A Scoping Review of Aquatic Food Systems during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented shock to capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors. This scoping review of 670 articles explored the spatial, temporal, and thematic coverage of this event. The search period was January 1, 2020 to February 7, 2022. Articles were mainly peer-reviewed journals (88%) with the remainder from the gray literature (12%). Studies were performed at the global (21%), multi-country (11%), national (45%), and sub-national (23%) levels. Most studies involved primary or secondary data collection (71%) and the remainder were either review articles (17%) or commentaries (12%). Among the studies using primary and secondary data, nearly half (49%) were performed in the first five months of the pandemic (March to July 2020), and 84% within the first year of the pandemic (March 2020–February 2021). There were many studies in South and Southeast Asia, Southern Europe, China, and the United States, and fewer studies in other regions. The pandemic created challenges and opportunities, with heterogeneity in impacts among industrial and small-scale sectors, production methods, geographies, value chains, and by gender. Cumulative impacts from climate change and conflicts contributed to pandemic-related hardships. Increased unemployment and inflation led to rising food insecurity for small-scale producers, fishworkers, and low-income households. Aquatic food intake was more severely affected than other food groups during lockdowns, and it decreased more in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Responses were diverse, reflecting the capacity and resources of a country, but in general there was unprecedented public support to sustain the private sector (i.e., income support, tax relief, subsidies). As this study focused mainly on the first year of the pandemic, future work is needed to identify which groups exited the pandemic stronger or weaker, what factors enabled some populations to bounce-back, how the crisis affected value chains, and the effectiveness of interventions.

Keywords:

• Aquaculture
• fisheries
• COVID-19
• livelihood
• resilience
• small-scale

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020 (Cucinotta and Vanelli 2020), and years later there remains serious ongoing economic, health, and food system challenges. Global economic growth slowed in 2022 as a result of COVID-19 flare-ups, tightening monetary policies, supply chain bottlenecks, climate change, and other factors (United Nations 2022b; World Bank 2022). In addition, the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation has also affected energy and commodity prices (United Nations 2022a). In 2021, 193 million people faced acute food insecurity, which is a 40 million person increase over 2020 (Global Network against Food Crises 2022). Recovery from the pandemic has been uneven and has exacerbated inequalities (World Bank 2022). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) saw impacts on income, employment, access to markets, and food security (Egger et al. 2021), and countries hardest hit by the pandemic have seen the greatest increase in consumer food prices for nutritious foods (Bai et al. 2022).

In recent decades there have been numerous crises with major effects on food systems, including the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the world food price crisis of 2007–2008, and numerous conflicts, refugee crises, and climate-related shocks. The COVID-19 pandemic was different in many ways from previous shocks because it was global in scope, more severe (6.5 million deaths as of Oct 13, 2022) (Anon 2022), and affected both supply and demand. While the capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors routinely experience shocks caused by climate change, weather, geopolitical events, and mismanagement of resources (Cottrell et al. 2019; Gephart et al. 2017), nobody was prepared for a global human pandemic.

Aquatic foods are among the most globally traded food commodities by value; about 38% of production is internationally traded (Anderson et al. 2018; FAO 2022) and 78% is exposed to trade competition (Tveterås et al. 2012). The highly traded nature of aquatic foods makes local shocks reverberate across global scales and vice versa. The major capture fisheries and aquaculture producer, and consumer, is China (FAO 2022)—the same country where the first cases and early lockdowns affected demand and global aquatic food trade (Love et al. 2021). Capture fisheries and aquaculture have large informal sectors based in LMICs where there are also limited social protections for workers (Kelleher et al. 2012), which can make fishworkers vulnerable to shocks. Aquatic foods are also important from a nutrition perspective in many LMICs (Thilsted et al. 2016). Past work has shown that during economic shocks, there is decreased intake of aquatic foods and other nutritionally dense foods with high elastic demand (Klotz et al. 2008).

Understanding the full range of impacts and opportunities for capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors globally was hindered by data scarcity during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Routine monitoring, stock assessments, enforcement, and reporting were paused or halted during the early stage of the pandemic (FAO 2022). Household-level surveys and government censuses were paused in some countries during lockdowns, which further contributed to data scarcity. This left large knowledge gaps about how the pandemic affected natural resources, fishworker livelihoods, and food security and nutrition among aquatic food consumers. Ad-hoc studies were done by non-governmental organizations, development partners, and academia but this work has not been systematically reviewed, with a few exceptions (Alam et al. 2022; Éliás and Jámbor 2021).

The aim of this study was to identify and synthesize the current body of work on the global capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic using scoping review methodology. The study addresses the following research questions: (i) What was the spatial and temporal coverage of literature on COVID-19 impacts and responses in aquatic food systems and where do knowledge gaps still exist? (ii) what did surveys find regarding impacts on hard-to-reach populations including small-scale capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors and aquatic food-consuming households? and (iii) what recommendations were made in the literature?

Methods for conducting the literature review

Search strategy, study selection, and inclusion criteria

A systematic search was conducted over the time range of January 1, 2020 to February 7, 2022 using keywords related to aquatic food systems and COVID-19. Keywords and exclusion terms used in the searches are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. PubMed, Scopus, and Business Source Ultimate (a business-specific search engine) were selected as electronic databases for the English-language records search. An additional search of websites of the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the World Bank was used to capture reports and gray literature. A total of 14,427 unique records were identified in the search (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Food system framework. Modified from HLPE (2020), Marshall et al. (2021), and USAID (2021).

A literature review management software (Covidence; Melbourne, Australia) was used to screen records through a two-staged process of (i) title and abstract screening, and (ii) full-text screening. The following inclusion criteria were used to select articles for the review: (i) articles written in English, (ii) published after January 1, 2020, (iii) related to the impacts of COVID-19 on aquatic food systems, and (iv) written as a scientific article, review article, commentary, or report. Commentaries were included because they provide context and rapid reactions from experts. Excluded from the analysis were blogs, press releases, newspaper articles, as well as reports about the immune boosting properties or protective effects of food, diets, or dietary supplements (e.g., fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids) against COVID-19 infections. In the title and abstract screening stage, 12,752 of 14,427 articles were excluded leaving 1,675 articles eligible to be screened at the full-text stage (Figure 1). After full-text screening, 670 articles underwent data extraction for a list of 32 questions for all studies, and an additional seven questions for surveys (the data dictionary is provided in the Supplementary Appendix). Screening was performed independently by two reviewers, with a 90% agreement rate between reviewers, and a third reviewer that reconciled differences. Records used in this review are available in the Supporting Information.

Data extraction and analysis

Figure 1 presents an adapted version of a food systems framework (FAO 2022) that was used to guide the development of a tool to extract data from each study. The extraction process included information about the study design; time period of analysis; geographic area of study; COVID-19 impacts and responses by aquatic food producers, supply chains, retail, and consumers; and information about upstream drivers and recommendations related to interventions. Additional extraction was done for studies using survey methodology to include the study population, sample selection, inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment methods, sample size, and survey tool deployment. Data was extracted by a team of two reviewers with each document extracted by a single person. Extracted records were cleaned in RStudio (Boston, MA, USA) and Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA), and summary statistics, tables, and figures were created using RStudio. Maps presenting the number of studies per country were created in ArcGIS (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA). High quality studies were identified and used in tables. Major themes were identified across all studies within the categories of aquatic food production and aquatic food utilization.

Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram and study selection for review.

Summary of findings

Overview of literature reviewed

The 670 studies included in this review were published in peer-reviewed journals (88%) and gray literature (12%) (e.g., government and NGO reports). These studies were performed at the global (21%), multi-country (11%), national (45%), and sub-national (23%) levels. Most studies involved primary or secondary data collection (71%) and the remainder were either review articles (17%) or commentaries (12%). Among the studies using primary and secondary data, nearly half (49%) were performed in the first five months of the pandemic (March to July 2020), and 84% within the first year of the pandemic (March 2020–February 2021). The literature review included 186 countries, which provides global coverage, but some countries and parts of regions were better studied than others. By region, studies were performed in Asia (34%), Europe (23%), South and Central America and the Caribbean (12%), North America (11%), Africa (10%), Oceania (6%), and the Middle East (5%). What follows are summaries of the literature that describes impacts from the first year of the pandemic on capture fisheries and aquaculture production and their value chains (n = 297), aquatic food utilization (n = 262), and recommendations (n = 499).

Capture fisheries and aquaculture production and value chains

Global trends mask significant heterogeneity

From a global perspective, capture fisheries production was down 6% in 2020 (91.4 million tons live weight equivalents) compared to 2018 (97.5 million tons), but within normal year-to-year variability over the past 25 years (FAO 2022). Early lockdowns in 2020 had a large impact on global fishing activity, but capture fisheries made a faster recovery than other maritime sectors, such as tourism and cargo shipping (FAO 2022). Global aquaculture grew by nearly 3% in 2020, which followed a general trend of slowing growth rates over the past two decades (FAO 2022). Lockdowns caused a demand shock and slowed the movement of people, goods, and inputs that affected both capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors (Love et al. 2021). International aquatic food trade had a steep decline in early 2020, which appeared to show signs of recovery by mid-2020 as the first lockdown period ended (Verschuur et al. 2021).

Global averages, however, masked significant heterogeneity across geographies, sectors, and groups. Some sectors were affected more than others, including cumulative impacts that made regions more vulnerable. For example, Pacific Island nations faced tropical cyclone Harold in May 2020 (Davila et al. 2021; Mangubhai et al. 2021) and the Spanish mariculture sector was recovering from climate change impacts that predated the pandemic (Sánchez-Jerez et al. 2022). Small-scale capture fisheries were much slower to recover than the industrial fishing sector (Carvalho et al. 2020; Alam et al. 2022). In LMICs, capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors also had to cope with reduced access to vaccines and fewer social safety nets than sectors in high-income countries (HICs).

Surveys of the capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors

Surveys were a key tool for rapidly collecting information about hard-to-reach, vulnerable populations during the pandemic. This review includes 110 surveys of aquatic food producers and value chains from 80 countries. Of all surveys, 87% (96/110) included participants in the small-scale capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The most surveyed populations were capture fisheries producers (27% of total), aquaculture producers (17%), processors (9%), wholesale (10%), traders (12%), government officials and policymakers (6%), food service (3%), shopkeepers (3%), and other groups (12%). Surveys were performed in the industrial and small-scale sectors and across different aquatic environments (marine, coastal and inland waters). Because of concerns over social distancing, most surveys were deployed as online questionnaires (36% of total) or phone/online interviews (37%), although some surveys were of populations lacking regular access to the internet or phones, and these were done in-person (23%) or as focus groups (5%). The surveys had a median sample size of 207 respondents with a range of 5–17,983 respondents. Surveys often used convenience sampling (57% of total), including social media to recruit participants. This facilitated recruitment despite difficulties in physically accessing respondents for interviews but led to uncertain generalizability of findings. Some studies used purposeful sampling methods (30%) where key informants were selected by the study team or advisors. Only 12% of studies used random sampling methods, which are the gold-standard for producing generalizable study findings.

The depth of survey coverage varied widely by country (Figure 3), with some countries receiving significant attention while others were practically ignored. The most surveyed countries were Bangladesh (n = 17), India (n = 13), Indonesia (n = 12), United States (n = 10), China (n = 7), Kenya (n = 7), Mexico (n = 7), Philippines (n = 6), Myanmar (n = 5), Nigeria (n = 5), and Tanzania (n = 5). Many countries were infrequently studied, particularly in parts of Africa, Oceania, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Uneven survey coverage is probably not surprising but leaves significant gaps in understanding pandemic impacts in many countries.

Figure 3. COVID-19 surveys about aquatic food production and value chains. n = 110 studies.

The pandemic occurred in waves and the severity of public health responses, such as lockdowns and movement control orders, also varied over time. Therefore, understanding the timing of surveys relative to these responses is critical to contextualize findings. Figure 4 presents the number of surveys per month by region related to aquatic food production and value chains. Generally, surveys of capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors were haphazard and piecemeal, both geographically and temporally, with few notable exceptions. The first lockdown periods (March to June 2020) received the most attention, and during that time period some regions had better coverage, especially South and Southeast Asia (Figure 4). Understudied regions included North, South, and West Africa, Europe (except for Southern Europe), Oceania, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. In addition, few surveys were conducted in any region after 2020, which may be due to survey fatigue or shifting priorities.

Figure 4. COVID-19 surveys about aquatic food production and value chains. Y-axis shows the number of studies per month in which survey data was collected. Dashed line indicates the start of the global pandemic (March 11, 2020). Sub-regions defined by the United Nations. Reviews, opinions, and commentaries are excluded from this plot. No surveys in West or Central Asia.

Impacts to small-scale capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors

The small-scale sector was particularly well studied due to concerns over its vulnerability. Exemplary studies of the small-scale capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors are reported in Table 1. Studies show the pandemic affected small-scale producers in different ways, depending upon the production method, region, fishing season, or aquaculture production cycle relative to lockdown periods, social support structures, reliance on sales to food service and tourism, and other factors (Table 1). The impacts on small-scale sectors, however, were almost always negative for factors, such as sales, livelihoods, and income.

Table 1. Exemplar studies of the small-scale capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Country/region	Author	Study type	Sample size (survey dates)	Survey methods	Study population	Key findings
Kenya	Fiorella et al. 2021	CS	n = 88 (Jun 2020)	Phone	Inland fishers, traders	Decreased consumption, wages
Kenya	Lau et al. 2021	CS	n = 39 (Aug–Oct 2020)	Phone	Coastal fishers, traders	Livelihood impacts, gender
West Africa, Seychelles	OECD 2021a	E	–	–	Fisheries sector	Fisher strike, gender
Ghana	Ragasa et al. 2021	CS	n = 792 (Jun 2020)	In-person, phone	Aquaculture producers, consumers	Aquaculture, infection fears
Egypt	Belton et al. 2021; Haas, Elsira, et al. 2021	RCS	n = 75 (Feb–Nov 2020); n = 50 (Jun 2021)	Phone	Aquaculture producers, hatcheries, traders, retailers	>30% revenue decline
Nigeria	Belton et al. 2021; Haas, Olaniyi, et al. 2021	RCS	n = 86 (Feb–Nov 2020); n = 91 (Sept–Oct 2021)	Phone	Aquaculture producers, hatcheries, traders, retailers	Food chain resilience
India	Belton et al. 2021; Haas, Sahoo, et al. 2021	RCS	n = 104 (Feb–Oct 2020); n = 65 (Jun 2021)	Phone	Aquaculture producers, hatcheries, traders, retailers	Sales: in-person decreased, online unaffected
Bangladesh	Belton et al. 2021; Haas, Mamun, et al. 2021	RCS	n = 105 (Feb–Oct 2020); n = 86 (Jun–Jul, 2021)	Phone	Aquaculture producers, hatcheries, traders, retailers	Wages consistent, lower sales
Myanmar	Belton et al. 2021; Haas, Soe, et al. 2021	RCS	n = 143 (Feb–Oct 2020); n = 105 (Jun 2021)	Phone	Aquaculture producers, hatcheries, traders, retailers	Decreased sales, food
China	Zhang et al. 2021	M	–	–	Fish traders	Indigenous groups risk
Indonesia	Campbell et al. 2021	M	n = 185 (Mar–Apr 2020)	Phone	Coastal fishers, traders	Lower catch price
Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos	Lebel et al. 2021	CS	n = 1019 (Jun–Aug 2020)	In-person, phone	Aquaculture producers	Reduced market access
Pacific Island countries	Davila et al. 2021	CS	n = 94 (May–Jul 2020)	Phone	Fishery experts	Household income contributor
Fiji	Mangubhai et al. 2021	Q	n = 61 (May 2020)	Phone	Coastal fishers, traders	Weather, lockdown led to less fish
Greece	Pita et al. 2021	CS	n = 48 (May 2020–Mar 2021)	Online	Scientists, fisheries managers, fisheries associations	Market opportunities changed
Cyprus	Giannakis et al. 2020	CS	n = 49 (May 2020)	Phone	Coastal fishers, traders	Limited economic impact
Spain	Coll et al. 2021	M	–	–	Coastal/marine fisheries	SSFs most resilient
Peru	Grillo-Núñez et al. 2021	M	n = 15 (Feb 2020)	Phone	Coastal fishers, traders	Supply greater than demand
Indonesia, Philippines, Peru, Canada, US	Bassett et al. 2021	M	n = 18 (Mar–Sept 2020)	In-person, phone	Coastal fishers	Movement restrictions, livelihood impacts
Small Island Developing States	OECD 2021c	E	–	–	Coastal fisheries sector	Large economic impact
79 countries	Stokes et al. 2020	CS	n = 437 (Jun–Jul 2020)	Online	Inland fishery professionals	High pressure in low catch low human development index areas
Developing countries	Alam et al. 2022	R	–			Transportation, retail supply

Study type: CS: cross-sectional; RCS: repeated cross-sectional; E: economic analysis; Q: qualitative methods; M: mixed-methods; R: review article; L: longitudinal.

For example, in Myanmar and the Mekong Delta of Southeast Asia, two-thirds of respondents reported lower market prices and sales of aquatic foods (Haas, Soe, et al. 2021; Lebel et al. 2021). In Nigeria, up to 93% of fishers reported a decrease in sales comparing 2020–2019, but sale fluctuation stabilized in 2021 (Haas, Olaniyi, et al. 2021). In Kenya, 84% of small-scale fishing households reported they were either earning or working less due to fears of contracting COVID-19 in 2020 (Fiorella et al. 2021). Workers in Ghana expressed similar concerns, citing poor pay or low sales revenue as reasons to not return to work after lockdowns were lifted (Ragasa et al. 2021). In India and Egypt, incomes decreased between 30 and 50% for participants in small-scale aquaculture and their value chains (Haas, Elsira, et al. 2021; Haas, Sahoo, et al. 2021). Similarly, in Thailand, 33% of small-scale aquaculture farms reported a net loss in 2020 (Lebel et al. 2021).

Coping and adaptation in small-scale capture fisheries and aquaculture

Small-scale fishers coped by reducing fishing efforts, fishing closer to shore, and harvesting species for local instead of export markets (Campbell et al. 2021; Coll et al. 2021; Ferguson et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2020). For example, in coastal fisheries in Morocco, there was a 90% reduction in the weight of landings that was attributed to social distancing protocols (OECD 2021a). In Indonesia, the quantity caught per fisher increased, which was likely related to the large decrease in the number of fishers (Campbell et al. 2021). In Spain, the small-scale capture fisheries sector was more resilient than the industrial capture fisheries sector due to their smaller crew sizes, which enabled them to return to work earlier than industrial vessels that require a larger number of crew (Coll et al. 2021). Technology and e-commerce were used by many small-scale fishers to sell their catch and stay connected during the pandemic (Lopez-Ercilla et al. 2021). Small-scale aquaculture producers adapted by increasing the duration of the fish culturing period to hold unsold aquatic animals until they could be sold, which required more feed inputs and cost to farmers (Alam et al. 2022; Lebel et al. 2021). Additionally, small-scale aquaculture producers resorted to selling their stock at lower prices to avoid spoilage due to decreased demand from lockdowns (Alam et al. 2022).

Vulnerable groups

Female fishers were more vulnerable than male fishers for a variety of reasons, including their greater participation in roles further along the value chain, such as selling of cooked fish (Lau et al. 2021). In Fiji, for example, women in the small-scale industry primarily work outside the home and thus were more impacted by workplace closures during the pandemic (Mangubhai et al. 2021). In Myanmar, male worker wages decreased in 2021 as compared to 2020 wages, while female wages increased over the same time period (Haas, Soe, et al. 2021). Increases in wages for female fishers were possibly indicative of decreased female presence in the industry, as a result of increased childcare needs and household duties (Haas, Soe, et al. 2021). In 2020, female hiring rates were lower than expected in Nigeria, which was possibly a result of an increase in household work due to a lack of childcare (Haas, Olaniyi, et al. 2021). Further, in Indonesia, female fishers were less likely to be registered in the formal small-scale capture fisheries sector, often preventing them from accessing government assistance programs during COVID-19 (Campbell et al. 2021).

Women overall suffered from greater unemployment and increased income losses compared to men during the pandemic (Atkins et al. 2021; Belton et al. 2021; Lebel et al. 2021). While female fishers in many countries saw higher income losses than male fishers (Davila et al. 2021), a study conducted in Brazil suggested that organizations led by female fishers coped better with the COVID-19 pandemic, perhaps due to different leadership styles (Silva et al. 2022).

Small-scale producers are also consumers of aquatic food, and several studies examined how less income and fewer livelihood opportunities affected the food and nutrition security of small-scale producers (Alam et al. 2022). For example, shifts in the frequency and possibly the type of fish consumed by small-scale fishers in Kenya were observed following the pandemic (Fiorella et al. 2021). Many small-scale producers had to decide between selling their harvest or using it for personal consumption. In small island developing states (SIDS), for example, small-scale farming and fishing sectors contribute up to 50% of household income and up to 90% of animal-sourced food in the diet (Davila et al. 2021). Thus, the impacts of lockdowns on the movement of people and food availability directly affected food and nutrition security (Davila et al. 2021). Additionally in these states, revenue in the small-scale sector accounts for roughly 3% of total gross domestic product (GDP), and has a large bearing on employment and nutrition for SIDS (OECD 2021c).

Aquatic food utilization

Food security

Globally, the pandemic contributed to economic contraction (estimated to be −3.5% in 2020) and increased unemployment led to rising food insecurity (Davila et al. 2021; UNCTAD 2022). The effects of the pandemic were compounded by stressors, such as climate change, wars, and internally displaced populations and refugees (Abuzerr et al. 2021; Francis and Pegg 2020; Ridolfi 2020). LMICs and low-income households in HICs were most vulnerable to food insecurity (Béné et al. 2021; Elsahoryi et al. 2020; Laborde et al. 2021; Ma et al. 2021; Neves et al. 2021). Inflation caused by secondary effects of the pandemic and other factors rose in importance in 2021 and 2022, which increased production costs and reduced aquatic food sales.

Food environment

The direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns made it difficult for consumers to access aquatic foods both physically and economically. Decreased access existed for many food types and was often not unique to aquatic foods. For aquatic foods, the greatest impacts came from closures to the hospitality and food service sectors, which are the main outlet for fish sales, reduced physical access to retail and wet markets, and negative impacts on livelihoods and household income that affect food purchasing (Acerbi et al. 2021; Cavalli et al. 2020; Cheikh Ismail et al. 2021; FAO 2020a; Kundu and Santhanam 2021; Maruf 2020; NOAA 2021; OECD 2021b; Ribeiro-Silva et al. 2020; Sid et al. 2021). Closures of worship sites, and religious and cultural gatherings (i.e., Chinese Lunar New Year) limited opportunities for gatherings and socialization around food (Bennett et al. 2020; FAO 2021a; OECD 2020). Households responded to the shock by reducing spending, accessing their savings, selling assets, and increasing household food production from home gardens and subsistence fishing (Ceballos et al. 2021; Iese et al. 2021; May and Mentz-Coetzee 2021). In Australia, restaurant closures led to consumers preparing more home-cooked meals (Rolfe et al. 2022). Even after the first quarantine restrictions were lifted and restaurants reopened, consumers in China increased at-home cooking (64.8%) and decreased eating out in restaurants (61.6%) (Zhang et al. 2020). Some consumers increased use of e-commerce, mobile vendors, and home delivery of food, which was observed independent of the country economic status (Hillen 2021; Pititto et al. 2021; Poelman et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2020).

Aquatic food prices

During the early phase of the pandemic, food availability was a major concern that led to panic buying and stockpiling, particularly of nonperishable goods. Later in 2020, consumer demand for fresh aquatic foods waned in many countries (Aura et al. 2020; Bassett et al. 2021; Belton et al. 2021; FAO 2020b; Ferrer et al. 2021; OECD 2021b; Stöber et al. 2021; UNCTAD 2022). Reduced demand coincided with economic uncertainty and falling demand from restaurants. In addition, distributors and retailers faced variable supply, transport disruptions, and new worker safety protocols, which collectively increased the cost of doing business. Consumer surveys also revealed perceived increases in food prices across major food groups, especially for aquatic foods (Narayanan and Saha 2021) and lowered purchasing power, compounding difficulties to afford aquatic food (Fiorella et al. 2021; Laborde et al. 2021). Inflation in 2021 and 2022 further limited consumers ability to afford aquatic food. Decreases in the availability of imported aquatic food, and in some countries growing demand for locally sourced aquatic food, also contributed to rising prices (OECD 2021b). Overall, food price increases were greatest in LMICs (Laborde et al. 2021), and countries hardest hit by the pandemic (Bai et al. 2022).

Impacts of the pandemic on food security and diets

Studies in many countries explored the impact of lockdowns on diets, largely using cross-sectional designs asking respondents to assess changes in consumption relative to a pre-lockdown timeframe. Many of these relied on web-based convenience sampling approaches (Table 2). A small number of studies collected longitudinal data on household diets across time (Álvarez et al. 2021; Ceballos et al. 2021; Paganini et al. 2020; Sato et al. 2021). Surveys were conducted in 96 countries, but the depth of survey coverage varied widely (Figure 5). Countries with the most surveys were Spain (n = 22), Italy (n = 18), Bangladesh (n = 17), United States (n = 15), China (n = 12), India (n = 10), Japan (n = 10), and Poland (n = 10). Few studies were published from North and West Africa, Oceania, Central America, or the Caribbean. The timeframe of most surveys was limited to the first year of the pandemic and mainly focused on the early lockdown periods in 2020 (Figure 6). Only 7% of studies in this review had data collection extending beyond March 2021.

Figure 5. COVID-19 surveys about aquatic food utilization. n = 198 studies.

Figure 6. COVID-19 surveys about aquatic food utilization. Y-axis shows the number of studies per month in which survey data was collected. Dashed line indicates the start of the global pandemic (March 11, 2020). Sub-regions defined by the United Nations. Reviews, opinions, and commentaries are excluded from this plot. No surveys in Central Asia.

Table 2. Exemplar surveys of aquatic food intake during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Country/region	Author	Study type	Sample size (survey dates)	Survey methods and sample	Study population	Key findings
Spain	Maestre et al. 2021	CS	n = 1,640 (Apr–May 2020)	Online, convenience sample	>18 y/o living in Spain during lockdown	Aquatic foods consumption same, consumption of sweets and snacks increased
China	Zhang et al. 2020	CS	n = 1,994 (Aug 2020)	Online, convenience sample	18–80 y/o Chinese residents	Aquatic foods consumption decreased, reduction in raw and frozen seafood consumption due to fear of disease spread
Southern and Eastern Africa	Nchanji and Lutomia 2021	CS	n = 465 (May–Jul 2021)	Online and in-person, convenience sample	Consumers	Aquatic foods consumption decreased
Colombia	Pertuz-Cruz et al. 2021	CS	n = 2,745 (Apr–May 2020)	Online, convenience sample	>17 y/o living in Colombia	Aquatic foods consumption decreased, overall unhealthier dietary patterns, higher frequency of snacking
Japan	Sato et al. 2021	L	n = 5,929 (Jan–May 2020)	Online, convenience sample	Users of a Japanese health app CALO mama	Aquatic foods consumption slight increased, increased fish intake from non-workers and work-from-home
Middle East and North Africa	Abouzid et al. 2021	CS	n = 5,896 (Aug–Sept 2020)	Online, convenience sample	>18 y/o living in MENA region	Aquatic foods consumption decreased, overall increase in food consumption and sedentary lifestyle

For study type acronyms see Table 1.

Some studies conducted early in the pandemic demonstrate an increase in food security, attributed to “panic-buying” and stockpiling of food before lockdowns were implemented, but warned of the state of food security once households consumed the stockpiled food (Lamarche et al. 2021; Pakravan-Charvadeh et al. 2021). Studies found a significant rise in household food insecurity after COVID-19 lockdowns were imposed. For example, a random sample of 569 consumers in India found that household food insecurity increased by 59% from December 2019 to August 2020 (Nguyen et al. 2021). Reduction in household income due to the pandemic was frequently cited as a major risk factor for food insecurity (Ceballos et al. 2021; Kansiime et al. 2021; Ostolaza et al. 2023; Shupler et al. 2021). In a Nigerian study, severe food insecurity after COVID-19 was experienced by more than half of the respondents (58%), and the majority (72%) of the severely food insecure households were in the poorest economic quintile (Ibukun and Adebayo 2021).

In prior economic crises, when food prices were higher and during times of financial hardship, lower-income households reduced the quantity and quality of food they purchased as a coping mechanism (Brinkman et al. 2010). Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, LMIC consumers coped with price increases for fresh produce and meats by increasing purchases of staple foods and long shelf-life foods, such as canned vegetables (Jia 2021; Paganini et al. 2020; Stöber et al. 2021). One meta-analysis of mostly HICs and a few middle-income countries observed a decrease in the consumption of aquatic foods (70% of studies) and terrestrial meat (56%) compared with pre-lockdown consumption patterns, while consumption of dairy, cereals, legumes, fruits, vegetables, processed foods, and alcoholic beverages increased (Mignogna et al. 2022). While red meat intake varied globally, with lower intake in Europe compared to Asia and South America, a meta-analysis found that a decrease in aquatic food consumption was observed across geographical regions (Mignogna et al. 2022).

Figure 7 presents surveys (n = 26) in which participants were asked about aquatic food intake during the pandemic (compared with before) and reported intake by the percent of the population that increased, decreased, or consumed the same amount of aquatic foods. In HICs, an unweighted average of 10% of respondents increased aquatic food intake, 18% decreased intake, and the remainder consumed the same amount. In middle-income countries, 10% of respondents increased intake, 37% decreased intake, and the remainder consumed the same amount. Only a single survey was conducted in a low-income country (Mozambique), showing that aquatic food intake increased in 39% of respondents and decreased in 61% of respondents. Collectively, these findings indicate that aquatic food intake was impacted in all populations, but more so in LMICs compared to HICs (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Change in aquatic food intake during COVID-19 lockdowns compared to pre-pandemic levels in (A) high-income, (B) middle-income, and (C) low-income countries. Vertical dashed lines were added at 25, 50, and 75% of respondents. All studies were performed during the first wave of lockdowns in 2020 with a few exceptions (*after the first lockdown period, **during the second lockdown period).

An additional set of surveys (n = 34) reported overall shifts in aquatic food intake as either increasing (n = 6), decreasing (n = 22), staying the same (n = 2), or mixed (n = 4). None of the surveys in which aquatic food consumption increased or stayed the same were in LMICs except for one (Peru). Half of the studies in which aquatic food intake decreased were in middle-income countries and half were in HICs. These findings suggest that many lower-income groups and some high-income groups cut back on aquatic foods during the pandemic.

Despite the decreasing consumption pattern observed in some countries, there were large fractions (10% average in high and middle-income countries) that increased aquatic food intake during the pandemic (Figure 7). The fraction increasing aquatic food intake was similar across high and middle-income countries. Studies found a growing interest in eating healthy foods as households increased home-cooking during lockdown periods (Deschasaux-Tanguy et al. 2021; Li et al. 2021). In Australia, an increase in meat and aquatic food consumption was attributed to government maintenance of consumer confidence and spending (Rolfe et al. 2022). There were also shifts in the type of aquatic foods consumed and how they were sourced. Some studies reported that the consumption of preserved aquatic food was preferred over fresh forms (Deschasaux-Tanguy 2021). In North America, purchasing aquatic food from local and direct markets and retail increased to replace food service purchases (Stoll et al. 2021; Sun et al. 2023).

Recommendations

Many studies provided recommendations to improve different aspects of the capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors during the pandemic, including among aquatic food consumers. These recommendations were cataloged based on a food system framework (Figure 2). Key themes described in this section include research and technology development; infrastructure, policy, and governance; social protection and human capital; risk mitigation and adaptation; capacity, education, and behavior change; information access and connectivity; gender; and environment.

Research and technology development

Digital transformation of food value chains was a recurring theme mentioned in several studies. Recommendations included using technology to shorten value chains (Alam et al. 2022), maintain the freshness of aquatic food, and improve storage capacity (Menhat et al. 2021). E-commerce was used for mainstream and direct sales (Cavalli et al. 2020) and to diversify sellers customer base (Lau et al. 2021). However, it is important to recognize the digital divide that can occur between urban and rural populations, among higher versus lower income populations, and between older generations and younger, more tech-savvy generations (COBI 2020a; Menhat et al. 2021).

Increasing the funding for and use of remote monitoring systems can enhance data collection efforts and oversight, ensuring compliance with pandemic-related mandates and conservation efforts (FAO 2021b). Monitoring shifts in fishing activity can also help fishers adjust what and where they fish, and respond to changing markets (FAO 2022).

Infrastructure, policy, and governance

In general, there was unprecedented public support to sustain the private sector (i.e., income support, tax relief, subsidies) (FAO 2022). Studies recommended that governments should increase economic aid options and reform policies in the aquatic food sector. Financial support was suggested as a way to reduce the burden on small-scale producers during the shock including through low-cost loans and insurance opportunities (Knight et al. 2020), debt relief programs (UNCTAD 2022), postponement of annual fishing license fees (FAO 2020d), and prioritizing the specific needs of those most vulnerable to exploitation (FAO 2020d). Some believed that short-term, immediate cash payouts would be beneficial, but others suggested that cash payments would ultimately be unhelpful (Mangubhai et al. 2021; Ragasa et al. 2021). Others suggested loan relaxation policies and waivers on license fees (Lebel et al. 2021; Stoll et al. 2021). Some publications suggested that targeted support directed toward workers would be needed. Creating alternative income-generating opportunities for fishers to avoid unemployment was another suggested way to financially support small-scale producers (Sunny et al. 2021). Some studies also suggested concrete assistance measures the government can provide, like increasing storage facilities and increasing stocks of frozen, salted, and dried aquatic food products (OECD 2021a).

Many studies found that governments gave “essential worker” status to small-scale fishers, which could be key to preserve the sector in future shocks and support both livelihoods and food security (Grillo-Núñez et al. 2021). If small-scale fishers are unable to remain fully (or almost fully) operational during future shocks, there is an evident need for government support in restarting industries. In Myanmar, it took two years for the small-scale sector to fully resume operations that were halted in March 2020 due to lockdowns (Haas, Soe, et al. 2021).

Another suggested area for reform is communication between governments and fishers. Frequent and clear communication between the public and state and local authorities has the potential to promote knowledge exchange and to prompt faster decision-making throughout the food chain (Belton et al. 2021; COBI 2020b; Kumaran et al. 2021; Rahman et al. 2021; Stöber et al. 2021). Communication among stakeholders can be facilitated by the government, with the aim of managing logistics, promoting rapid responses, and keeping food supply chains open during shocks (Bennett et al. 2020; Mamun et al. 2021; Rasul 2021).

Economic support, social protection, and human capital

Social protection programs are important for vulnerable groups, such as women, children, the elderly, ethnic minorities, and migrant workers (Horikawa et al. 2021; European Parliament 2021). Female fishworkers play a crucial role in small-scale fishing communities and were in need of support during the height of the pandemic (Lopez-Ercilla et al. 2021; Silva et al. 2022; WorldFish 2021). Governments were recommended to provide financial support through aid, subsidies, tax relief, and distribution of food (Jamwal and Phulia 2021; Pedroza-Gutiérrez et al. 2021). In LMICs specifically, governments should provide financial support or food aid to enable low-income families to continue eating nutritious foods (Ceballos et al. 2021). Vouchers and cash transfers can promote behavior change toward healthier and sustainable diets by incentivizing families to plan meals, shop with a list, and consume local and seasonal products (Carducci et al. 2021; Hashim et al. 2021; Hayashi and Takemi 2021; Menon et al. 2022).

Risk mitigation and adaptation

Supporting diversification of the aquatic supply chain, ensuring the safety of fishworkers, and mitigating pandemic-related impacts on aquatic environments are three ways that risk can be reduced in the capture fisheries industry for future shocks. In aquatic value chains, diversification of value chains, markets, and trade networks can improve producer and input supplier resilience. Import and export market diversification guards against trade disruptions and market closures (Kummu et al. 2020; Lau et al. 2021). Diversifying distribution channels makes artisanal fishers and small-holders more resilient to shocks (Love et al. 2021). Alternative aquatic food networks and distribution channels can improve producer-consumer relationships and create new markets for products (Stöber et al. 2021; White et al. 2021), creating a safety net for producers, traders, and retailers (Bai et al. 2021; FAO 2020c; Liu et al. 2020; Pang et al. 2020). Strict hygiene and sanitation practices, such as wearing personal protective equipment, reduced the risk of zoonoses transmission at markets (Nordhagen et al. 2021). Wildlife trade bans, better animal husbandry practices, regular inspections, and quarantine measures can provide better traceability and surveillance to prevent viral transmission between people and animals (Bai et al. 2021; FAO 2020c; Liu et al. 2020; Pang et al. 2020).

Capacity, education, and behavior change

Health education was particularly important during lockdown periods due to increased stress, unhealthy eating, and sedentary behavior. For example, households should be educated and encouraged to consume a variety of nutritious foods in moderate portions (Błaszczyk-Bębenek et al. 2020; Carducci et al. 2021; Pakravan-Charvadeh et al. 2021; Rahman et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2020), reduce daily energy intake (Maestre et al. 2021), stay physically active (Górnicka et al. 2020; Sánchez-Sánchez et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2021), and develop healthy sleeping habits (Rabail et al. 2021). Governments should also provide education about how to safely purchase and prepare aquatic foods to prevent the fear of disease spread (Pertuz-Cruz et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2020).

Information access and connectivity

The literature provided a range of recommendations grouped into three main sub-topics: strengthening regional and international food systems, the availability of public information, and the use of technology to share information and build connections. Encouraging collaboration and cooperation among fishers can strengthen social capital, generate innovation, and promote fishers to broaden their network and professional associations (Dow 2020). Increased availability of public information, especially medical information, is a human right that fishing communities deserve (COBI 2020c). Information sharing among the scientific community builds institutional capacity (Bassett et al. 2021) to overcome pandemic-related capture fisheries monitoring challenges, mitigates viral spread (Vadiati et al. 2022), and minimizes COVID-19 impacts on aquatic wildlife (Farias et al. 2020). Transparency in harvest and distribution is critical in addressing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, corruption, and poor fisheries management (Biermann 2021). Targeting isolated communities with limited access to information can help integrate them into larger food supply chains. Further, access to reliable and fast internet, and telecommunication systems, can improve the traceability of marine products and enable seafarers to better access information (Pesel et al. 2020).

Cross-cutting issues

Surveys of the small-scale sector reported that female fishers had less access to loans and financial resources (Campbell et al. 2021; Lau et al. 2021). They also experienced higher rates of unemployment, particularly during the immediate lockdowns in 2020 and throughout 2021 (Cole et al. 2020; FAO 2022). Thus, it is important for governments to focus on gender-specific approaches that will provide women with equitable access to resources, benefits, and opportunities (Cole et al. 2020; FAO 2022). Fisherwomen, including many in the small-scale sector and traders, also deserve support (Atkins et al. 2021; Jamwal and Phulia 2021) to participate in leadership and decision-making (Atkins et al. 2021; Silva et al. 2022). Teaching technical and entrepreneurial skills are other ways to empower women. In addition, an enabling environment for small-scale female farmers (FAO 2020d; Paganini et al. 2020) improves food security, household welfare (Loison et al. 2021), and reduces gender-based violence (Belsey-Priebe et al. 2021).

Improving conservation and environmental protection efforts are also ways to help sustain the small-scale sector. Efforts to protect aquatic ecosystems are necessary to maintain the viability of fisheries and natural resources. Moving toward increased sustainable fisheries management and climate-friendly projects could be areas of improvement as well (Zhang et al. 2021). Longer-term policies are needed to tackle environmental issues, not just relying on short-term improvements in water quality and reduced fishing pressure during lockdowns (Coll et al. 2021). Location-specific environmental surveillance, control of discharge pollutants, and management of anthropogenic activities can mitigate biodiversity loss and ensure the long-term restoration of air and water quality (Audino et al. 2021; Chakraborty et al. 2021; Custodio et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2022; Lokhandwala and Gautam 2020; Sunny et al. 2021). Ecosystem approaches may include the use of biodegradable PPE (Alfonso et al. 2021; Dharmaraj et al. 2021; IRP 2021; Nigam et al. 2022; Noman et al. 2021), stringent debris reduction policies, and the installation of more waste disposal bins (Hassan et al. 2022). The government can also implement waste recycling solutions that minimize environmental pollution and conserve natural resources (Dharmaraj et al. 2021; IRP 2021).

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented shock to the global capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors. This scoping review explored the spatial, temporal, and thematic coverage of the literature spanning the first two years of the pandemic in relation to capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors and aquatic food consumers. The capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors are part of globally connected and interdependent food systems, and shocks to one sector or region had cascading effects through aquatic food value chains. Significant heterogeneity in pandemic-related impacts was observed between the industrial and small-scale sectors, and across production methods, geographies, value chains, and gender. We identified large gaps in the literature, both temporal in nature (most articles focused on the first lockdown period with very few examining longer-term impacts of COVID-19 or related responses) as well as geographic (with fewer studies on the impacts in most African countries, Oceania, the Middle East, South and Central America, or the Caribbean).

The COVID-19 pandemic has some similarities and notable differences with previous shocks. COVID-19 resulted in large proportions of the population experienced acute food insecurity and lower dietary quality as a result of lower food access, as was the case for the Asian economic crisis (1997) and the world food price crisis (2007–2008). The COVID-19 pandemic was unprecedented in that it was global in scale, caused by an emerging infectious disease that also had an economic component that caused sustained stress over several years. Many historical shocks within fisheries have been localized to a region (i.e., Indian Ocean tsunami) or to a species (i.e., Atlantic cod fishery collapse) and were not global in nature. Responding to market shocks is not new, but the speed and the way the shock was created through global lockdown measures to reduce viral transmission was unprecedented, and so were the interventions to sustain government debt and banks. Strategies to limit the spread of COVID-19 caused a demand shock and reduced access to food in the short-term, while economic uncertainty and disruptions in input supply suppressed future production (i.e., farmers not restocking ponds). The pandemic was protracted and had longer-term impacts on supply chains. It also overlapped with other major shocks like conflicts and climate disasters, so the impacts were cumulative in several regions of the world. Adaptive responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, if they promote general resilience, could be useful for future non-pandemic-related shocks.

The pandemic created both challenges and opportunities, and some groups will emerge from the crisis stronger. Some supply chains and markets were inherently more resilient and could bounce back after the initial supply and demand shocks in 2020. Businesses and sectors that diversified their production and marketing channels were more resilient, while over-dependence on exports, food service, hospitality, and tourism left businesses and sectors more vulnerable. In the small-scale sectors, technology helped aquatic food producers and vendors to stay informed and connected, and to market and deliver products, which could help in future shocks. Other groups will be weakened by the pandemic and more vulnerable to future shocks and stressors. Vulnerable groups including women, migrants, and actors in the small-scale and informal sectors will need continued support and assessments of their current needs.

Among consumers, increased unemployment led to rising food insecurity for small-scale producers, fishworkers, and low-income households. Aquatic food and terrestrial meat intake were more severely affected than other food groups due to their higher cost, a finding that agrees with past economic shocks. Most studies showed that aquatic food intake decreased, but more in LMICs than in HICs, which may have implications for micronutrient deficiencies. During crises, governments should provide financial support or food aid to enable low-income families to continue eating nutritious foods. Governments can promote healthy lifestyle behaviors and diets to improve overall health and well-being.

The literature published about the COVID-19 pandemic and aquatic food systems was narrowly focused on 2020. Definitive answers about the resilience of certain groups in the capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors will require more time to fully answer. Future work is needed to identify which groups exited the crisis stronger or weaker, what factors enabled some populations to bounce-back from the pandemic while other populations did not, and what good outcomes could be strengthened. Notably, few studies have tracked the effectiveness of interventions deployed during the pandemic. For example, did economic aid, social protections, and other interventions in the capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors achieve their stated goals? Did businesses and individuals perceive government interventions to be effective or not, and which groups did not receive support? From a food systems resilience lens, did aquatic food systems provide, as Tendall et al. describe, “sufficient, appropriate and accessible food to all” in the face of the COVID-19 shock (Tendall et al. 2015)? Resilience assessments are needed across a range of indicators and at multiple levels from global to local. These studies can help guide efforts to strengthen aquatic food systems as well as social, political, economic, and environmental systems to become more resilient to future shocks and ongoing stressors.

This work builds on a background paper submitted by the authors to the 35th Session of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Claire Twose, Johns Hopkins Welch Medical Library, for assisting with the literature review search. We thank Jamie Harding and Mike Milli, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future for assistance in making GIS maps and food systems framework figures, respectively, and Shawn McKenzie at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future for reviewing the work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

A bibliography of all references in the literature review and writing of this literature review is available as a Supplement File.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, and the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation.