffs or import bans, which can arise from geopolitical disputes, can also restrict trade (see subsect. 5A, chap. 6). Changes to import standards can serve as an important shock for exporters, as occurred in 1997 with the import ban by the European Union on shrimp from Bangladesh based on the claim that the shrimp did not meet the hazard analysis critical control point regulations, resulting in $14.7 million of lost revenues in the processing sector Ref 23 Ref 113.

As a notable, but potentially unique shock, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted all stages of aquatic food supply chains, but also highlighted many forms of adaptiveness Ref 73 Ref 79. For international trade, the earliest impacts were related to the ban on live animal imports by China, which, for example, halted live lobster exports to the country and increased congestion at ports due to quarantine closures Ref 73. Cancelled passenger flights also restricted trade in fresh products air-freighted in their cargo Ref 73. The closure of hotels, restaurants and cafés and decreases in tourism were also a major cause of disruption to seafood supplies in many locations Ref 79. However, in some cases, suppliers were able to adapt within the global trade network. For example, in the early months of the pandemic, frozen Ecuadorian shrimp destined for China were transferred to the United States and European markets, and Norwegian salmon destined for China was shipped to the United States and Brazil Ref 73. In other cases, suppliers provided local markets through direct selling, as was the case in many locations across the world, with small-scale fisheries producers often stepping up to provide seafood to their communities Ref 10 Ref 13 Ref 21. For more on COVID-19 impacts, see subsection 5B, chapter 7.

Environmental impacts stemming from trade

The specific impact of trade on the environment depends upon the environmental, socioeconomic and regulatory contexts. Trade can theoretically reduce environmental pressures generated by food by shifting production to regions that are more efficient, due either to superior technology or to environmental conditions Ref 112. By shifting processing to countries with more efficient processes, trade can reduce environmental footprints by increasing product yields (see subsect. 5A, subchap. 1E). Centralized processing and access to larger markets also creates opportunities for trade to support a more circular economy by supplying by-products to markets where there are existing alternate uses (e.g. fish heads). Trade can also create opportunities for product substitution that can reduce pressure on poorly managed fisheries, as has been demonstrated for some types of aquaculture production (Asche, Oglend and Smith, 2022).

However, trade can also increase environmental impacts through three mechanisms: (a) increased global demand; (b) shifting sourcing to countries with weaker regulations; and (c) transport-related emissions. Under an open access situation for fishery resources, increased global demand coupled with trade liberalization increases fish prices, motivating increased harvesting effort by exporters. In the absence of entry restrictions or when regulations are weak, this could reduce stocks and catch in the long run, which implies negative environmental impacts from trade Ref 19. However, as a corollary, imports into a country with weak management would likely reduce prices and thereby fishing pressure. The net welfare effect will depend on the comparison between the short-run gains and the long-run losses from reduced stocks Ref 19. Recent empirical research on the impact of trade on stock status shows mixed evidence. Consistent with theoretical predictions, Eisenbarth (2022) shows that exports significantly increase fishery resource depletion. Meanwhile, Erhardt (2018) found that trade liberalization may decrease the likelihood of fishery collapse in countries with lax governance. Trade liberalization may also reshape local governance. For example, a price increase of marine resources in a given exporting country due to demand increase from trade could affect common-pool resource management Ref 33.

Trade liberalization has also fuelled increases in aquaculture production. Because aquaculture requires resource inputs, especially feed, and relies on natural environments, there are different areas of concern: water pollution from nutrient load and the use of antibiotics; escaped fish that could produce genetic contamination; the spread of fish disease; and pressure on other natural resources because of input demands such as feed Ref 5 Ref 48. Although there is currently no clear evidence as to whether trade is driving increases in aquaculture-related environmental impacts, any incurred impacts must be weighed in the context of the broader food system (i.e. how they compare with foods that would be eaten instead) and their nutrient contribution Ref 47.

Lastly, since diet-related greenhouse gas emissions are dominated by the production stage, the question of which foods are consumed is generally more important than where the food is produced Ref 85. Aquatic foods generally result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than terrestrial animal-source foods, meaning that improved seafood availability can reduce dietary emissions when replacing higher emission foods Ref 48 Ref 85. Nevertheless, transport itself results in greenhouse gas emissions, as transport is responsible for around 10% of life cycle emissions for food Ref 85. Air-freighted products, including some high-value seafood products, typically have much higher transport emissions. However, the breakdown of transport emissions along the supply chain is not sufficiently well established to compare product emissions for internationally traded and more regionally traded products. At present, emission-related environmental costs are not internalized in transportation costs, which enables less expensive trade across large distances. In future, transitioning transportation to renewable sources of energy would further reduce the overall life cycle emissions of seafood.

3. Socioeconomic considerations

Seafood trade results in a diverse set of social and economic changes, which depend on the production and institutional context. Potential impacts stemming from seafood trade generally differ for the industrial and small-scale sectors due to the larger scale and capacity of industrial aquaculture and fisheries supply chains.

Industrial fishing and mariculture production and trade can support income and livelihoods in coastal communities. Empirical evidence on the impact of export-oriented fisheries and aquaculture on local economies suggests that the effect could be significant but depends on local conditions. For example, a recent study of Alaskan fisheries indicates that positive direct effects include an increase in local employment for the fishing crew, greater added value from processed catch and a spillover effect from commercial fishing to non-fishing sectors Ref 110. However, industrial-scale seafood production also creates many of the most significant challenges associated with seafood production when governance is weak; for example, large-scale distant-water fleets have been associated with severe overfishing and forced labour Ref 77.

Mariculture can also represent an important source of revenue, with the potential to transform coastal communities in myriad ways. An example is the salmon farming industry in Chile, currently representing around 6% of the country's total exports of goods. The rise of this industry has transformed regions where it has developed, resulting in heterogenous impacts across local coastal communities traditionally devoted to small-scale agriculture and artisanal fisheries Ref 9. Developing an export-oriented seafood industry has also been important for employment and settlement along the Norwegian coast Ref 65. Although the empirical evidence is limited, large-scale aquaculture appears to have contributed to poverty alleviation and reduced income inequality in some remote coastal communities. For example, Ceballos and others (2018) found that industrial salmon aquaculture reduced poverty in remote coastal areas of southern Chile, while Cárdenas-Retamal and others (2021) found evidence that this industry also reduced income inequality where it operates.

In the context of small-scale fisheries, the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and indicator b.1 of Sustainable Development Goal 14 call for ensuring small-scale fishers' security of tenure and access to resources and markets Ref 38. Small-scale fisheries account for at least 40% of global fish landings and although most small-scale fishery landings are marketed domestically, a substantial share of marine small-scale fishery landings enters international trade (FAO, 2023). Small-scale fishers, farmers and their communities around the world, however, face barriers in accessing markets for their harvests, as they often lack sufficient marketing facilities, appropriate logistics infrastructure and technology, or access to financial services such as a bank account or credit and loan schemes Ref 55 Ref 67. Financial institutions, for example, are hesitant to finance small-scale fishers because the majority do not have collateral or bank accounts Ref 67. Small-scale producers can also face barriers to certification, which can limit access to potential price premiums for exported products Ref 96 Ref 109. For more on small- scale fisheries, see subsection 5A, subchapter 1B.

Gender dimensions of trade

Women make up 40% of the labour force involved in small-scale fisheries-related activities (FAO, 2023). They play an essential role in all aspects of the fisheries value chain Ref 59. They are engaged especially in processing and trade, as trading fish is considered a suitable activity for women in many societies Ref 81 Ref 82. However, gender norms and rules vary and while women dominate trade in some places, such as Ghana, they might not engage in fish trade in other countries, such as India and Mexico (Pedroza-Gutiérrez and Hapke, 2022).

Despite women often playing a central role in fish trade and markets, their labour is largely informal and therefore "invisible", underscoring the persistent need for gender-disaggregated statistics. Moreover, women's double burden - which involves the responsibility of managing the household and childcare Ref 68 Ref 111 - limits the possibility of childbearing-aged women spending more hours in the marketplace or travelling to fish markets, which affects their income. Therefore, gendered institutions in fish markets shape trading dynamics, limiting women's participation.

The gendered nature of the fisheries sector results in women often concentrating in local small-retail trade, relegated as helpers, with limited access to wholesale fish markets where higher-income fisheries activities take place. Men often dominate larger-scale trade and benefit from a larger economic income obtained from these activities. However, despite the disadvantages for women of securing access to fish, the economic income generated by this activity represents a livelihood strategy that benefits household and local economies. Therefore, to transform existing gendered fish trade dynamics that limit women's participation, it is imperative to give voice to women in fish market governance and improve access rights to resources and training Ref 80.

Role in food security

Aquatic foods are highly nutritious and play a central role in food and nutrition security for billions of people Ref 105. In many coastal countries, the majority of landings from small-scale fisheries are consumed in the household, or gifted or bartered with kin and community, thereby directly contributing to local food and nutrition security Ref 74 Ref 90. Aquaculture production may also contribute to local and national food security Ref 44, although there is limited work distinguishing between inland and marine aquaculture impacts on food security.

Seafood caught or farmed for sale in local or international markets can directly or indirectly contribute to food and nutrition security. Trade can directly help to meet seafood demand in many countries Ref 45, and imports can be highly important for aquatic food availability Ref 76 and provide more affordable nutrients from aquatic foods Ref 71. Seafood can also indirectly contribute to food and nutrition security by generating income, which can be used to buy other food Ref 14. However, at the same time, seafood trade can have negative food and nutrition impacts when highly nutritious products are exported and less nutritious food is imported (see, for example, Liverpool-Tasie and others, 2021), or when commercial fishers compete with artisanal and subsistence fishers Ref 11. This may happen when farmed or wild seafood is only seen for its export value and contribution to the national economy, undervaluing its importance as a source of nutrition Ref 40.

Interactions and competition with other ocean-based economy sectors

In response to increased recognition of the ocean as an economic frontier, industrial-scale development has accelerated in the ocean over the past two decades Ref 66. Growth in ocean- based economy sectors such as shipping and port development have created opportunities for further trade. For example, investments in the development of seaports stimulate foreign trade growth in port areas and neighbouring regions Ref 42. However, the growth of these sectors alongside other ocean-based economy sectors such as mining, energy production, tourism and marine conservation has created competition for ocean space and resources, which may constrain seafood landings and affect the livelihoods of fishers Ref 51 Ref 52. Referred to as "spatial squeeze", the conflict potential between fisheries and mariculture with other ocean-based sectors is expected to increase Ref 95 as fisheries and aquaculture are rarely prioritized in blue economy narratives or related marine spatial planning exercises Ref 40.

Tourism, particularly ecotourism, contributes substantially to growth in gross domestic product (GDP) and total employment in many countries Ref 26. Increased tourism can lead to greater domestic seafood trade to meet restaurant demand. For example, deep-bottom fish species account for a substantial component of commercial fishing income in Vanuatu, driven by tourist demand Ref 107. Tourism can be an important driver of food systems, particularly in developing countries, where fisheries play a key role in the food and nutrition security of local communities Ref 32. At the same time, international trade could also supply foreign seafood products to meet tourist demand.

Without appropriate guardrails, further coastal development is likely to result in impacts on ocean ecosystems, such as physical damage to habitats, waste discharge, oil spills and noise pollution (e.g. Simpson and others, 2016), leading to degradation of wild-capture fisheries that could reduce their yield. These environmental changes, coupled with climate change, are projected to have a negative impact on the food and nutrition security of millions of coastal people and affect trade Ref 54 Ref 61 Ref 94. However, if done well, ocean-based economy development can produce synergies. For example, potential fishing opportunities can arise from the development of offshore wind farms Ref 102 and programmes such as the Blue Ports Initiative are aimed at transforming marine ports to promote social, environmental and economic sustainability.

4. Sector-relevant governance

The impacts of the seafood trade, whether positive or negative, on local environments, economies and communities are shaped by the institutional and governance context. Each fishery, whether small-scale or industrial, can operate in very different forms with a range of governance structures. These governance entities can be seen as the formal and informal rules and norms governing fishing interactions and behaviour Ref 84 and shaping how benefits and externalities accrue along value chains. They create fishery management institutions, which are highly influenced by the fisheries context, and at the same time shape and are shaped by national and global market demands Ref 36. Formal institutions that depend on human action, related to the State and government regulations, and informal institutions such as self-imposed codes of conduct Ref 106 all govern marine fisheries around the world Ref 84. Depending on the context, informal institutions can promote sustainable fisheries management (e.g. Pedroza-Gutiérrez and López-Rocha, 2021) or undermine it because they can determine norms of operation that can allow unsustainable practices and illegal fishing activities Ref 37. While trade can create incentives that exacerbate positive or negative features of governance, the present part of the subchapter is focused on governance and management structures directly related to trade, namely trade measures aimed at ensuring the sustainability of traded seafood and trade measures focused on ensuring positive health and social benefits.

Trade measures for ensuring the sustainability of traded seafood

Rigorous traceability and other verification systems have become increasingly important to reinforce and support sustainable aquaculture practices and fisheries management in the context of globalization. A range of bilateral and international agreements, national import regulations and private certifications have become prevalent for regulating seafood trade and supporting seafood traceability Ref 70.

The earliest sustainability-focused trade measures for seafood targeted restricting trade in endangered species. Governments have passed laws banning or restricting trade in endangered species, including aquatic species. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international treaty under which all Parties subject species listed in CITES Appendices to additional trade controls, in compliance with CITES provisions. However, relatively few marine species fall within CITES Ref 108, although the set of shark and ray species included was expanded in 2023 (History of CITES Listing of Sharks (Elasmobranchii), CITES, n.d.). Bilateral and regional trade agreements can also include sustainability standards for fisheries and aquaculture products.

Import regulations aimed at restricting markets for IUU-sourced products are becoming increasingly common. IUU practices have been estimated to account for 18% of global fisheries, equating to losses in value worth $10 billion to $23.5 billion annually Ref 1 and reduced economic benefits of roughly $50 billion a year Ref 88. As a first layer to reduce market access for IUU-sourced products, the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, introduced in 2016, was the first binding international agreement to prevent vessels engaged in IUU fishing from using ports and landing their catches. In this way, the Agreement on Port State Measures limits the ability of IUU-sourced products from entering national and international markets. As another layer, individual countries or groups of countries have created import regulations that require reporting on seafood sourcing and/or documentation, such as the European Union catch certification programme and the United States Seafood Import Monitoring Program.

In addition to national and international regulations, a range of private labelling and certification schemes rely on traceability and chain of custody systems to ensure that seafood from certified sustainable fisheries is accurately identified and sold in the international market Ref 87. Early approaches to promoting sustainable seafood supply chains are focused on single-species eco-labels, such as dolphin-safe tuna, and seafood ranking guides, such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch programme and Ocean Wise. Sustainability- and conservation-related certification tools such as those of the Marine Stewardship Council and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council have expanded and evolved to influence relationships between actors within the supply chain and buyers and consumers Ref 20.

Trade measures to promote positive health and social outcomes

Trade can benefit human health by providing employment opportunities, improved living conditions and improved access to nutritious food, but it can also result in harm to health and health equity Ref 60. However, clear benefits can be gained by aligning trade policy so that it contributes explicitly to the goal of improving diets and nutrition. Countries such as Ghana and Samoa have attempted to do so, with mixed results Ref 103.

Food products, including seafood, are governed by a variety of national, regional and international food safety rules, guidance and codes of practice aimed at protecting consumers from health hazards. These protections cover such issues as food hygiene, chemical contaminants and diseases and their compliance with national food standards. International standards, such as those produced through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a joint body of FAO and the World Health Organization (WHO), are also aimed at improving the safety, quality and fairness of the international food trade. Global improvements in food and nutrition security under an open and inclusive trade regime have contributed to falling levels of undernourishment, better nutrition, greater dietary diversity and overall economic development (International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2018).

Trade can also provide greater income security and improved labour standards that can promote positive health and social outcomes within appropriate governance structures. However, opening trade in countries without appropriate guardrails can create social risks, including those stemming from increases in inequality and negative impacts on health Ref 64. The significant incidence of debt entrapment, human rights abuses, forced labour, child labour or forced child labour in the main seafood hub countries has led to legislative changes, making food companies liable for the working conditions behind the goods they sell Ref 77. Multilevel governance approaches are needed to deal with the potential negative effects of market integration on local livelihood options and fishery health Ref 28.

5. Sustainability pathways

The production of seafood is unevenly distributed around the world due to differences in environmental conditions, comparative advantages and governance institutions Ref 92, and climate change is already reshaping the distribution of seafood globally Ref 25. Therefore, by 2050 trade will need play an even more important role in supporting sustainable production and equitably distributing the nutritional and economic benefits stemming from seafood production. Positive outcomes related to trade will need to be expanded in food systems, spanning from those oriented towards local sourcing, reflecting local resource endowments and capacities, to those oriented towards global sourcing.

Sustainable wild fish and mariculture production is the foundation of sustainable trade in marine foods. Appropriate management must first be in place to enable trade in sustainable products. Trade can also serve as a tool to incentivize better social and environmental performance by limiting markets for illegally caught products that create an unfair playing field, creating opportunities for higher prices for sustainably sourced products and raising the global standard for products.

However, to realize this opportunity, it is important to strengthen sustainability standards for all seafood and improve traceability systems. Under this scenario, countries need to adopt strong import regulations that are inclusive of social and environmental sustainability standards and to coordinate these standards in order to align reporting criteria and create interoperable systems that reduce the burden on industry. To ensure that higher trade standards do not impede market access for lower-income countries, countries must coordinate to support these producers in meeting import standards. This includes equitable investments in processing technology and infrastructure.

To support the implementation of trade standards, countries could invest in tools related to traceability and environmental forensics. For example, blockchain technology provides a distributed record-keeping system to track claimed seafood product origins and movements Ref 16. The claims include a record of actors and other information that can be used to verify claims and connect trade flows to bad actors. A key area of development is environmental forensic tools. DNA analysis, genomics and biogeochemistry allow for the identification of species, in some cases allowing subpopulations to be distinguished, testing for wild versus farmed origin, and improved estimation of geographic origin Ref 17 Ref 29. Identifying the actors involved allows trade flows to be connected back to vessel information, which can subsequently be linked to production stage activities using remote sensing, satellite imagery and machine learning that detects destructive and illegal fishing activities, such as dynamite fishing and the presence of IUU fishing vessels and support systems, including bunker ships, trans-shipment ships and offshore infrastructure.

While these technologies are rapidly improving, they still require significant investments Ref 99, and key knowledge gaps remain with respect to their broad application. The initial phase of adoption has generally involved industrial, high-value fisheries, but as technology systems improve and costs decline, broader adoption is possible. Knowledge gaps nevertheless remain with regard to equitable expansion to small-scale fisheries, and research on strategies for market development that is inclusive of small-scale fisheries remains a priority.

While ensuring the sustainability of traded seafood is important, it does not guarantee on its own that trade positively contributes to human well-being. Eliminating existing injustices related to aquatic food trade requires incorporating three interdependent dimensions of justice: distributional (economic structures enable people to have the resources necessary to fully participate), recognitional (social and cultural structures recognize all identities, allowing participation) and representational (political structures ensure voices count in decision-making) Ref 62. There is no single tool for eliminating injustices related to trade; however, countries can take several steps towards this. First, they can develop meaningfully inclusive processes for crafting trade policies and agreements. Second, they can ensure transparency in decision-making processes for trade agreements and policies and in the monitoring of adherence to, and impacts of, adopted trade agreements and policies. As an element of improved transparency, countries can support the democratization of information, which requires clear identification of data and maintenance thereof with complete metadata, following best practices for open data. Third, if communities choose to export products, they may also aim to capture greater economic value in their communities, which could require processing and trade infrastructure and training to ensure that products meet safety and sustainability standards.

To arm communities and countries with the information needed to make decisions about trade policies, there is a need for better understanding and recognition of the diverse benefits of aquatic foods. Aquatic foods represent an economically valuable resource and are increasingly recognized for their high nutrient content and long-standing importance for livelihoods and cultural practices. Clearer pathways are needed to support the inclusion of fisheries and aquaculture in food systems planning, where the focus has been on terrestrial agricultural activities Ref 41. Better understanding of the diverse values of seafood, combined with inclusive decision-making processes, will enable seafood trade to better contribute to the range of social, environmental and health goals.

References

  1. Agnew, D.J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., Watson, R., Beddington, J.R., and Pitcher, T.J. (2009). Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing. PLoS ONE, 4(2), e4570.
  2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004570.
  3. Anderson, J.L., Asche, F., and Garlock, T. (2018). Globalization and commoditization: The transformation of the seafood market. Journal of Commodity Markets, 12, 2-8.
  4. Asche, F., Bellemare, M.F., Roheim, C., Smith, M.D., and Tveteras, S. (2015). Fair Enough? Food Security and the International Trade of Seafood. World Development, 67, 151-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.013.
  5. Asche, F., Eggert, H., Oglend, A., Roheim, C.A., and Smith, M.D. (2022a). Aquaculture: Externalities and Policy Options. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 16(2), 282-305. https://doi.org/10.1086/721055.
  6. Asche, F., Oglend, A., and Smith, M.D. (2022). Global markets and the commons: The role of imports in the US wild-caught shrimp market. Environmental Research Letters, 17(4), 045023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5b3e.
  7. Asche, F., Sogn-Grundvåg, G., and Zhang, D. (2022). Large-scale fisheries during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of the oceangoing groundfish fleet in Norway. Marine Policy, 144, 105223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105223.
  8. Asche, F., Yang, B., Gephart, J.A., Smith, M.D., Anderson, J.L., Camp, E.V., Garlock, T.M., Love, D.C., Oglend, A., and Straume, H.- M. (2022b). China's seafood imports-Not for domestic consumption? Science, 375(6579), 386-388. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ab14756.
  9. Barrett, G., Caniggia, M.I., and Read, L. (2002). There are More Vets than Doctors in Chiloé: Social and Community Impact of the Globalization of Aquaculture in Chile. World Development, 30(11), 1951- 1965. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00112-2.
  10. Bassett, H.R., Sharan, S., Suri, S.K., Advani, S., and Giordano, C. (2022). A comparative study of small-scale fishery supply chains' vulnerability and resilience to COVID-19. Maritime Studies, 21(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-021-00231-4.
  11. Belhabib, D., Cheung, W.W.L., Kroodsma, D., Lam, V.W.Y., Underwood, P.J., and Virdin, J. (2020). Catching industrial fishing incursions into inshore waters of Africa from space. Fish and Fisheries, 21(2), 379-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12436.
  12. Bellmann, C., Tipping, A., and Sumaila, U.R. (2016). Global trade in fish and fishery products: An overview. Marine Policy, 69, 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.019.
  13. Belton, B., Rosen, L., Middleton, L., Ghazali, S., Mamun, A.- A., Shieh, J., Noronha, H.S., Dhar, G., Ilyas, M., Price, C., Nasr-Allah, A., Elsira, I., Baliarsingh, B.K., Padiyar, A., Rajendran, S., Mohan, A.B.C., Babu, R., Akester, M.J., Phyo, E.E., and Thilsted, S.H. (2021). COVID-19 impacts and adaptations in Asia and Africa's aquatic food value chains. Marine Policy, 129, 104523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104523.
  14. Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.- I., and Williams, M. (2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050 - Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security, 7(2), 261-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z.
  15. Béné, C., Lawton, R., and Allison, E.H. (2010). "Trade Matters in the Fight Against Poverty": Narratives, Perceptions, and (Lack of) Evidence in the Case of Fish Trade in Africa. World Development, 38(7), 933-954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.12.010.
  16. Blaha, F., and Katafono, K. (2020). Blockchain application in seafood value chains. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8751en.
  17. Boultby, E.N., Martino, J.C., Baring, R., and Doubleday, Z.A. (2024). Using isotopic fingerprints in gastropod shells to validate commercial production pathway and geographic provenance. Royal Society Open Science, 11(5), 231673. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231673.
  18. Branch, T.A., Jensen, O.P., Ricard, D., Ye, Y., and Hilborn, R. (2011). Contrasting Global Trends in Marine Fishery Status Obtained from Catches and from Stock Assessments: Global Trends in Marine Fishery Status. Conservation Biology, 25(4), 777-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01687.x.
  19. Brander, J.A., and Taylor, M.S. (1998). Open access renewable resources: Trade and trade policy in a two-country model. Journal of International Economics, 44, 181-209.
  20. Bush, S.R., and Roheim, C.A. (2019). The shifting politics of sustainable seafood consumerism: Vol. Oxford handbook of political consumerism. Oxford University Press.
  21. Campbell, S.J., Jakub, R., Valdivia, A., Setiawan, H., Setiawan, A., Cox, C., Kiyo, A., Darman, Djafar, L.F., Rosa, E.D.L., Suherfian, W., Yuliani, A., Kushardanto, H., Muawanah, U., Rukma, A., Alimi, T., and Box, S. (2021). Immediate impact of COVID-19 across tropical small-scale fishing communities. Ocean & Coastal Management, 200, 105485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105485.
  22. Cárdenas-Retamal, R., Dresdner-Cid, J., and Ceballos-Concha, A. (2021). Impact assessment of salmon farming on income distribution in remote coastal areas: The Chilean case. Food Policy, 101, 102078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102078.
  23. Cato, J.C., and Dos Santos, C.A.L. (1998). European Union 1997 Seafood-Safety Ban: The Economic Impact on Bangladesh Shrimp Processing. Marine Resource Economics, 13(3), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.13.3.42629235.
  24. Ceballos, A., Dresdner-Cid, J.D., and Quiroga-Suazo, M.Á. (2018). Does the location of salmon farms contribute to the reduction of poverty in remote coastal areas? An impact assessment using a Chilean case study. Food Policy, 75, 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.009.
  25. Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Sarmiento, J.L., Kearney, K., Watson, R., Zeller, D., and Pauly, D. (2010). Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology, 16(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01995.x.
  26. Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., and Sumaila, U.R. (2010). A global estimate of benefits from ecosystem-based marine recreation: Potential impacts and implications for management. Journal of Bioeconomics, 12(3), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-010-9092-7.
  27. Costello, C., Cao, L., and Gelcich, S. (2019). The future of food from the Sea. World Resources Institute: Washington, D.C., USA, 2019-11.
  28. Crona, B.I., Van Holt, T., Petersson, M., Daw, T.M., and Buchary, E. (2015). Using social-ecological syndromes to understand impacts of international seafood trade on small-scale fisheries. Global Environmental Change, 35, 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.006.
  29. Cusa, M., St. John Glew, K., Trueman, C., Mariani, S., Buckley, L., Neat, F., and Longo, C. (2022). A future for seafood point-of-origin testing using DNA and stable isotope signatures. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 32(2), 597-621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09680-w.
  30. Davis, K.F., Downs, S., and Gephart, J.A. (2020). Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nature Food, 2(1), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00196-3.
  31. Decker Sparks, J.L., and Hasche, L.K. (2019). Complex linkages between forced labor slavery and environmental decline in marine fisheries. Journal of Human Rights, 18(2), 230-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2019.1602824.
  32. Degarege, G.A., and Lovelock, B. (2020). Sustainable tourism development and food security in Ethiopia: Policy-making and planning. Routledge.
  33. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., and Stern, P.C. (2017). The struggle to govern the commons. Routledge.
  34. Eisenbarth, S. (2022). Do exports of renewable resources lead to resource depletion? Evidence from fisheries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 112, 102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102603.
  35. Erhardt, T. (2018). Does International Trade Cause Overfishing? Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 5(4), 695-711. https://doi.org/10.1086/698362.
  36. Eriksson, H., Österblom, H., Crona, B., Troell, M., Andrew, N., Wilen, J., and Folke, C. (2015). Contagious exploitation of marine resources. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(8), 435-440. https://doi.org/10.1890/140312.
  37. Etiegni, C.A., Irvine, K., and Kooy, M. (2017). Playing by whose rules? Community norms and fisheries rules in selected beaches within Lake Victoria (Kenya) co-management. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(4), 1557-1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9799-2.
  38. FAO (2022a). A policy and legal diagnostic tool for sustainable small-scale fisheries. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb8234en.
  39. FAO (2022b). Applying coherently the human rights framework to small-scale fisheries for achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3251en.
  40. Farmery, A.K., Allison, E.H., Andrew, N.L., Troell, M., Voyer, M., Campbell, B., Eriksson, H., Fabinyi, M., Song, A.M., and Steenbergen, D. (2021). Blind spots in visions of a "blue economy" could undermine the ocean's contribution to eliminating hunger and malnutrition. One Earth, 4(1), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.002.
  41. Farmery, A.K., Delisle, A., and Tioti, R. (2024). Clearer pathways needed to engage small-scale fisheries in food system planning: Lessons from the Pacific experience. One Earth, 7(10), 1660-1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.09.012.
  42. Fedorenko, R., Yakhneeva, I., Zaychikova, N., and Lipinsky, D. (2021). Evaluating the Socio-Economic Factors Impacting Foreign Trade Development in Port Areas. Sustainability, 13(15), 8447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158447.
  43. Froehlich, H.E., Gentry, R.R., and Halpern, B.S. (2018). Global change in marine aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0669-1.
  44. Garlock, T., Asche, F., Anderson, J., Ceballos-Concha, A., Love, D.C., Osmundsen, T.C., and Pincinato, R.B.M. (2022). Aquaculture: The missing contributor in the food security agenda. Global Food Security, 32, 100620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100620.
  45. Gephart, J.A., Agrawal Bejarano, R., Gorospe, K., Godwin, A., Golden, C.D., Naylor, R.L., Nash, K.L., Pace, M.L., and Troell, M. (2024). Globalization of wild capture and farmed aquatic foods. Nature Communications, 15(1), 8026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51965-8.
  46. Gephart, J. A., Deutsch, L., Pace, M. L., Troell, M., & Seekell, D. A. (2017). Shocks to fish production: Identification, trends, and consequences. Global Environmental Change, 42, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.003
  47. Gephart, J.A., and Golden, C.D. (2022). Environmental and nutritional double bottom lines in aquaculture. One Earth, 5(4), 324-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.03.018.
  48. Gephart, J.A., Henriksson, P.J.G., Parker, R.W.R., Shepon, A., Gorospe, K.D., Bergman, K., Eshel, G., Golden, C.D., Halpern, B.S., Hornborg, S., Jonell, M., Metian, M., Mifflin, K., Newton, R., Tyedmers, P., Zhang, W., Ziegler, F., and Troell, M. (2021). Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature, 597(7876), 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2.
  49. Gephart, J.A., Rovenskaya, E., Dieckmann, U., Pace, M.L., & Brännström, Å. (2016). Vulnerability to shocks in the global seafood trade network. Environmental Research Letters, 11(3), 035008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035008.
  50. Gephart, J.A., Maxson, P., Simeone, J., Agrawal Bejarano, R., Anderson, C.M., Asche, F., Barnes, J., Hauser, L., Love, D.C., Mallory, T., and Smith, M.D. (2025). Existing seafood traceability tools are insufficient for enforcing import restrictions. Npj Ocean Sustainability, 4(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-025-00103-y.
  51. Germond-Duret, C. (2022). Framing the Blue Economy: Placelessness, Development and Sustainability. Development and Change, 53(2), 308-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12703.
  52. Germond-Duret, C., Heidkamp, C.P., and Morrissey, J. (2023). (In)justice and the blue economy. The Geographical Journal, 189(2), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12483.
  53. Gillett, R. (2009). Fisheries in the economies of the Pacific island countries and territories. Asian Development Bank.
  54. Golden, C.D., Allison, E.H., Cheung, W.W.L., Dey, M.M., Halpern, B.S., McCauley, D.J., Smith, M., Vaitla, B., Zeller, D., and Myers, S.S. (2016). Nutrition: Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature News, 534(7607), 317. https://doi.org/10.1038/534317a.
  55. Golo, H.K., and Erinosho, B. (2023). Tackling the challenges confronting women in the Elmina fishing community of Ghana: A human rights framework. Marine Policy, 147, 105349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105349.
  56. Graziano, M., Fox, C.J., Alexander, K., Pita, C., Heymans, J.J., Crumlish, M., Hughes, A., Ghanawi, J., and Cannella, L. (2018). Environmental and socio-political shocks to the seafood sector: What does this mean for resilience? Lessons from two UK case studies, 1945-2016. Marine Policy, 87, 301-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.014.
  57. Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Verstaen, J., Rayner, P .- E., Clawson, G., Blanchard, J.L., Cottrell, R.S., Froehlich, H.E., Gephart, J.A., Jacobsen, N.S., Kuempel, C.D., McIntyre, P.B., Metian, M., Moran, D.,
  58. Nash, K.L., Többen, J., and Williams, D.R. (2022). The environmental footprint of global food production. Nature Sustainability, 5(12), 1027-1039. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00965-x.
  59. Harper, S., Zeller, D., Hauzer, M., Pauly, D., and Sumaila, U.R. (2013). Women and fisheries: Contribution to food security and local economies. Marine Policy, 39, 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.018.
  60. Hawkes, C., Chopra, M., and Friel, S. (2009). Globalization, Trade, and the Nutrition Transition. In Globalization and Health. Routledge.
  61. Hicks, C.C., Cohen, P.J., Graham, N.A.J., Nash, K.L., Allison, E.H., D'Lima, C., Mills, D.J., Roscher, M., Thilsted, S.H., Thorne-Lyman, A.L., and MacNeil, M.A. (2019). Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature, 574(7776), 95-98. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1592-6.
  62. Hicks, C.C., Gephart, J.A., Koehn, J.Z., Nakayama, S., Payne, H.J., Allison, E.H., Belhbib, D., Cao, L., Cohen, P.J., Fanzo, J., Fluet-Chouinard, E., Gelcich, S., Golden, C.D., Gorospe, K.D., Isaacs, M., Kuempel, Caitlin. D., Lee, K.N., MacNeil, M.A., Maire, E., and Naylor, R.L. (2022). Rights and representation support justice across aquatic food systems. Nature Food, 3(10), 851-861. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00618-4.
  63. CITES (n.d.). History of CITES listing of sharks (Elasmobranchii). Retrieved 16 March 2025 from https://cites.org/eng/prog/shark/history.php.
  64. IFPRI (2018). Trade: The free flow of goods and food security and nutrition (0 ed.). International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292970_03.
  65. Johansen, U., Bull-Berg, H., Vik, L.H., Stokka, A.M., Richardsen, R., and Winther, U. (2019). The Norwegian seafood industry - Importance for the national economy. Marine Policy, 110, 103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103561.
  66. Jouffray, J.- B., Blasiak, R., Norström, A.V., Österblom, H., and Nyström, M. (2020). The Blue Acceleration: The Trajectory of Human Expansion into the Ocean. One Earth, 2(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.016.
  67. Kanyimba, A.T., and Jonas, M.N. (2023). Barriers to Integrating Financial Inclusion for Coastal Small- Scale Fishermen into Namibian Fisheries Policies and Regulatory Frameworks. In H. Chitimira, and T.V. Warikandwa, eds. Financial Inclusion and Digital Transformation Regulatory Practices in Selected SADC Countries (vol. 106, pp. 323-350). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-031-23863-5_15.
  68. Kleiber, D., Frangoudes, K., Snyder, H.T., Choudhury, A., Cole, S.M., Soejima, K., Pita, C., Santos, A., McDougall, C., Petrics, H., and Porter, M. (2017). Promoting Gender Equity and Equality Through the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines: Experiences from Multiple Case Studies. In S. Jentoft, R. Chuenpagdee, M.J. Barragán-Paladines, and N. Franz, eds. The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines (vol. 14, pp. 737-759). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55074-9_35.
  69. Lam, V.W.Y., Cheung, W.W.L., Reygondeau, G., and Sumaila, U.R. (2016). Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate change. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32607.
  70. Lewis, S.G., and Boyle, M. (2017). The Expanding Role of Traceability in Seafood: Tools and Key Initiatives. Journal of Food Science, 82(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13743.
  71. Liu, Y., Smith, M.D., Abbott, J.K., Dietz, D., Colson Leaning, D., Smyth, A., and Yamashita, T. (2025). The global seafood trade, embodied nutrients, and nutritional affordability. Nature Communications, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-61012-9.
  72. Liverpool-Tasie, L.S.O., Sanou, A., Reardon, T., and Belton, B. (2021). Demand for Imported versus Domestic Fish in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(3), 782-804. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12423.
  73. Love, D.C., Allison, E.H., Asche, F., Belton, B., Cottrell, R.S., Froehlich, H.E., Gephart, J.A., Hicks, C.C., Little, D.C., Nussbaumer, E.M., Pinto da Silva, P., Poulain, F., Rubio, A., Stoll, J.S., Tlusty, M.F., Thorne-Lyman, A.L., Troell, M., and Zhang, W. (2021). Emerging COVID-19 impacts, responses, and lessons for building resilience in the seafood system. Global Food Security, 28, 100494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100494.
  74. March, A., and Failler, P. (2022). Small-scale fisheries development in Africa: Lessons learned and best practices for enhancing food security and livelihoods. Marine Policy, 136, 104925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104925.
  75. Marchand, P., Carr, J.A., Dell'Angelo, J., Fader, M., Gephart, J.A., Kummu, M., Magliocca, N.R., Porkka, M., Puma, M.J., Ratajczak, Z., Rulli, M.C., Seekell, D.A., Suweis, S., Tavoni, A., and D'Odorico, P. (2016). Reserves and trade jointly determine exposure to food supply shocks. Environmental Research Letters, 11(9), 095009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095009.
  76. Marin, C., Adewumi, O.M., Asche, F., Garlock, T.M., Kristofersson, D.M., Lorenzen, K., and Yang, B. (2024). Does seafood trade enhance seafood availability in developing countries? The case of Nigeria. Marine Policy, 161, 106030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106030.
  77. Nakamura, K., Bishop, L., Ward, T., Pramod, G., Thomson, D.C., Tungpuchayakul, P., and Srakaew, S. (2018). Seeing slavery in seafood supply chains. Science Advances, 4(7), e1701833. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701833.
  78. Nash, K.L., MacNeil, M.A., Blanchard, J.L., Cohen, P.J., Farmery, A.K., Graham, N.A.J., Thorne-Lyman, A.L., Watson, R.A., and Hicks, C.C. (2022). Trade and foreign fishing mediate global marine nutrient supply. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(22), e2120817119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120817119.
  79. Nyiawung, R.A., Ehrlick, T., Bennett, N.J., Brunet, N.D., Matos, F., Pita, C., Stoll, J.S., and Loring, P.A. (2024). Fisheries and the COVID-19 pandemic: A global scoping review of the early pressures, impacts, and responses in least developed, emerging, and developed countries. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 74, 103501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103501.
  80. Oloko, A., Harper, S., Fakoya, K., and Sumaila, U.R. (2024). The multi-dimensional perspectives of taboos on gender roles of fisherfolk in the Global South. Maritime Studies, 23(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00340-2.
  81. Overå, R. (2007). When men do women's work: Structural adjustment, unemployment and changing gender relations in the informal economy of Accra, Ghana. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 45(4), 539-563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X0700287X.
  82. Pedroza-Gutiérrez, C., and Hapke, H.M. (2022). Women's work in small-scale fisheries: A framework for accounting its value. Gender, Place & Culture, 29(12), 1733-1750. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2021.1997936.
  83. Pedroza-Gutiérrez, C., and López-Rocha, J.A. (2021). Ungovernable systems: The strength of informal institutions in the sea cucumber fishery in Yucatan, Mexico. PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0249132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249132.
  84. Pellowe, K.E., and Leslie, H.M. (2020). The interplay between formal and informal institutions and the potential for co-management in a Mexican small-scale fishery. Marine Policy, 121, 104179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104179.
  85. Poore, J., and Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.
  86. Rice, E., Bennett, A., Smith, M., Liverpool-Tasie, L.S., Katengeza, S., Infante, D., and Tschirley, D. (2024). Price volatility in fish food systems: Spatial arbitrage as an adaptive strategy for small-scale fish traders. Ecology and Society, 29(2), art13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15076-290213.
  87. Roheim, C.A., Bush, S.R., Asche, F., Sanchirico, J.N., and Uchida, H. (2018). Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market. Nature Sustainability, 1(8), 392-398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018- 0115-z.
  88. Roheim, C.A., and Sutinen, J. (2006). Trade and Market-Related Instruments to Reinforce Fisheries Management Measures to Promote Sustainable Fishing Practices (Report for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - High Seas Task Force).
  89. Roheim, C.A., 2004. Impacts on sustainability. Global agricultural trade and developing countries, p. 275. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. OUP Oxford.
  90. Seto, K.L., Friedman, W.R., Eurich, J.G., Gephart, J.A., Zamborain-Mason, J., Sharp, M., Aram, E., Tekaieti, A., Tekiau, A., and Golden, C.D. (2024). Characterizing pathways of seafood access in small island developing states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(7), e2305424121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305424121.
  91. Simpson, S.D., Radford, A.N., Nedelec, S.L., Ferrari, M.C.O., Chivers, D.P., McCormick, M.I., and Meekan, M.G. (2016). Anthropogenic noise increases fish mortality by predation. Nature Communications, 7(1), 10544. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10544.
  92. Smith, M.D., Roheim, C.A., Crowder, L.B., Halpern, B.S., Turnipseed, M., Anderson, J.L., Asche, F., Bourillon, L., Guttormsen, A.G., Khan, A., Liguori, L.A., McNevin, A., O'Connor, M.I., Squires, D., Tyedmers, P., Brownstein, C., Carden, K., Klinger, D.H., Sagarin, R., and Selkoe, K.A. (2010).
  93. Sustainability and Global Seafood. Science, 327(5967), 784-786. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185345.
  94. Srinivasan, U.T., Cheung, W.W.L., Watson, R., and Sumaila, U.R. (2010). Food security implications of global marine catch losses due to overfishing. Journal of Bioeconomics, 12(3), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-010-9090-9.
  95. Stelzenmüller, V., Letschert, J., Gimpel, A., Kraan, C., Probst, W.N., Degraer, S., and Döring, R. (2022). From plate to plug: The impact of offshore renewables on European fisheries and the role of marine spatial planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 158, 112108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112108.
  96. Stratoudakis, Y., McConney, P., Duncan, J., Ghofar, A., Gitonga, N., Mohamed, K.S., Samoilys, M., Symington, K., and Bourillon, L. (2016). Fisheries certification in the developing world: Locks and keys or square pegs in round holes? Fisheries Research, 182, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.08.021.
  97. Straume, H.- M., Asche, F., Oglend, A., Abrahamsen, E.B., Birkenbach, A.M., Langguth, J., Lanquepin, G., and Roll, K.H. (2022). Impacts of Covid-19 on Norwegian salmon exports: A firm-level analysis. Aquaculture, 561, 738678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738678.
  98. Sumaila, U.R. (2019). A Carding System as an Approach to Increasing the Economic Risk of Engaging in IUU Fishing? Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00034.
  99. Sumaila, U.R., Walsh, M., Hoareau, K., Cox, A., Teh, L., Abdallah, P., Akpalu, W., Anna, Z., Benzaken, D., Crona, B., Fitzgerald, T., Heaps, L., Issifu, I., Karousakis, K., Lange, G.M., Leland, A., Miller, D., Sack, K., Shahnaz, D., and Zhang, J. (2021). Financing a sustainable ocean economy. Nature Communications, 12(1), 3259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23168-y.
  100. Swartz, W., Rashid Sumaila, U., Watson, R., and Pauly, D. (2010). Sourcing seafood for the three major markets: The EU, Japan and the USA. Marine Policy, 34(6), 1366-1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.06.011.
  101. Tamea, S., Laio, F., and Ridolfi, L. (2016). Global effects of local food-production crises: A virtual water perspective. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 18803. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18803.
  102. Thatcher, H., Stamp, T., Moore, P.J., and Wilcockson, D. (2024). Using fisheries-dependent data to investigate landings of European lobster (Homarus gammarus) within an offshore wind farm. ICES Journal of Marine Science, fsad207. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad207.
  103. Thow, A.M., Annan, R., Mensah, L., and Chowdhury, S.N. (2014). Development, implementation and outcome of standards to restrict fatty meat in the food supply and prevent NCDs: Learning from an innovative trade/food policy in Ghana. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 249. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471- 2458-14-249.
  104. Thow, A.M., Reeve, E., Naseri, T., Martyn, T., and Bollars, C. (2017). Food supply, nutrition and trade policy: Reversal of an import ban on turkey tails. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 95(10), 723- 725. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.192468.
  105. Tigchelaar, M., Leape, J., Micheli, F., Allison, E.H., Basurto, X., Bennett, A., Bush, S.R., Cao, L., Cheung, W.W.L., Crona, B., DeClerck, F., Fanzo, J., Gelcich, S., Gephart, J.A., Golden, C.D., Halpern, B.S., Hicks, C.C., Jonell, M., Kishore, A., and Wabnitz, C.C.C. (2022). The vital roles of blue foods in the global food system. Global Food Security, 33, 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100637.
  106. Van Assche, K., Hornidge, A.- K., Schlüter, A., and Vaidianu, N. (2020). Governance and the coastal condition: Towards new modes of observation, adaptation and integration. Marine Policy, 112, 103413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.01.002.
  107. Vanuatu Fisheries Department (2016). Vanuatu National Deep-Bottom Fish Fishery Management Plan. The Pacific Community.
  108. Vincent, A.C.J., Sadovy De Mitcheson, Y.J., Fowler, S.L., and Lieberman, S. (2014). The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade. Fish and Fisheries, 15(4), 563-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12035.
  109. Wakamatsu, M., and Wakamatsu, H. (2017). The certification of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 77, 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.12.016.
  110. Watson, B., Reimer, M.N., Guettabi, M., and Haynie, A. (2021). Commercial fisheries & local economies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 106, 102419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102419.
  111. Weeratunge, N., Snyder, K.A., and Sze, C.P. (2010). Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: Understanding gendered employment in fisheries and aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries, 11(4), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00368.x.
  112. Yang, H., Wang, L., Abbaspour, K.C., and Zehnder, A.J.B. (2006). Virtual water trade: An assessment of water use efficiency in the international food trade. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 10(3), 443-454. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-443-2006.
  113. Yunus, M. (2009). EU Ban, HACCP Compliance and Shrimp Exports from Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 32(3), 41-57.