Abstract
Remaining resilient under disruption, while also being sustainable, is essential for continued and equitable seafood supply in a changing world. However, despite the wide application of resilience thinking to sustainability research and the multiple dimensions of social-ecological sustainability, it can be difficult to ascertain how to make a supply chain both resilient and sustainable. In this review, we draw upon the socio-ecological resilience and sustainability literature to identify links and highlight concepts for managing and monitoring adaptive and equitable seafood supply chains. We then review documented responses of seafood supply networks to disruption and detail a case study to describe the attributes of a resilient seafood supply system. Finally, we outline the implications of these responses for social (including wellbeing and equity), economic and environmental sustainability. Disruptions to supply chains were categorised based on their frequency of occurrence (episodic, chronic, cumulative) and underlying themes were derived from supply chain responses for each type of disruption. We found that seafood supply chains were resilient when they were diverse (in either products, markets, consumers or processing), connected, supported by governments at all scales, and where supply chain actors were able to learn and collaborate through trust-based relationships. With planning, infrastructure and systematic mapping, these attributes also can help to build socio-ecological sustainability and move towards more adaptive and equitable seafood supply.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Background
Seafood supply chain networks (SSCNs) are complex socio-ecological systems, connecting marine ecosystems to countries, regions, businesses and markets. In comparison to value chains, supply chains relate to the supply of the product to the consumer rather than the value adding processes created by a business (Lim-Camacho et al. 2021). Seafood supply is harvested from the ecosystem or tank and pond-based aquaculture systems by producers (i.e., fishers and farmers) and flows to the consumer via multiple intermediaries such as processors and wholesalers (Pullman and Wu 2021). Transport logistics and infrastructure are key elements that support the connections between different nodes (links in Fig. 1). Each stage of the supply chain may have multiple nodes that can represent multiple farms, fishing locations or operators at the supply end, or multiple retailers at the consumer end (Schrobback and Rolfe 2021) (Fig. 1). For example, some supply chains export more of a fished species than they sell domestically, bypassing parts of the SSCN (Fig. 1). Roles of supply chain actors can also overlap, for instance, where producers also supply directly to the consumer (Fig. 1).
Seafood is an important and highly traded food source with ~ 34% of the global fisheries and aquaculture production volume exported in 2020 (FAO 2022). Fisheries and aquaculture are key to the livelihoods of many communities and nations (FAO 2022). Moreover, seafood is a vital source of micronutrients and essential fatty acids in coastal Indigenous communities (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2016) and small-scale fisheries and low and middle-income nations, which are highly connected to international trade (Crona et al. 2016; Nash et al. 2022a). Seafood production is meeting growing global demand for food and protein (Farmery et al. 2022). However, climate change and other anthropogenic pressures (e.g., geopolitics, market changes) create disruptive events that hamper their potential to meet projected demands for healthy and affordable diets (FAO 2022).
Seafood supply chains can be extensively connected to worldwide markets, hence their vulnerability to disruptions occurring at multiple spatial and temporal scales not only increases through exposure, but can also have cascading and disproportionate impacts across the supply chain to seafood dependent communities (Bassett et al. 2021 and references therein; de la Puente et al. 2022). Shocks to food supply systems are increasing in frequency and severity (Gephart et al. 2017; Cottrell et al. 2019) and addressing the vulnerabilities within supply chains is key to securing the global sustainability of seafood (Lim-Camacho et al. 2014). Studies on seafood system resilience have modelled SSCN using network-based approaches (Plagányi et al. 2014, 2021) or documented responses to disrupted seafood supply (e.g., Ogier et al. 2021; Love et al. 2021). The spread of COVID-19 has notably exposed many vulnerabilities in seafood supply chains (e.g. loss of markets and transport) (Bassett et al. 2021), which are informing new research on SSCN resilience and sustainability (e.g. Plagányi et al. 2021). However, as SSCNs operate within different contexts and are connected across scales, specific methods or adaptation options reported may not be transferable. Therefore, a generalised and holistic approach is needed to build resilience.
Prior studies of sustainable seafood supply have mostly focused on the production stage of the supply chain (Simmance et al. 2022) or outcomes for environmental sustainability (Denham et al. 2015; Simmance et al. 2022). Recent work has shed more light on sustainability in seafood systems by addressing needs for equity, socio-economic sustainability, wellbeing and meeting the SGDs (Farmery et al. 2022). However, it still unclear how sustainability can be achieved under disruption while also meeting current and future demands (Simmance et al. 2022). Thus, pathways to equitable and adaptive seafood supply are interlinked with building socio-ecological resilience and sustainability, with a key challenge of addressing the local and global scales at which these processes occur (Cockburn et al. 2020). This is done by first defining resilience and sustainability within the context of seafood supply chain disruption, and then considering the attributes of each concept that comprise an equitable and adaptable seafood supply system.
Aims
Our aims were to (i) identify the links between socio-ecological resilience and sustainability that are crucial for managing and monitoring adaptive and equitable SSCNs (Fig. 2); and (ii) assess the relevance of these concepts for building adaptive and equitable seafood supply chains (Fig. 2). Specifically, we:
-
a)
Categorised disruptions to SSCNs;
-
b)
Reviewed SSCN responses to disruption and provide a case study to identify resilience-building strategies for SSCNs within different contexts and;
-
c)
Considered the socio-ecological sustainability implications of these responses to suggest a path forward for ensuring that adaptive responses are also equitable and sustainable.
We address these aims through a mixed methods review (Grant and Booth 2009), where the first component is a brief narrative synthesis of the resilience and sustainability literature within the context of seafood supply chain disruption (Aim 1, Fig. 2) and the second is a qualitative synthesis of seafood supply chain responses to disruption (Aim 2, Fig. 2). Our findings contribute to an improved understanding of how the complementary concepts of sustainability and resilience apply in the context of seafood supply chain disruption. This is fundamental for the management of seafood supply chains by its stakeholders (e.g., producer associations, government, retailers).
Methods
Our mixed methods review (Grant and Booth 2009) was semi-structured, where we used search terms on Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed papers and reports, then followed references within these initial papers to find relevant concepts and information. We used the following search terms for the first component: “socio-ecological resilience”, “supply chain sustainability”, “supply chain resilience”, “supply chain disruption”, “seafood supply chain”, “food system”, “seafood system resilience”, “seafood system sustainability”, “seafood supply network”, “fisheries resilience” and “sustainable fisheries”. From the papers discussing socio-ecological resilience and sustainability, we identified the concepts and attributes that were relevant to seafood supply chain disruption (Aim 1, Fig. 2). The following additional search terms were used for the second component of this review: “COVID-19 impacts + seafood”, “seafood disruption”, “seafood production” + “shock”, “seafood supply chain disruption”. We used papers discussing responses to disrupted seafood supply and/or seafood system resilience to categorise disruptions based on the frequency and impact of the disruption. Next, we identified the attributes of the SSCN that enabled resilience (Aim 2, Fig. 2). Finally, we outline how resilience attributes can also build sustainability and refer to the literature for examples.
Results and discussion
Links between resilience and sustainability for supply chain disruption
Sustainability is understood as meeting the demands of the current generation without compromising resources for future generations (intergenerational equity) (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Seafood supply and the interactions within and along the supply chain support up to half of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (United Nations 2015; Blanchard et al. 2017). Seafood supply chains support goals to improve livelihoods (SDG 1), health and wellbeing (SGD 3), equality (SDG 10) and food security (SDG 2, 12), all of which are enabled by life below water (SGD 14) and climate action (SDG 13) (Blanchard et al. 2017). Here we view sustainability through a socio-ecological lens, where sustainability is informed by the SDGs, but also considers the ecological, economic and social dimensions within the seafood context (marine environments, seafood-based industries and seafood dependent communities, respectively).
Closely linked to sustainability is resilience, which describes the ability of the system to respond to external impacts. Linking resilience to sustainability is recognised as important for managing socio-ecological systems in an uncertain and changing world (Reyers et al. 2022); building resilience alone could for example, result in a system that is effective at responding to disruption but does not achieve sustainability goals (Xu et al. 2015). In the seafood context, resilience and sustainability together implies, that long-term human activities in the socio-economic dimension (e.g., fishing) does not impact the marine ecosystem even if the supply chain activity exceeds a threshold (or vice versa) (Xu et al. 2015).
Interactions along SSCNs may be linear or nonlinear, and one directional, or have thresholds and delayed feedbacks. For example, delays to shipments of live or frozen seafood can lead to waste due to limited storage, or reduced quality and customer dissatisfaction (Graziano et al. 2018; Bennett et al. 2020). Additionally, external events (e.g., stock dynamics) can influence supply chain operations yet are not usually holistically connected to them (Simmance et al. 2022). Knowledge, ownership and regulation are compartmentalised while the disruptions that SSCNs face are interdependent (Cockburn et al. 2020; Novak et al. 2021). Engineering and ecological resilience concepts have been used to characterise supply chains by assuming equilibrium states; however, they tend to exclude the features necessary for capturing the dynamic and adaptive nature of seafood supply chains. These dynamic features are more embedded in complex adaptive systems research (Novak et al. 2021; Reyers et al. 2022).
The concept of socio-ecological resilience is better suited for implementing resilience and sustainability into complex adaptive systems (Novak et al. 2021; Reyers et al. 2022). Socio-ecological resilience for supply chains is defined as the ability of the system to adapt in response to multiscale disruption and maintain function (Carpenter et al. 2001; Novak et al. 2021). Resilience thinking can be targeted towards identified shocks, where part of the system is resilient to a particular disruption, or applied generally by identifying the characteristics of a system that determine its ability to cope with unidentified shocks (e.g., Walker et al. 2009). Due to the uncertain and complex nature of disruptions that can impact all stages of a SSCN, and the complexity of interactions within SSCNs, we suggest that building general resilience is better suited for SSCN management and sustainability.
Biggs et al. (2012) propose seven principles for enhancing socio-ecological resilience: diversity and redundancy, slow variables and feedbacks, connectivity, an understanding of complex adaptive systems, learning and experimentation, broad participation and polycentric governance (Table 1). These principles provide a holistic understanding of the system and outline options for building resilience. Similar attributes have been defined within ecological, socio-economic and governance domains to confer climate resilience for holistic fisheries management (Mason et al. 2022) and to describe properties of resilient supply chain firms (Wieland et al. 2023; Roque Júnior et al. 2023) (Table 1). The seven principles support the shifts needed to better integrate resilience into sustainable development for complex adaptive systems as they focus on understanding context, nonlinearity, and the dynamic relationships, scales and capacities existing within complex adaptive systems and by extension, SSCNs (Reyers et al. 2022; Wieland et al. 2023).
Ultimately, seafood supply is managed by people. People need to have the capacity to make decisions that lead to resilient and sustainable seafood supply systems. This not only relates to the resources available to communities and individuals to support adaptation (through equity) but also an individual’s connection to the environment (through wellbeing) (Chaigneau et al. 2022). For example, strong familial and psychological connections to farming in New Zealand bolstered the resilience and adaptive capacity of farmers to the removal of subsidies (economic shocks) and frequent droughts (environmental shocks) (Pomeroy 2015). For sustainable seafood production, research suggests that ethically, equity needs to go beyond intergenerational equity to cover equal access to food, marine ecosystem goods and services (e.g. fish stocks), coastal and marine areas, culturally important areas, species and communities, public services and financial capital from fisheries (Alexander et al. 2021; Bennett et al. 2022). This includes equal share of the economic benefits and impacts of environmental change. Access and involvement in decision-making is needed, with transparency, consultation and knowledge sharing. Lastly, the degree of agency, level of economic capacity, types of knowledge systems used and scoping of fair and just treatment, with dignity and respect (including fair and just systems of law) needs to be considered (Alexander et al. 2021; Bennett et al. 2022). Equity in turn, improves livelihoods and wellbeing by sustaining the economic, cultural, spiritual and social connections between humans and the marine environment (Betley et al. 2021).
Seafood is essential to some Indigenous cultural practices and this may not be accounted for in other perspectives or knowledge systems (Kittinger et al. 2015). Indigenous perspectives view humanity as integrated within the natural world and emphasise the relationship between culture and knowledge, where accumulated knowledge is considered cultural capital and transferred through cultural vectors such as language (Throsby and Petetskaya 2016). Indigenous frameworks focus more on the steady state of the system and emphasise maintenance rather than development and economic growth (Throsby and Petetskaya 2016). These frameworks are also location and society specific, built on notions of shared responsibility (rather than private ownership, Throsby and Petetskaya 2016) and the sacredness of natural resources, which may not be considered in western frameworks (Kealiikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina 2016). First Nations sustainably lived off the land for millennia (Braun 2022) and there is a wealth of knowledge that can be learned and shared through collaborative efforts to build resilience and sustainability (Hale et al. 2022). However, these communities have often suffered major disruptions to their knowledge systems and can be disadvantaged in terms of access to the resources (e.g., support, infrastructure, networks) that enable resilience in western communities. Therefore, adequate support and capacity building (through equity) are also needed to complement Indigenous resilience and sustainability solutions (van Putten et al. 2013).
Disruptions to seafood supply chain networks
There are many driving factors in the social, environmental and economic dimensions of a SSCN on both land and sea (Fig. 1) (Amos et al. 2022). Recent disruptions (e.g. COVID-19) have emphasised just how detrimental shocks can be to SSCNs and how planning for, and adapting to disruption (i.e., building resilience in conjunction with sustainability goals) can reduce the social, economic and ecological consequences of these shocks (White et al. 2022). Disruptions to SSCNs vary in frequency and intensity; they can occur as a single event or multiple occurrences of the same disruption (e.g., floods, marine heatwaves), a long-term change that culminates in a disruption (e.g., stock collapse) or a co-occurring set of changes to (and within) the SSCN. Categorising disruptions and recording responses can unearth themes to help with response planning. In our search, we found three disruption types that we placed into categories adapted from the ecological perturbation literature.
Seafood supply chain disruption categories were adapted from press and pulse perturbations described in ecology (e.g. Harris et al. 2018). Ecological pulse perturbations describe a single disruptive event such as large rainfall events or intense heatwaves (Harris et al. 2018). In the same vein as a pulse perturbation, disruptions to seafood supply can occur as a single event in time, like a flood or an earthquake. We refer to these disruptions as episodic (Fig. 3). Press perturbations are referred to as the long-term changes of a driver like ongoing climate change (Harris et al. 2018). Comparably, SSCNs are connected to regulatory variables, both nationally and internationally, exerting constant pressures on the system that fluctuate over time. When a change in the variable exceeds a threshold, a disruption occurs, which we categorise as chronic (Fig. 3). Episodic and chronic disruptions can and do occur together in time and we refer to these as cumulative (Fig. 3).
Episodic disruptions
Episodic disruptions describe disruptions that occur as individual events isolated in space and time (Fig. 3). Environmental shocks such as marine heatwaves and floods are examples of episodic disruptions that impact marine ecosystems and can affect every step of the seafood supply chain (Davis et al. 2021). Floods for instance, can introduce contaminants into marine environments (Johnson 2022) and disrupt transport networks (Smith et al. 2016). The impacts of episodic disruptions are most studied at the production end of supply chains, and the most-studied environmental shocks are temperature extremes and climate cycles such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (Davis et al. 2021). We draw upon previous reviews, particularly reviews of climate related responses detailed in Davis et al. (2021) and Smith et al. (2021) to identify resilience-building attributes and sustainability implications of episodic disruptions (Table 2). We include a case study example (Table 3) to expand on the findings.
General themes emerge within the reported and proposed food supply chain responses to environmental shocks (Davis et al. 2021). In food (and seafood) production, diversifying harvesting methods or species, accessing subsidies, shifting to resistant breeds, relocating businesses or harvesting regions and investment in research and development have been used or proposed to combat environmental shocks (Lim-Camacho et al. 2014; Davis et al. 2021). Strategic reserves and primary processing methods such as solar drying can enhance processing capacity and increase the shelf-life of seafood, averting food insecurity. Similarly, trade agreements to source product from regions unimpacted by disruption can add functional redundancy to a supply chain. Retail and markets can maintain business by promoting seafood products and encouraging diet shifts. Subsidies can also encourage consumers to make more nutritious choices. Across supply chain stages, investment in infrastructure for monitoring (warning systems), equipment (e.g., boats), research, transport (e.g., roads), storage (especially cold storage) and markets is highlighted as important for being resilient (Davis et al. 2021). Climate shocks may increase risks for foodborne illnesses, which can be lessened through strengthening food safety regulations and/or research into disease and climate-resistant species (FAO Climate Change 2020; Davis et al. 2021).
Seafood production is particularly vulnerable to marine heatwaves (short-term warming events in the ocean) (Mehrabi et al. 2022). Around the world, marine heatwaves have resulted in stock declines, harmful algal blooms, mass mortalities, economic losses and fisheries closures (due to low catch and recruitment). Increasing temperatures and carbon emissions are increasing the frequency and intensity of marine heatwaves (Smith et al. 2021) and having plans in place to cope with these disruptions can significantly increase resilience. In the Gulf of Maine, learning from the way a marine heatwave transferred through the supply chain and implementing adaptations led to economic gains during the next marine heatwave (Pershing et al. 2018). The 2015–2016 marine heatwave in Tasmania triggered an outbreak of the Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome, causing mass mortalities across farms and halting the supply of spat to other states in Australia. However, research on previous outbreaks of POMS both nationally and internationally and testing mitigation approaches led to a quick recovery despite the unavoidable losses (Table 3).
Chronic disruptions
Chronic disruptions result from changes in the longer-term influences on SSCNs that extend beyond the threshold and trigger a disruption. This could be fluctuations in regulating variables (i.e., the slow variables in Table 1) such as fisheries management, geopolitics, market demands, consumer preferences, labour or climate cycles and changes to harvested stocks (Gephart et al. 2017; Graziano et al. 2018). Overfishing (or mismanagement) of marine resources and geopolitical crises (e.g., breakup of a country) have been identified as frequent causes of shocks to seafood production (Gephart et al. 2017; Cottrell et al. 2019). Table 2 identifies resilience-building attributes and sustainability implications from three examples of chronic disruptions reported in the literature. Responses suggest that collaborative action both locally and internationally with an emphasis on ecological sustainability is required for resilience to chronic disruptions. Although other studies also indicate that altering volumes of imports and exports improve short-term resilience (Gephart et al. 2017).
A shift to industrialised fishing in New England led to a focus on high value species. This improved the economic viability of the New England cod fishery but impacted ecological and social sustainability through overfishing and displacement of local communities (Table 2). Collaborative action by local communities re-established the local supply chain and reduced fishing pressure on high-value species. Overfishing has been tied to geopolitical tensions. For example, Canada prohibited French boats from fishing in shared cod fishing grounds upon claims of France exceeding their quota. This led to a drop in fish catch, potentially disrupting associated supply chains and livelihoods for French fishers. Subsequent overexploitation in the same region resulted in the near commercial extinction of cod stocks (Gephart et al. 2017). The fishery was closed to rebuild stocks and imports were increased to compensate, impacting livelihoods and related supply chains in both countries (Gephart et al. 2017). Salmon exports in Norway were disrupted by stringent border measures upon arrival in China, prompting Norway to find alternative routes to China. However, this led to a drop in quality, consumer confidence in the product and wastage of salmon (Table 2).
Shifts in the distribution of north-east Atlantic mackerel stocks prompted international disputes between the European Union, Norway, Faroes and Iceland that led to overfishing and loss of the Marine Steward Council certification (Table 2). International collaboration was required to get re-certified. As climate change (and other chronic disruptions) continues to disrupt SSCNs, planning and collaboration is needed to reduce the chances of conflicts that negatively impact marine resources and dependent communities. For example, climate-driven redistribution of tuna stocks may disrupt incomes for Pacific Island countries and territories through reduced access fees. This also has implications for the sustainable management of the purse-seine tuna fishery as the fishery operates under regulations set by cooperative management between member island countries and states (Bell et al. 2021). Collaborative efforts to implement alternative policies will be necessary to sustain tuna-dependent economies in the Pacific Islands and fisheries management in the high seas (Bell et al. 2021).
Cumulative disruptions
Cumulative disruptions describe disruptions that coincide with other disruptions (Fig. 3) (Mehrabi et al. 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example. To reduce rates of infection, governments around the world introduced distancing measures (e.g., 1.5 m guideline), curfews, lockdowns, border closures and protective gear such as masks. Most SSCNs continued to supply seafood to consumers despite the limitations imposed on fishing and aquaculture operations. As such, COVID-19 responses provide invaluable information on how SSCNs can adapt to cumulative disruptions (Stoll et al. 2021; Bassett et al. 2021). Table 4 summarises how COVID-19 has impacted SSCNs around the world, how supply chain actors have responded and identifies the resilience-building attributes applied, the limitations experienced, and the positive and negative implications of those responses on sustainability.
SSCNs including small-scale fisheries and coastal communities experienced reductions in demand for seafood due to the absence of a local market for a primarily exported product, affordability or reduced restaurant markets (Table 4). Declining demands led to markets in France, Japan, Mexico, Spain and Portland (USA) experiencing between a 19 and 51% price drop of seafood product with variations of up to 79% from the 5-year average and some price drops persisting until the end of 2020 (Amos et al. 2022). COVID-19 restrictions and trade bans also culminated in losses of export markets, reduced labour or facilities to transport, store and process seafood and reduced ability to fish. Fishers and supply chain actors sought alternative ways to market, produce, process and distribute their product. Indigenous fishers like the Torres Strait Islanders have limited alternatives and had to absorb the financial consequences with negative impacts to socio-economic sustainability (Plagányi et al. 2021).
In most cases, harvesters and fishers supplied seafood directly to consumers, shortening the supply chain (Table 4). Supply was shifted to local or regional communities through existing distribution channels and by leveraging or developing strong relationships with consumers. Fishers also switched target species or fishing seasons and used online platforms to market and sell product (Table 4). Export dependent SSCNs needed to first develop a local market to distribute product (Table 4).while SSCNs with existing local markets experienced an increase in demand (Stoll et al. 2021). Government assistance either financially or through policy changes (e.g., labelling fisheries as an essential business) and knowledge sharing between communities and governments aided the adaptive capacity of SSCNs. Moran et al. (2020) suggest that supermarkets in the UK were able to withstand shocks in demand as access to infrastructure, logistics and healthy profit margins enabled retailers to bear higher costs in order to maintain food supply. This was also a key adaption for Australian SSCNs (Table 4).
These responses highlight vulnerabilities for already disadvantaged communities and countries. SSCNs and communities lacking in governmental assistance, information sharing and infrastructure experienced more negative impacts, especially for women and migrant workers (Table 4). This led to maladaptive responses that compromised the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities (e.g., skipping meals, Table 4). Small-scale businesses were also susceptible to exploitation by large-scale businesses. In west Africa, COVID-19 compounded the effects of other disruptions, such as hunger, conflict and climate change (Bennett et al. 2020).
Attributes of resilient seafood supply chain networks
Shocks to production, processing, storage, distribution and markets were seen across all three disruption types. Consistent responses were also seen across disruption types, with specific responses seen for episodic disruptions (i.e., breeding and research and development). We looked for characteristics within responses that represented the attributes in Table 1. For example, if a SSCN used alternative options for harvesting or transport, then the SSCN was considered to have an element of diversity, which enabled its resilience. Across disruptions and responses, we find that diversity, connectivity, collaboration, learning and polycentric governance are the main attributes that enabled resilience to all types of disruption in seafood supply systems. Table 5 presents these attributes with examples from Tables 2–4 and the case study in Table 3. These can be applied to individual businesses or across SSCNs at local and global scales, though increasing scale will require more emphasis on collaboration and learning.
Diversity provides options for supply chain actors to respond to a disruption, which largely enhances the flexibility of communities, businesses or whole supply chains. For producers, this may be diversifying harvested species (Table 4) and for supply this may be having more than one transport route, or diversifying clientele (Table 5). Connectivity within and across stages of the supply chain enforced strong trust-based relationships that enabled resilience under disruption. Similarly, proximity to consumers enabled continued seafood supply by developing or utilising existing connections between producers and consumers (Table 5). This shortened the supply chain and improved resilience. Collaboration enhances these relationships, and by extension resilience, when supply chain actors work together to adapt to disruption (Manlosa et al. 2021). Collaborative action bridges compartmentalised knowledge (Cockburn et al. 2020), increases information sharing, trust and strengthens learning (Table 5). Lastly, participation from all levels of government (polycentric governance) was crucial to the resilience of many SSCNs under disruption (Table 5). We found that government intervention in the form of changes to fisheries management and policy helped supply chain actors adapt. This suggests that resilience is enhanced when boundary-setting organisations are working together with supply chain operators. Subsidies also supported adaptive responses however, continued reliance on subsidies could encourage non-resilience (Ogier et al. 2021). Strategic subsidies could improve both resilience through financing research and breeding programs, promoting sustainable seafood products and practices, and removing subsidies that support non-resilient practice (Ward et al. 2022).
While these responses were largely ad-hoc, they are useful for understanding SSCN adaptation options and the adverse consequences of some responses for sustainability. Consequences included the unequal treatment of supply chain actors, increased vulnerability to exploitation of labour, and overfishing of stocks. There is a risk that if responses remain ad-hoc, continued negative impacts could lead to maladaptive responses such as piracy, human trafficking and hunting in nature preserves (Gephart et al. 2017). Additionally, responses will require varying levels of time and effort to implement (Table 5). For instance, acquiring new customers or adjusting harvesting activities are short-term responses compared to developing flexible trade agreements to facilitate resilience. Slow variables (e.g. climate related shifts to species distribution) may take time before they impact the supply chain, or may be slow to travel up the levels of governance as disruption is happening, requiring awareness and planning to respond (Novak et al. 2021; Davis et al. 2021; Amos et al. 2022). Investing in planned responses has significantly improved supply chain resilience and benefitted supply chain actors (see episodic disruptions and Table 3). However, additional work is needed to discourage responses that compromise ecological, sociological and economic sustainability (Love et al. 2021; Ruiz-Salmón et al. 2021).
Implications for socio-ecological sustainability
From our findings, we outline focus areas for improving socio-ecological sustainability and refer to the literature for potential solutions. The five key attributes we have identified for building resilience in SSCNs (diversity, connectivity, collaboration, learning and polycentric governance) are also important for improving sustainability (Fig. 4). Recent visions for a sustainable seafood system place collaboration and learning, through trusted relationships, as vital needs for key actions with diversity and connectivity as operational elements (e.g., Melbourne-Thomas et al. 2021; Trebilco et al. 2021; FAO 2022; Farmery et al. 2022; Mehrabi et al. 2022). Additionally, as governing bodies and guidelines (e.g., food safety, private food standards, fisheries and aquaculture management, biosecurity or trade guidelines) set the boundaries that socio-ecological systems operate within, implementations to support sustainability need to occur in collaboration with governance (Love et al. 2021; Nash et al. 2022b; Mehrabi et al. 2022). Our study supports this as collaboration and learning were found to build resilience while human conflict was found to disrupt seafood supply and/or led to overfishing. If not addressed early, fisheries eventually close to rebuild stocks and seafood is imported to compensate (Table 4), potentially increasing pressures on external stocks and ecosystems (Klein et al. 2022). Ecosystems and fished stocks are not often connected to the rest of the supply chain in food system analyses (Simmance et al. 2022). This results in a gap in the understanding of the socio-economic and cultural sustainability implications of anthropogenic impacts to marine resources that feedback into the supply chain (Ahmed et al. 2019; Farmery et al. 2022; Mason et al. 2022). Table 6 summarises the focus areas for improving SSCN sustainability, which can be achieved by utilising resilience building attributes (Fig. 4).
Global demands for food security, health, and wellbeing can be met in part by sustainably managed marine ecosystems, provided current concerns are addressed (Merino et al. 2012) (marine environmental sustainability, Table 6). The suite of concerns impacting marine environmental sustainability include warming (Trebilco et al. 2021), marine biodiversity (Ward et al. 2022), pollution (FAO Climate Change 2020), animal welfare (Lam 2019), foodborne disease outbreaks (FAO Climate Change 2020), species redistribution (Melbourne-Thomas et al. 2021), seafood packaging (Almeida et al. 2022) and fisheries and aquaculture impacts (Ahmed et al. 2019). Existing coastal and ocean management systems are fragmented (e.g., fisheries, aquaculture, recreation, transport) (Stephenson et al. 2019). With collaboration and learning (including sharing of innovations, Table 3), holistic fisheries and aquaculture management can be planned for and implemented prior to disruption (Farmery et al. 2022; Mason et al. 2022). Improved management of marine environments and resources could utilise underfished resources, reduce discards, minimise waste and other environmental impacts of fishing and aquaculture (e.g., loss of fishing gear, carbon footprints, habitat loss) (Ahmed et al. 2019; FAO 2022). Stephenson et al. (2019) propose linking and adapting existing (siloed) management systems into an overarching program that involves a shared vision, common operational objectives, collaborative decision-making through appropriate legal and institutional frameworks, flexibility to change, explicit consideration of trade-offs and cumulative impacts, and effective and iterative processes for stakeholder participation and evaluation. Similarly, Froehlich et al. (2021) suggest an iterative holistic approach to fisheries management, that is supported by data, integrates wild fisheries and aquaculture and balances socio-ecological trade-offs (e.g., Finkbeiner et al. 2018).
Health and wellbeing suffer when SSCNs are under-prepared for disruption. Table 4 describes instances where the health and wellbeing of supply chain actors was reduced to maintain financial stability. Disruptions also compromised livelihoods and businesses resulting in labour shortages, larger power imbalances and unequal treatment, changes in seafood prices and consumption and disrupted transport routes (Table 4). These impacts were particularly clear in small-scale fisheries, which comprise half of the world’s seafood production and sustains livelihoods for over 90% of global fishers in coastal communities (Knight et al. 2020). Co-producing approaches with stakeholders is essential for establishing context, increasing equal access to information, deploying holistic approaches that will be used and addressing power imbalances in trade through reprioritisation (Mason et al. 2022; Nash et al. 2022a) (socio-economic sustainability, Table 6). Boosting equity through policy will be important for reducing inequities and increasing resilience and sustainability (Hicks et al. 2022). Small-scale and indigenous fisheries can be empowered through government participation and policies and equal access to knowledge (Lowitt et al. 2020). Attachment to place can motivate communities to adapt to disruption but it can also limit their adaptive capacity (Plagányi et al. 2021; Mason et al. 2022). Phelan et al. (2022) suggest options for creating synergies between western and traditional systems for sustainable seafood production. Jurisdictional approaches using place-based incentives that align with government, market and producer incentives can drive resilience and sustainability in these regions (Kittinger et al. 2021).
SSCNs, especially those connected to global trade networks, can be highly influenced by market demands (e.g., Crona et al. 2016). Under disruption, loss of exports negatively impacted SSCNs actors as they searched for income (Table 4). Planning can reduce some of these negative impacts and improve sustainability by collaborating to identify socio-ecological trade-offs (socio-economic sustainability, Table 6). For example, Avadí and Fréon (2015) compared environmental impacts, job opportunities, nutritional profiles and profits provided through different ways of processing anchovies to identify trade-offs. The Australian edible oyster industry is an example where seafood production can improve environmental sustainability, support livelihoods and coastal communities (Table 3). Regional SSCNs (e.g., alternative seafood networks and community-supported fisheries) were more resilient as they had more financial capital and agency over how they can supply and price seafood (Table 4). Localising seafood supply strengthens regional economies, health benefits, increases provenance (Watson et al. 2016), reduces carbon footprints, and decreases reliance on global trade in places such as the Pacific (Farrell et al. 2020; Ruiz-Salmón et al. 2021). Export SSCNs can adopt market-based approaches (e.g., certifications, buyer commitments and fishery improvement projects) that integrate more social responsibility to mitigate violations of human rights, provided they are not voluntary, regularly monitored for compliance and have mechanisms in place to address non-compliance (Lout 2023). There are additional opportunities to improve sustainability by using resilience attributes to implement a circular economy (Fletcher et al. 2021) or vertically integrate (Davis et al. 2021). SSCNs are also influenced by consumer demands therefore, educating the consumer on SSCN sustainability, the seasonality of seafood and being transparent in SSCN operations can increase provenance (Watson et al. 2016) and empower consumers to make choices that lead to more adaptive and equitable SSCNs (van Putten et al. 2019; FAO 2022).
Infrastructure is emphasised in most SSCN responses as necessary for continued resilience and improved sustainability (Infrastructure sustainability, Table 6). This is also highlighted in other research (Trebilco et al. 2021; Farmery et al. 2022; Mason et al. 2022; Mehrabi et al. 2022). However, is it a costly investment. Prioritising investments could be one way to support resilience and sustainability. For example, infrastructure for cold storage may be of a priority for SSCNs that deal with live or frozen product compared to others. Infrastructure will need to be climate-resilient, especially in coastal regions (Nash et al. 2022b). Existing infrastructure is already undergoing damage from extreme weather events, coastal urbanisation and sea level rise (Trebilco et al. 2021). Shifting species distributions or relocation to climate-resilient areas may increase the distance between stages of the supply chain. For example, harvesting activities occurring further away from processing facilities. This may also increase their vulnerability to delays. Well-planned infrastructure could service more than one domain in need of similar facilities (e.g., transport infrastructure servicing food supply and health sectors) and be set up to collect data. Data is a high priority across all SSCNs for systematic mapping (Farmery et al. 2022; Simmance et al. 2022), holistic management (Froehlich et al. 2021; Mason et al. 2022; Mehrabi et al. 2022), forecasting and responding to disruptive events but will require funding, government support and infrastructure in key nations (Mehrabi et al. 2022). Improved infrastructure and data collection will in turn enable developments in research and/or technology to implement traceability, certifications of equity and sustainability, strong food safety regulations and build trust between SSCN actors and consumers (McClenachan et al. 2016; Roheim et al. 2018; Davis et al. 2021).
Understanding how SSCNs operate as a socio-ecological system helps to identify vulnerabilities and enables collaboration and shared learning during or after disruption (Armenia et al. 2022; Saisridhar et al. 2023). This is critical for capturing feedbacks, changes in slow variables and examining the effects of multiple drivers across each sustainability dimension (Simmance et al. 2022). Network models show promise for developing system-level tools and insights to measure and test SSCN resilience for decision-making (Mehrabi et al. 2022) as they can encompass socio-ecological interactions at multiple scales based on conceptual understandings of the system (Windsor et al. 2022). Approaches to identify these interactions are already part of socio-ecological resilience toolkits and assessment frameworks (e.g. Bergamini et al. 2014) therefore, network modelling can be a useful next step and may be easier to communicate or use for decision-making. The resilience-building attributes described in Table 5 can be modelled through network structures and developed into quantitative indicators. Connectivity for example, has been used to strengthen shipping container networks (Pan et al. 2022) and calculate resilience in seafood supply chains (Plagányi et al. 2014, 2021). There is potential for methods to be applied universally across SCCNs (Lim-Camacho et al. 2017) and metrics can be recorded before, during and after a disruptive event (e.g., Carlson et al. 2021). Further, advances in network modelling such as multi-layered networks and progress towards fully articulated socio-ecological network models demonstrate utility for capturing interactions and feedbacks across scales (Windsor et al. 2022 and references therein).
Conclusion
Our study contributes to the need for systematic mapping and understanding of supply chain attributes that confer resilience and improve sustainability (Fig. 4). Our findings underscore the need for objective methods for analysing supply chain resilience and points to the need for additional broader tools to better characterise supply chain performance. Seafood supply chains are more vulnerable than other supply chains as they handle live or frozen products with finite shelf lives, require special handling of products and are largely driven by seasonal supply and demand. With cumulative disruptions on the rise, ad-hoc responses can no longer be the default. Food security is a growing issue and while there are caps to global production (Merino et al. 2012), past responses to disruptions (including the COVID-19 pandemic) provide a momentous opportunity to learn and build resilience into holistic seafood supply chain management and planning to meet future demands (Fig. 4).
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this manuscript.
References
Ahmed N, Thompson S, Glaser M (2019) Global aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and climate change adaptability. Environ Manage 63(2):159–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1117-3
Alexander KA, Fleming A, Bax N, Garcia C, Jansen J, Maxwell KH, Melbourne-Thomas J, Mustonen T, Pecl GT, Shaw J, Syme G, Ogier E (2021) Equity of our future oceans: practices and outcomes in marine science research. Rev Fish Biol Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09661-z
Almeida C, Loubet P, da Costa TP, Quinteiro P, Laso J, Baptista de Sousa D, Cooney R, Mellett S, Sonnemann G, Rodríguez CJ, Rowan N, Clifford E, Ruiz-Salmón I, Margallo M, Aldaco R, Nunes ML, Dias AC, Marques A (2022) Packaging environmental impact on seafood supply chains: a review of life cycle assessment studies. J Ind Ecol 26(6):1961–1978. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13189
Amos H, Giron-Nava A, Nguyen T, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Colléter M, González-Espinosa PC, Swartz W (2022) Collapse and recovery of seafood wholesale prices in time of COVID-19. Fish Fish Oxf Engl. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12665
Armenia S, Arquitt S, Pedercini M, Pompei A (2022) Anticipating human resilience and vulnerability on the path to 2030: what can we learn from COVID-19? Futures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102936
Avadí A, Fréon P (2015) A set of sustainability performance indicators for seafood: direct human consumption products from Peruvian anchoveta fisheries and freshwater aquaculture. Ecol Indic 48:518–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.006
Bassett HR, Lau J, Giordano C, Suri SK, Advani S, Sharan S (2021) Preliminary lessons from COVID-19 disruptions of small-scale fishery supply chains. World Dev 143:105473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105473
Bell JD, Senina I, Adams T, Aumont O, Calmettes B, Clark S, Dessert M, Gehlen M, Gorgues T, Hampton J, Hanich Q, Harden-Davies H, Hare SR, Holmes G, Lehodey P, Lengaigne M, Mansfield W, Menkes C, Nicol S, Ota Y, Pasisi C, Pilling G, Reid C, Ronneberg E, Gupta AS, Seto KL, Smith N, Taei S, Tsamenyi M, Williams P (2021) Pathways to sustaining tuna-dependent Pacific Island economies during climate change. Nat. Sustain 4(10):900–910. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00745-z
Belton B, Rosen L, Middleton L, Ghazali S, Mamun A-A, Shieh J, Noronha HS, Dhar G, Ilyas M, Price C, Nasr-Allah A, Elsira I, Baliarsingh BK, Padiyar A, Rajendran S, Mohan ABC, Babu R, Akester MJ, Phyo EE, Soe KM, Olaniyi A, Siriwardena SN, Bostock J, Little DC, Phillips M, Thilsted SH (2021) COVID-19 impacts and adaptations in Asia and Africa’s aquatic food value chains. Mar Policy 129:104523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104523
Bennett NJ, Finkbeiner EM, Ban NC, Belhabib D, Jupiter SD, Kittinger JN, Mangubhai S, Scholtens J, Gill D, Christie P (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic, small-scale fisheries and coastal fishing communities. Coast Manag 48(4):336–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1766937
Bennett NJ, Villasante S, Espinosa-Romero MJ, Lopes PFM, Selim SA, Allison EH (2022) Social sustainability and equity in the blue economy. One Earth 5(9):964–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.08.004
Bergamini N, Dunbar W, Eyzaguirre PB, Ichikawa K, Matsumoto I, Mijatovic D, Morimoto Y, Remple N, Salvemini D, Suzuki W (2014) Toolkit for the indicators of resilience in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes
Betley EC, Sigouin A, Pascua P, Cheng SH, MacDonald KI, Arengo F, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Caillon S, Isaac ME, Jupiter SD, Mawyer A, Mejia M, Moore AC, Renard D, Sébastien L, Gazit N, Sterling EJ (2021) Assessing human well-being constructs with environmental and equity aspects: a review of the landscape. People Nat. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10293
Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S, Cundill G, Dakos V, Daw TM, Evans LS, Kotschy K (2012) Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:421–448
Blanchard JL, Watson RA, Fulton EA, Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Bryndum-Buchholz A, Büchner M, Carozza DA, Cheung WWL, Elliott J, Davidson LNK, Dulvy NK, Dunne JP, Eddy TD, Galbraith E, Lotze HK, Maury O, Müller C, Tittensor DP, Jennings S (2017) Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. Nat Ecol Evol 1(9):1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0258-8
Braun A (2022) How indigenous sea gardens produced massive amounts of food for Millennia. Hakai Mag. Available from https://hakaimagazine.com/news/how-indigenous-sea-gardens-produced-massive-amounts-of-food-for-millennia/ [accessed 25 July 2022]
Carlson AK, Young T, Centeno MA, Levin SA, Rubenstein DI (2021) Boat to bowl: resilience through network rewiring of a community-supported fishery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ Res Lett 16(3):034054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe4f6
Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4(8):765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9
Catizone I (2016) National impact from Tasmanian POMS outbreak | FRDC. Available from https://www.frdc.com.au/fish-vol-24-2/national-impact-tasmanian-poms-outbreak [accessed 20 August 2022]
Chaigneau T, Coulthard S, Daw TM, Szaboova L, Camfield L, Chapin FS, Gasper D, Gurney GG, Hicks CC, Ibrahim M, James T, Jones L, Matthews N, McQuistan C, Reyers B, Brown K (2022) Reconciling well-being and resilience for sustainable development. Nat Sustain 5(4):287–293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00790-8
Chen X, Garcia RJ (2015) China’s salmon sanction. Sch. Econ. Bus. Work. Pap. Ser.: 05–2015
Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Pauly D, Weatherdon LV, Ota Y (2016) A global estimate of seafood consumption by coastal indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE 11(12):e0166681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166681
Cockburn J, Schoon M, Cundill G, Robinson C, Aburto J, Alexander S, Baggio J, Barnaud C, Chapman M, Garcia Llorente M, García-López G, Hill R, Ifejika Speranza C, Lee J, Meek C, Rosenberg E, Schultz L, Thondhlana G (2020) Understanding the context of multifaceted collaborations for social-ecological sustainability: a methodology for cross-case analysis. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11527-250307
Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Halpern BS, Remenyi TA, Corney SP, Fleming A, Fulton EA, Hornborg S, Johne A, Watson RA, Blanchard JL (2019) Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat Sustain 2(2):130–137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0210-1
Crona BI, Basurto X, Squires D, Gelcich S, Daw TM, Khan A, Havice E, Chomo V, Troell M, Buchary EA, Allison EH (2016) Towards a typology of interactions between small-scale fisheries and global seafood trade. Mar Policy 65:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.016
Davis KF, Downs S, Gephart JA (2021) Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat Food 2(1):54–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00196-3
de la Puente S, López de la Lama R, Llerena-Cayo C, Martínez BR, Rey-Cama G, Christensen V, Rivera-Ch M, Valdés-Velasquez A (2022) Adoption of sustainable low-impact fishing practices is not enough to secure sustainable livelihoods and social wellbeing in small-scale fishing communities. Mar Policy 146:105321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105321
Denham FC, Howieson JR, Solah VA, Biswas WK (2015) Environmental supply chain management in the seafood industry: past, present and future approaches. J Clean Prod 90:82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.079
FAO (2022) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2022: towards blue transformation. FAO, Rome, Italy. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en
FAO Climate Change (2020) Unpacking the Burden on Food Safety. FAO—Food Agric. Organ. U. N. Rome Italy
Farmery AK, Alexander K, Anderson K, Blanchard JL, Carter CG, Evans K, Fischer M, Fleming A, Frusher S, Fulton EA, Haas B, MacLeod CK, Murray L, Nash KL, Pecl GT, Rousseau Y, Trebilco R, van Putten IE, Mauli S, Dutra L, Greeno D, Kaltavara J, Watson R, Nowak B (2022) Food for all: designing sustainable and secure future seafood systems. Rev Fish Biol Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09663-x
Farrell P, Thow AM, Wate JT, Nonga N, Vatucawaqa P, Brewer T, Sharp MK, Farmery A, Trevena H, Reeve E, Eriksson H, Gonzalez I, Mulcahy G, Eurich JG, Andrew NL (2020) COVID-19 and Pacific food system resilience: opportunities to build a robust response. Food Secur 12(4):783–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01087-y
Finkbeiner EM, Micheli F, Bennett NJ, Ayers AL, Le Cornu E, Doerr AN (2018) Exploring trade-offs in climate change response in the context of Pacific Island fisheries. Mar Policy 88:359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.032
Fleming A, Hobday AJ, Farmery A, van Putten EI, Pecl GT, Green BS, Lim-Camacho L (2014) Climate change risks and adaptation options across Australian seafood supply chains–a preliminary assessment. Clim Risk Manag 1:39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2013.12.003
Fletcher CA, St Clair R, Sharmina M (2021) Seafood businesses’ resilience can benefit from circular economy principles. Nat. Food 2(4):228–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00262-4
FRDC (2016) June 1. National impact from Tasmanian POMS outbreak | FRDC. Available from https://www.frdc.com.au/fish-vol-24-2/national-impact-tasmanian-poms-outbreak [accessed 15 August 2022]
Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Lester SE, Cottrell RS, Fay G, Branch TA, Gephart JA, White ER, Baum JK (2021) Securing a sustainable future for US seafood in the wake of a global crisis. Mar Policy 124:104328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104328
Gephart JA, Deutsch L, Pace ML, Troell M, Seekell DA (2017) Shocks to fish production: identification, trends, and consequences. Glob Environ Change 42:24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.003
Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Graziano M, Fox CJ, Alexander K, Pita C, Heymans JJ, Crumlish M, Hughes A, Ghanawi J, 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. Mar Policy 87:301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.014
Hale L, Gerhardt K, Day JC, Heron SF (2022) A First Nations approach to addressing climate change—assessing interrelated key values to identify and address adaptive management for country. Parks Steward Forum. https://doi.org/10.5070/P538257518
Harris RMB, Beaumont LJ, Vance TR, Tozer CR, Remenyi TA, Perkins-Kirkpatrick SE, Mitchell PJ, Nicotra AB, McGregor S, Andrew NR, Letnic M, Kearney MR, Wernberg T, Hutley LB, Chambers LE, Fletcher M-S, Keatley MR, Woodward CA, Williamson G, Duke NC, Bowman DMJS (2018) Biological responses to the press and pulse of climate trends and extreme events. Nat Clim Change 8(7):579–587. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0187-9
Hick PM (2020) How oysters can indicate ecosystem health and resilience. Available from https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/news-and-events/2020/02/21/oysters-ecosystem-health.html [accessed 15 August 2022].
Hicks CC, Gephart JA, Koehn JZ, Nakayama S, Payne HJ, Allison EH, Belhbib D, Cao L, Cohen PJ, Fanzo J, Fluet-Chouinard E, Gelcich S, Golden CD, Gorospe KD, Isaacs M, Kuempel CD, Lee KN, MacNeil MA, Maire E, Njuki J, Rao N, Sumaila UR, Selig ER, Thilsted SH, Wabnitz CCC, Naylor RL (2022) Rights and representation support justice across aquatic food systems. Nat Food. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00618-4
Holsman K, Samhouri J, Cook G, Hazen E, Olsen E, Dillard M, Kasperski S, Gaichas S, Kelble CR, Fogarty M (2017) An ecosystem-based approach to marine risk assessment. Ecosyst Health Sustain 3(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1256
IMAS (2019) Scientists working with oyster farmers to tackle POMS this summer - Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies. News Item. Available from https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/news/news-items/scientists-working-with-oyster-farmers-to-tackle-poms-this-summer [accessed 27 July 2022]
International Organisation for Women in the Seafood Industry (2020) April 8. Why using a gender lens to analyse COVID-19 impacts on the seafood industry? Available from https://womeninseafood.org/why-using-a-gender-lens-to-analyse-covid-19-impacts-on-the-seafood-industry/ [accessed 2 August 2022]
Johnson K (2022) July 8. Oyster farmers “over it” as floods wipe out stock, trigger sewage spill. ABC News. Available from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-08/oyster-sewage-spill-floods-wipe-out-oyster-stock/101219594 [accessed 17 August 2022]
Júnior LCR, Frederico GF, Costa MLN (2023) Maturity and resilience in supply chains: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Ind Eng Op Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIEOM-08-2022-0035
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani K, Giardina CP (2016) Embracing the sacred: an indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustain Sci 11(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3
Kittinger JN, Teneva LT, Koike H, Stamoulis KA, Kittinger DS, Oleson KLL, Conklin E, Gomes M, Wilcox B, Friedlander AM (2015) From reef to table: social and ecological factors affecting coral reef fisheries, artisanal seafood supply chains, and seafood security. PLoS ONE 10(8):e0123856. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123856
Kittinger JN, Bernard M, Finkbeiner E, Murphy E, Obregon P, Klinger DH, Schoon ML, Dooley KJ, Gerber LR (2021) Applying a jurisdictional approach to support sustainable seafood. Conserv Sci Pract 3(5):e386. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.386
Klein CJ, Kuempel CD, Watson RA, Teneva L, Coll M, Mora C (2022) Global fishing between jurisdictions with unequal fisheries management. Environ Res Lett 17(11):114004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac97ab
Knight CJ, Burnham TLU, Mansfield EJ, Crowder LB, Micheli F (2020) COVID-19 reveals vulnerability of small-scale fisheries to global market systems. Lancet Planet Health 4(6):e219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30128-5
Lam ME (2019) Seafood ethics: Reconciling human well-being with fish welfare. In The Routledge handbook of animal ethics. Routledge. pp 177–197
Lim-Camacho L, Hobday AJ, Bustamante RH, Farmery A, Fleming A, Frusher S, Green BS, Norman-López A, Pecl GT, Plagányi ÉE, Schrobback P, Thebaud O, Thomas L, van Putten I (2014) Facing the wave of change: stakeholder perspectives on climate adaptation for Australian seafood supply chains. Reg Environ Change 15(4):595–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0670-4
Lim-Camacho L, Plagányi ÉE, Crimp S, Hodgkinson JH, Hobday AJ, Howden SM, Loechel B (2017) Complex resource supply chains display higher resilience to simulated climate shocks. Glob Environ Change 46:126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.011
Lim-Camacho L, Jeanneret T, Hodgkinson JH (2021) Towards resilient, responsive and rewarding mining: an adaptive value chains approach. Resour Policy 74:101465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101465
Lout GE (2023) Human rights in a sea of market-based approaches: Evaluation of market-based tools integrating social responsibility in the sustainable seafood movement. Sustain Prod Consum 35:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.020
Love DC, Allison EH, Asche F, Belton B, Cottrell RS, Froehlich HE, Gephart JA, Hicks CC, Little DC, Nussbaumer EM, Pinto da Silva P, Poulain F, Rubio A, Stoll JS, Tlusty MF, Thorne-Lyman AL, Troell M, Zhang W (2021) Emerging COVID-19 impacts, responses, and lessons for building resilience in the seafood system. Glob Food Secur 28:100494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100494
Lowitt K, Levkoe CZ, Spring A, Turlo C, Williams PL, Bird S, Sayers CD, Simba M (2020) Empowering small-scale, community-based fisheries through a food systems framework. Mar Policy 120:104150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104150
Manlosa AO, Hornidge A-K, Schlüter A (2021) Aquaculture-capture fisheries nexus under Covid-19: impacts, diversity, and social-ecological resilience. Marit Stud 20(1):75–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-021-00213-6
Marschke M, Vandergeest P, Havice E, Kadfak A, Duker P, Isopescu I, MacDonnell M (2021) COVID-19, instability and migrant fish workers in Asia. Marit Stud 20(1):87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00205-y
Mason JG, Eurich JG, Lau JD, Battista W, Free CM, Mills KE, Tokunaga K, Zhao LZ, Dickey-Collas M, Valle M, Pecl GT, Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, Allison EH, Friedman WR, Silva C, Yáñez E, Barbieri MÁ, Kleisner KM (2022) Attributes of climate resilience in fisheries: from theory to practice. Fish Fish 23(3):522–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12630
McClenachan L, Dissanayake STM, Chen X (2016) Fair trade fish: consumer support for broader seafood sustainability. Fish Fish 17(3):825–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12148
Mehrabi Z, Delzeit R, Ignaciuk A, Levers C, Braich G, Bajaj K, Amo-Aidoo A, Anderson W, Balgah RA, Benton TG, Chari MM, Ellis EC, Gahi NZ, Gaupp F, Garibaldi LA, Gerber JS, Godde CM, Grass I, Heimann T, Hirons M, Hoogenboom G, Jain M, James D, Makowski D, Masamha B, Meng S, Monprapussorn S, Müller D, Nelson A, Newlands NK, Noack F, Oronje M, Raymond C, Reichstein M, Rieseberg LH, Rodriguez-Llanes JM, Rosenstock T, Rowhani P, Sarhadi A, Seppelt R, Sidhu BS, Snapp S, Soma T, Sparks AH, Teh L, Tigchelaar M, Vogel MM, West PC, Wittman H, You L (2022) Research priorities for global food security under extreme events. One Earth 5(7):756–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.008
Melbourne-Thomas J, Audzijonyte A, Brasier MJ, Cresswell KA, Fogarty HE, Haward M, Hobday AJ, Hunt HL, Ling SD, McCormack PC, Mustonen T, Mustonen K, Nye JA, Oellermann M, Trebilco R, van Putten I, Villanueva C, Watson RA, Pecl GT (2021) Poleward bound: adapting to climate-driven species redistribution. Rev Fish Biol Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09641-3
Merino G, Barange M, Blanchard JL, Harle J, Holmes R, Allen I, Allison EH, Badjeck MC, Dulvy NK, Holt J, Jennings S, Mullon C, Rodwell LD (2012) Can marine fisheries and aquaculture meet fish demand from a growing human population in a changing climate? Glob Environ Change 22(4):795–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.003
Miles D (2023) February 27. Freight company that supplies Coles and Aldi in receivership with fears for 1500 jobs. ABC News. Available from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-28/freight-company-scotts-receivership-job-fears/102031508 [accessed 1 March 2023]
Moran D, Cossar F, Merkle M, Alexander P (2020) UK food system resilience tested by COVID-19. Nat Food 1(5):242–242. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0082-1
Nash KL, MacNeil MA, Blanchard JL, Cohen PJ, Farmery AK, Graham NAJ, Thorne-Lyman AL, Watson RA, Hicks CC (2022a) Trade and foreign fishing mediate global marine nutrient supply. Proc Natl Acad Sci 119(22):e2120817119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120817119
Nash KL, van Putten I, Alexander KA, Bettiol S, Cvitanovic C, Farmery AK, Flies EJ, Ison S, Kelly R, Mackay M, Murray L, Norris K, Robinson LM, Scott J, Ward D, Vince J (2022b) Oceans and society: feedbacks between ocean and human health. Rev Fish Biol Fish 32(1):161–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09669-5
Nogrady B (2019) POMS: where is the Pacific Oyster industry now? | FRDC. Available from https://www.frdc.com.au/fish-vol-27-3/poms-where-pacific-oyster-industry-now [accessed 21 August 2022]
Novak DC, Wu Z, Dooley KJ (2021) Whose resilience matters? Addressing issues of scale in supply chain resilience. J Bus Logist 42(3):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12270
NSW Department of Primary Industries (2020) Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome (POMS). Available from https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/aquatic-biosecurity/aquaculture/aquaculture/poms [accessed 17 August 2022]
Ogier E, Sen S, Jennings SM, Magnusson A, Smith DC, Colquhoun E, Rust SA, Morison J (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 on the Australian seafood industry
Oliver ECJ, Benthuysen JA, Bindoff NL, Hobday AJ, Holbrook NJ, Mundy CN, Perkins-Kirkpatrick SE (2017) The unprecedented 2015/16 Tasman Sea marine heatwave. Nat Commun 8(1):16101. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms16101
Oyster Health Sydney (2016) February 1. NEW:POMS Fact Sheets. Available from https://oysterhealthsydney.org/herpesvirus-disinfection-fact-sheet/ [accessed 21 August 2022]
Pan J-J, Zhang Y-F, Fan B (2022) Strengthening container shipping network connectivity during COVID-19: a graph theory approach. Ocean Coast Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106338
Pershing AJ, Mills KE, Dayton AM, Franklin BS, Kennedy BT (2018) Evidence for adaptation from the 2016 marine heatwave in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Oceanography 31(2):152–161
Phelan A, Ross H, Adhuri DS, Richards R (2022) Equity in a sea of debt: how better understanding of small-scale fisheries can help reel in sustainable seafood. ICES J Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac020
Plagányi ÉE, van Putten I, Thébaud O, Hobday AJ, Innes J, Lim-Camacho L, Norman-López A, Bustamante RH, Farmery A, Fleming A, Frusher S, Green B, Hoshino E, Jennings S, Pecl G, Pascoe S, Schrobback P, Thomas L (2014) A quantitative metric to identify critical elements within seafood supply networks. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091833
Plagányi É, Deng RA, Tonks M, Murphy N, Pascoe S, Edgar S, Salee K, Hutton T, Blamey L, Dutra L (2021) Indirect impacts of COVID-19 on a tropical lobster fishery’s harvest strategy and supply chain. Front Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.686065
Pomeroy A (2015) Resilience of family farming 1984–2014: case studies from two sheep/beef hill country districts of New Zealand. N Z Geogr 71(3):146–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12106
Pullman M, Zhaohui W (2021) Food supply chain management: building a sustainable future. Routledge, Oxforshire
Reyers B, Moore M-L, Haider LJ, Schlüter M (2022) The contributions of resilience to reshaping sustainable development. Nat Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00889-6
Roheim CA, Bush SR, Asche F, Sanchirico JN, Uchida H (2018) Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market. Nat Sustain 1(8):392–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0115-z
Ruiz-Salmón I, Fernández-Ríos A, Campos C, Laso J, Margallo M, Aldaco R (2021) The fishing and seafood sector in the time of COVID-19: Considerations for local and global opportunities and responses. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 23:100286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100286
Department of Primary Industries and Regions S.A. (2019) Tasmanian outbreak 2016–South Australian impact. Collection. Available from https://pir.sa.gov.au/biosecurity/aquatics/aquatic_diseases/pacific_oyster_mortality_syndrome/tasmanian_outbreak_2016_south_australian_impact [accessed 15 August 2022]
Saisridhar P, Thürer M, Avittathur B (2023) Assessing supply chain responsiveness, resilience and robustness (Triple-R) by computer simulation: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Prod Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2023.2180302
Schrobback P, Rolfe J, Rust S, Ugalde S (2021) Challenges and opportunities of aquaculture supply chains: case study of oysters in Australia. Ocean Coast Manag 215:105966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105966
Schrobback P, Rust S, Ugalde S, Rolfe J (2020) Describing and analysing the Pacific oyster supply chain in Australia. CQU, UTas. Available from https://www.ruraleconomies.org.au/media/1301/recoe-report_pacific-oyster-supply-and-value-chain_final.pdf [accessed 27 July 2022]
Shekarian M, Mellat Parast M (2021) An Integrative approach to supply chain disruption risk and resilience management: a literature review. Int J Logist Res Appl 24(5):427–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1763935
Simmance FA, Cohen PJ, Huchery C, Sutcliffe S, Suri SK, Tezzo X, Thilsted SH, Oosterveer P, McDougall C, Ahern M, Freed S, Byrd KA, Wesana J, Cowx IG, Mills DJ, Akester M, Chan CY, Nagoli J, Wate JT, Phillips MJ (2022) Nudging fisheries and aquaculture research towards food systems. Fish Fish 23(1):34–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12597
Smith K, Lawrence G, MacMahon A, Muller J, Brady M (2016) The resilience of long and short food chains: a case study of flooding in Queensland, Australia. Agric Hum Values 33(1):45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9603-1
Smith SL, Golden AS, Ramenzoni V, Zemeckis DR, Jensen OP (2020) Adaptation and resilience of commercial fishers in the Northeast United States during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 15(12):e0243886. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243886
Smith KE, Burrows MT, Hobday AJ, Gupta AS, Moore PJ, Thomsen M, Wernberg T, Smale DA (2021) Socioeconomic impacts of marine heatwaves: global issues and opportunities. Science 374(6566):eabj3593. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3593
Stephens L, Myers A (2020) Oysters Australia strategic plan 2020–2025. Oysters Australia. Available from https://www.oystersaustralia.org/strategicplan
Stephenson RL, Hobday AJ, Cvitanovic C, Alexander KA, Begg GA, Bustamante RH, Dunstan PK, Frusher S, Fudge M, Fulton EA, Haward M, Macleod C, McDonald J, Nash KL, Ogier E, Pecl G, Plagányi ÉE, van Putten I, Smith T, Ward TM (2019) A practical framework for implementing and evaluating integrated management of marine activities. Ocean Coast Manag 177:127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.008
Stoll JS, Harrison HL, De Sousa E, Callaway D, Collier M, Harrell K, Jones B, Kastlunger J, Kramer E, Steve Kurian M, Lovewell A, Strobel S, Sylvester T, Tolley B, Tomlinson A, White ER, Young T, Loring PA (2021) Alternative seafood networks during COVID-19: implications for resilience and sustainability. Front Sustain Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.614368
Throsby D, Petetskaya E (2016) Sustainability concepts in indigenous and non-indigenous cultures. Int J Cult Prop 23(2):119–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739116000084
Tolley B, Gregory R, Marten GG (2015) Promoting resilience in a regional seafood system: New England and the fish locally collaborative. J Environ Stud Sci 5(4):593–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0343-8
Trebilco R, Fleming A, Hobday AJ, Melbourne-Thomas J, Meyer A, McDonald J, McCormack PC, Anderson K, Bax N, Corney SP, Dutra LXC, Fogarty HE, McGee J, Mustonen K, Mustonen T, Norris KA, Ogier E, Constable AJ, Pecl GT (2021) Warming world, changing ocean: mitigation and adaptation to support resilient marine systems. Rev Fish Biol Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09678-4
Ugalde SC, Preston J, Ogier E, Crawford C (2018) Analysis of farm management strategies following herpesvirus (OsHV-1) disease outbreaks in Pacific oysters in Tasmania, Australia. Aquaculture 495:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.05.019
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available from https://sdgs.un.org/goals [accessed 24 November 2022]
van Putten I, Lalancette A, Bayliss P, Dennis D, Hutton T, Norman-López A, Pascoe S, Plagányi E, Skewes T (2013) A Bayesian model of factors influencing indigenous participation in the Torres Strait tropical rocklobster fishery. Mar Policy 37:96–105
van Putten I, Koopman M, Fleming A, Hobday AJ, Knuckey I, Zhou S (2019) Fresh eyes on an old issue: demand-side barriers to a discard problem. Fish Res 209:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.09.007
Walker BH, Abel N, Anderies JM, Ryan P (2009) Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in the goulburn-broken catchment, Australia. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02824-140112
Wan L (2018) January. Spat with POMS affecting oyster supplies in disease-free South Australia. Available from https://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Article/2018/01/09/Spat-with-POMS-affecting-oyster-supplies-in-disease-free-South-Australia [accessed 15 August 2022]
Ward D, Melbourne-Thomas J, Pecl GT, Evans K, Green M, McCormack PC, Novaglio C, Trebilco R, Bax N, Brasier MJ, Cavan EL, Edgar G, Hunt HL, Jansen J, Jones R, Lea M-A, Makomere R, Mull C, Semmens JM, Shaw J, Tinch D, van Steveninck TJ, Layton C (2022) Safeguarding marine life: conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. Rev Fish Biol Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09700-3
Watson R, Green BS, Tracey S, Farmery A, Pitcher T (2016) Provenance of global seafood. https://doi.org/10.1111/FAF.12129
White ER, Levine J, Moeser A, Sorensen J (2022) The direct and indirect effects of a global pandemic on US fishers and seafood workers. PeerJ 10:e13007. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13007
Wieland A, Stevenson M, Melnyk SA, Davoudi S, Schultz L (2023) Thinking differently about supply chain resilience: what we can learn from social-ecological systems thinking. Int J Op Prod Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2022-0645
Windsor FM, Armenteras D, Assis APA, Astegiano J, Santana PC, Cagnolo L, Carvalheiro LG, Emary C, Fort H, Gonzalez XI, Kitson JJN, Lacerda ACF, Lois M, Márquez-Velásquez V, Miller KE, Monasterolo M, Omacini M, Maia KP, Palacios TP, Pocock MJO, Poggio SL, Varassin IG, Vázquez DP, Tavella J, Rother DC, Devoto M, Guimarães PR, Evans DM (2022) Network science: applications for sustainable agroecosystems and food security. Perspect Ecol Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2022.03.001
Witter A, Stoll J (2017) Participation and resistance: Alternative seafood marketing in a neoliberalera. Mar Policy 80:130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.023
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 300
Xu L, Marinova D, Guo X (2015) Resilience thinking: a renewed system approach for sustainability science. Sustain Sci 10(1):123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0274-4
Acknowledgements
This study was funded under CSIRO’s Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: RS, JMT; Methodology: RS; Formal analysis and investigation: RS, MR; Writing—original draft preparation: RS, MR; Writing—review and editing: all authors; Funding acquisition: Jessica Melbourne-Thomas.
Funding
Open access funding provided by CSIRO Library Services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Subramaniam, R.C., Ruwet, M., Boschetti, F. et al. The socio-ecological resilience and sustainability implications of seafood supply chain disruption. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 33, 1129–1154 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-023-09788-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-023-09788-1