Science - USA (2022-01-28)

INSIGHTS | POLICY FORUM

388 28 JANUARY 2022 • VOL 375 ISSUE 6579 science.org SCIENCE

way that resembles China’s suc-
cess in manufacturing more
broadly, but that is a new devel-
opment in seafood. Yet, China
does not play a comparable role
in the global aquaculture indus-
try. Seafood processing thus can
be competitive in high-income
countries such as Canada and
Norway despite favorable con-
ditions of low wages and cost
in China.
Our analysis of China’s posi-
tion in global seafood trade has
two important policy implica-
tions for seafood sustainabil-
ity. First, work must be done
to increase traceability in the
global seafood system. Although
other products face traceability
challenges, features of seafood
make traceability especially
difficult, including the high de-
gree of international trade ( 1 );
the fact that the raw product is
processed so that the next step
in the supply chain involves
smaller pieces of the whole that
can be difficult to identify; the sheer num-
ber of species of fish and shellfish in seafood
markets; and DWF fisheries that are con-
ducted in other countries’ waters or entirely
outside of any nation’s jurisdiction (the high
seas). Traceability challenges means that
large quantities may be harvested and not
reported at all ( 5 ).
Narratives that emphasize Chinese do-
mestic demand as driving China’s role in the
seafood system (6, 12) pay too little attention
to the reexport model, which highlights the
complexity of tracing seafood sustainability.
The same product can be harvested in mul-
tiple countries with different management
and labor conditions and comingle in reex-
port data.
For example, 57% and 39% of Pacific
salmon imports originate in the US and
Russia, respectively. This is crucial for sea-
food sustainability because the processing
stage is an opportunity for seafood misla-
beling with respect to country of origin and
species. Consistent with this concern, we
find that exports as a share of combined im-
ports and production exceed 100% for some
higher-valued species such as cod and had-
dock, providing evidence of mislabeling. In
conjunction with other questionable prac-
tices such as IUU fishing directly ( 5 ) and
providing a market for IUU fish from other
countries, mislabeling can be a serious chal-
lenge for fish stocks as well as food safety.
Initiatives to limit IUU fishing such as
the European Union’s red and yellow card
system, the US Seafood Import Monitoring

Program, and efforts to develop a global sea-

food traceability system (https://traceability-

dialogue.org/) are a start, but their reach is

still limited. For example, the US program

does not even include Alaska pollock and

salmon. Systematic use of blockchain tech-

nology and international coordination could

enable tracing seafood from different territo-

rial waters that are comingled in processing

and reexported and thereby reduce incen-

tives for overfishing.

Second, fisheries management systems

can inadvertently disadvantage local pro-

cessing and increase the competitiveness

of the reexport model. For example, a total

catch limit in a fishery without quotas for in-

dividual vessels may hold the fish stock at a

sustainable level, but it creates incentives for

each vessel to race to catch fish before the

catch limit is reached and the fishing season

ends. This racing concentrates landings early

in the season and leaves processors with

minimal fish to process later in the season

(10, 13). A consequence is idle or underuti-

lized processing capacity part of the year, ef-

fectively increasing the costs of local process-

ing, increasing China’s competitiveness as a

reexporter. By creating less economic value

and fewer jobs locally in the processing sec-

tor, fisheries management thus can under-

mine social sustainability ( 14 ). Alternatively,

fisheries management that spreads out

catches can enhance social sustainability by

increasing capacity utilization. Catch shares

is one system that empirically has been

shown to slow the race to fish ( 10 ) and thus

could enhance competitiveness

of local processing.

China’s limited role as a reex-

porter of farmed seafood is con-

sistent with this characteriza-

tion of fisheries management

and social sustainability. The

vast majority of imports from

China’s top-15 species groups

are not from fisheries man-

aged with catch shares that

spread out the catch (table S2),

e.g., Russian Alaskan Pollock,

Russian cod, and Pacific

salmon. So, it is not surprising

that China can compete in pro-

cessing these species groups.

Aquaculture processing, by

contrast, does not suffer from

the same problems of season-

ality. By controlling the pro-

duction process, aquaculture

can time the harvest to main-

tain high-capacity utilization,

making local processing more

competitive with the reexport

model. This feature of aqua-

culture can explain why China

has limited farmed seafood reexports.

Ultimately, maintaining seafood processing

locally contributes to social sustainability

of fisheries ( 15 ), and social sustainability,

in turn, mutually reinforces economic and

ecological sustainability ( 14 ). j

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. F. Asche, M. Bellemare, C. Roheim, M. D. Smith, S.
   Tv e t e r å s , World Dev. 67 , 151 (2015).


2. J. A. Gephart, M. L. Pace, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 125014
   (2015).


3. U. R. Sumaila et al., S c i. A d v. 6 , eaaz3801 (2020).


4. K. Kroetz et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 , 30318
   (2020).


5. D. Pauly et al., Fish Fish. 15 , 474 (2014).


6. B. Crona et al., One Earth 3 , 32 (2020).


7. J. L. Anderson, F. Asche, T. Garlock, J. Commod. Markets
   12 , 2 (2018).


8. F. G. Adams, B. Gangnes, Y. Shachmurove, World Econ.
   29 , 95 (2006).


9. J. S. Ng, “Development of China as the world’s largest
   reprocessing centre of frozen fish products and future
   challenges for the industry” in Global Trade Conference
   on Aquaculture (Food and Agriculture Organization of
   the United Nations, Rome, 2007), pp. 221–226.


10. A. M. Birkenbach, D. J. Kaczan, M. D. Smith, Nature 544 ,
    223 (2017).


11. T. Garlock et al., Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquacult. 28 , 107 (2020).


12. J. K. Abbott, D. Willard, J. Xu, Mar. Policy 133 , 104733
    (2021).


13. F. R. Homans, J. E. Wilen, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 49 ,
    381 (2005).


14. F. Asche et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 , 11221
    (2018).


15. J. N. Kittinger et al., Science 356 , 912 (2017).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding was provided by the US Department of Agriculture

INFEWS grant 2018-67003-27408 (F.A., B.Y., J.L.A., D.C.L.),

Norwegian Research Council grants 324685 and 295114 (F.A.,

B.Y., A.O., H.-M.S), and Florida Sea Grant (F.A., J.L.A.). The

conclusions are those of the researchers and do not necessar-

ily reflect the views of the funding organizations.

10.1126/science.abl4756

Chinese seafood imports and reexports 2012–2019

Import quantity is in product weight. Import share is imports/(imports + domestic

production). Reexport share is exports/(domestic production + imports),

where all quantities are converted to live weight equivalents. MT, metric tons.

SPECIES

IMPORTS

(1,000 MT

IMPORT

SHARE BY

QUANTITY (%

DOMESTIC

PRODUCTION

(1,000 MT

REEXPORT

SHARE (%

Alaska pollock 5,148.25 21.1 0 84.8

Cuttlefish and squid 2,464.69 10.1 7, 8 7 0 40.9

Shrimp and prawns 1,512.98 6.2 31,456 7. 3

Cod 1,490.87 6.1 0 136.0

Herring 1,288.65 5.3 116 42.8

Pacific salmon 1,281.56 5.3 0 82.1

Flatfish 1,106.99 4.5 1,012 76.0

Mackerel 874. 2 6 3.6 3,728 61.1

Tuna 696.33 2.9 813 155.3

Crab 525.57 2.2 14,252 8.4

Hairtails 518.11 2.1 8,294 1.2

Catfish 490.26 2.0 8,233 1.4

Blue whiting 449.01 1.8 0 0.2

Atlantic salmon 413.83 1.7 0 0.9

Haddock 356.60 1.5 0 135.0