The aquaculture supply chain in the time of covid-19 pandemic: Vulnerability, resilience, solutions and priorities at the global scale

Abstract

The COVID-19 global pandemic has had severe, unpredictable and synchronous impacts on all levels of perishable food supply chains (PFSC), across multiple sectors and spatial scales. Aquaculture plays a vital and rapidly expanding role in food security, in some cases overtaking wild caught fisheries in the production of high-quality animal protein in this PFSC. We performed a rapid global assessment to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related emerging control measures on the aquaculture supply chain. Socio-economic effects of the pandemic were analysed by surveying the perceptions of stakeholders, who were asked to describe potential supply-side disruption, vulnerabilities and resilience patterns along the production pipeline with four main supply chain components: a) hatchery, b) production/processing, c) distribution/logistics and d) market. We also assessed different farming strategies, comparing land- vs. sea-based systems; extensive vs. intensive methods; and with and without integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, IMTA. In addition to evaluating levels and sources of economic distress, interviewees were asked to identify mitigation solutions adopted at local / internal (i.e., farm-site) scales, and to express their preference on national / external scale mitigation measures among a set of a priori options. Survey responses identified the potential causes of disruption, ripple effects, sources of food insecurity, and socio-economic conflicts. They also pointed to various levels of mitigation strategies. The collated evidence represents a first baseline useful to address future disaster-driven responses, to reinforce the resilience of the sector and to facilitate the design reconstruction plans and mitigation measures, such as financial aid strategies.

Keywords: COVID-19 effects; Disruption; Economic distress; Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture; Mitigation measures; Perishable food supply chain; Rapid assessment; Stakeholder perceptions.

Fig. 1

Economic distress due to COVID-19 in term of economic loss, responses are showed per farming strategy (LBE = Land-based extensive, LBI = Land-based intensive, SBE = Sea-based extensive, SBI = Sea-based intensive) with and without Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Economic loss scaled from 1 = no economic loss at all, to 10 = very high economic loss and here reported as percentages grouped into four categories: 1 no effect, 2–4 low, 5–7 moderate and 8–10 high. Maps report the mean of answers per every country.

Fig. 2

Economic distress due to COVID-19 in term of job loss, responses are showed per farming strategy (LBE = Land-based extensive, LBI = Land-based intensive, SBE = Sea-based extensive, SBI = Sea-based intensive) with and without Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Economic loss scaled from 1 = no economic loss at all, to 10 = very high economic loss and here reported as percentages grouped into four categories: 1 no effect, 2–4 low, 5–7 moderate and 8–10 high. Maps report the mean of answers per every country.

Fig. 3

Heatmaps representing data on the encountered difficulties and related economic loss (scaled from 1 = no economic loss at all, to 10 = very high economic loss) on the four selected stages of the aquaculture perishable food supply chain and related affected aspects. Hatchery: juvenile/fry supply, raw materials, insurance, auctions (licences). Production / transformation: infrastructures, labours failure, suppliers. Distribution / logistic: increase in transportation prices, restriction/block on transportation. Market: price decrease, impossibility/difficulty in selling to national buyers/consumers, international markets, customers and of middlemen. Responses are shown per farming strategy (LBE = Land-based extensive, LBI = Land-based intensive, SBE = Sea-based extensive, SBI = Sea-based intensive) with and without Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA).

Fig. 4

Principal component analysis (PCA) on stakeholder responses on disruption effects (resulting in economic loss, scaled from 1 = no economic loss at all, to 10 = very high economic loss) associated with hatchery stage of the aquaculture PFSC, respectively: lack of juvenile/fry supply; lack of raw materials provision (both in terms of reduction of available raw materials - feeds, packaging material - and price increases); issues with insurance coverage (i.e., difficulty / insolvency or block / cancellation by insurance companies); and / or difficulties in obtaining licences – light blue) depending on the four explored aquaculture systems (land- and sea-based intensive and extensive) with and without IMTA [upper panel]. PCAs stakeholder responses on adopted internal mitigation measures [lower panel left side] and preferred external mitigation measures [lower panel right side].

Fig. 5

Heatmaps representing data on the adoption of internal and external mitigation measures (scaled from 1 = no adopted loss at all, to 10 = very high adopted). Internal mitigation measures social distancing, increase work efficiency, hiring, firing, integrated-multi trophic solutions, change in farm techniques, reduction of farm dimension, stocking solutions. External mitigation measures: direct sales, foster supply chain, search new market, demand economic support, explore new market strategies, demand support to scientists. Responses are shown per farming strategy (LBE = Land-based extensive, LBI = Land-based intensive, SBE = Sea-based extensive, SBI = Sea-based intensive) with and without Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA).