The Human Cost of Seafood: Impacts of Global Trade and Aquaculture Expansion

Abstract

Fisheries and aquaculture are crucial for global food security, supporting over 60 million livelihoods worldwide, predominantly in developing countries. This paper presents a perspective on the socioeconomic impacts of the expanding seafood trade and aquaculture growth on dependent communities, emphasizing their interconnected effects on livelihoods, poverty alleviation, and equitable development. While aquaculture can increase fish supply and stabilize markets, it requires strategic policies and sustainable management to prevent negative consequences such as habitat degradation and resource competition, particularly for small-scale fishers. The concept of pro-poor aquaculture is vital for ensuring fair access and benefits, though challenges persist in resource access, market dynamics, and regulatory gaps. Despite economic gains, the global seafood trade raises concerns about diverting nutritious food from local consumption and threatening food sovereignty, highlighting the need for policies that balance trade interests with domestic food security and equitable access. To address these issues, integrated policy frameworks are essential. These should promote sustainable management, equitable resource access and support for local markets, finally fostering a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable aquatic food system for all stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Fisheries and aquaculture are fundamental to global food security; however, their rapidly evolving landscape presents multifaceted socioeconomic challenges, particularly for the over 60 million people directly employed in these sectors, and millions more in allied industries, largely in developing countries [1]. While providing vital nutrition, the increasing globalization of seafood markets and the rapid expansion of aquaculture are fundamentally altering these systems. These dynamics often create significant disparities in resource access, benefit distribution, and the resilience of vulnerable communities, potentially exacerbating poverty and food insecurity [2]. The escalating urgency of these challenges, driven by accelerating climate impacts and shifting global market demands, makes a critical examination of these sectors more vital now than ever.

Indeed, increased seafood exports offer developing countries pathways toward achieving sustained economic growth and contributing to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in eradicating poverty and attaining food security by 2030. However, this reliance on the global economy also exposes these countries to significant economic volatility, a vulnerability starkly highlighted by the inflationary pressures experienced globally in recent years, particularly in the wake of geopolitical conflicts.

Historically, the discourse on fisheries and aquaculture has emphasized their overall contribution to food and nutrition security. However, a detailed analysis consistently reveals the complex socioeconomic dimensions underpinning these sectors. The multifaceted socioeconomic impacts of global seafood trade, including the nuanced concept of the ‘seafood trade deficit’—where developing countries often export high-value seafood while importing lower-value products—and its implications for food sovereignty and local livelihoods, are extensively explored [3,4]. Furthermore, the specific consequences of aquaculture expansion on small-scale fishers are analyzed, assessing both opportunities and substantial risks such as resource competition, habitat degradation, market price depression, and social displacement [2,5].

Additionally, the analysis of pro-poor aquaculture as a specific development strategy provides insights into its potential to alleviate poverty and improve livelihoods while recognizing significant implementation hurdles related to access to resources, finance, and markets [6]. Moreover, the escalating threats posed by climate change are integrated into discussions, examining how environmental shifts exacerbate the socioeconomic vulnerabilities of communities reliant on aquatic resources, affecting productivity, distribution, and access [7]. These factors are not isolated; rather, their intricate interactions often compound the challenges faced by local communities, demanding a comprehensive and integrated analytical approach. Drawing on extensive evidence, evidence-based policy frameworks are widely recommended for prioritizing equitable benefit distribution, ensuring food sovereignty, and fostering sustainable livelihoods within these essential global food systems.

Against this backdrop of evolving dynamics, this paper presents a perspective on the socioeconomic impacts of global seafood trade and aquaculture expansion on dependent communities. A re-evaluation of traditional approaches to these issues is advocated, highlighting the complex interplay between these factors and their implications for livelihoods, poverty alleviation, and equitable development. This paper is not a comprehensive review, but a synthesis of key insights intended to stimulate new scholarly discourse and identify critical areas for future research and policy innovation. Consistent with the nature of perspective articles, which do not typically include separate methods and results sections, this manuscript is structured around connected themes that present the author’s perspective supported by key evidence. The literature collection process was conducted through a search of keywords in Google Scholar such as ‘fisheries and aquaculture socioeconomic’, ‘seafood trade deficit’, ‘food security’, ‘pro-poor aquaculture’, and ‘aquaculture impacts on fisheries’. The most important papers were selected based on their relevance and impact (e.g., as evidenced by the citations received). The paper proceeds by first outlining the multifaceted impacts of aquaculture on small-scale fishers in Section 2, followed by a detailed analysis of pro-poor aquaculture and its inherent challenges in Section 3. The intricate dynamics of the global seafood trade and its impacts on food security are then explored in Section 4. Finally, the conclusion consolidates these themes to propose actionable policy recommendations and identify critical areas for future research, creating a logical flow from a detailed problem analysis to a solution-oriented framework.

2. Aquaculture Impacts on Small-Scale Fishers

Aquaculture’s impacts on small-scale fishers are multifaceted and context-specific, encompassing both positive and negative outcomes. While aquaculture has the potential to improve livelihoods, it can also pose significant challenges and risks, often disproportionately affecting marginalized communities (

Table 1. Overview of the positive and negative impacts associated with aquaculture development, including economic, social, and environmental considerations (a synthesis derived from literature cited within the section [2,5,6,8,9,10,11,12]).

Impact Type	Impact	Explanation
Positive Impacts	Alternative income and employment opportunities	Aquaculture provides new income sources and jobs, both directly and in support services.
	Enhanced fish availability and consumption	Aquaculture increases the overall fish supply, making it more accessible to local populations and improving nutrition.
	Livelihood diversification and resilience	Aquaculture offers fishers a way to diversify their income, making them less vulnerable to fluctuations in wild fish stocks.
	‘Bank in the water’	Fish harvested can be used as readily accessible asset.
	Stabilize fish prices	Aquaculture can stabilize prices.
Negative Impacts	Resource competition and exclusion	Aquaculture can compete with traditional fisheries for resources like habitats and access rights, potentially displacing small-scale fishers.
	Habitat degradation and environmental consequences	Certain aquaculture practices, like mangrove removal for shrimp farming, can destroy critical habitats and lead to environmental problems like eutrophication.
	Reduced fish prices and income from wild catch	Increased farmed fish production can lower market prices, reducing the income of fishers who rely on wild catches.
	Disease and genetic effects	Escaped farmed fish can transmit diseases and dilute the genetic diversity of wild fish populations.
	Social displacement and loss of access rights	Aquaculture development can displace resource-poor individuals and communities, leading to loss of access to traditional fishing grounds.
	Competition for feed resources	Aquaculture’s demand for fishmeal and fish oil can compete with human consumption of small pelagic fish, which are important for the nutrition of impoverished populations.

).

On the positive side, aquaculture offers alternative income sources, employment opportunities, and livelihood diversification, contributing to increased resilience among small-scale fishers [6]. Employment in aquaculture support services, such as hatcheries, feed supply, and equipment, can benefit impoverished populations, especially when small-scale operations generate high returns relative to other agricultural activities [2]. Fish harvested from aquaculture serve as a readily accessible asset, akin to a ‘bank in the water’, providing food security and income during seasonal shortages [2]. Aquaculture can also increase overall fish supply, improving consumption and welfare for poor households, and helping stabilize fish prices, buffering wild fishery fluctuations [6]. Additionally, aquaculture fosters livelihood diversification, which can bolster community resilience against environmental and economic shocks, and support food security through culture-based fisheries [8].

These widespread benefits are substantiated by empirical evidence from various contexts. Aquaculture provides a crucial source of alternative income and employment, particularly in developing countries. For example, in Bangladesh, households engaged in pond aquaculture saw an average annual income growth of 8.1% and a 15.6% annual return on family labor, with net income significantly higher than other agricultural activities [6,9]. This growth led to an occupational shift, with farmers reporting aquaculture as their primary activity rising from 4% to 10% [6]. The sector also creates jobs through both backward linkages (e.g., hatcheries, feed) and forward linkages (e.g., processing, marketing), with processing industries often creating new opportunities for women [6]. In Malawi, households with fishponds had incomes 1.5 times higher than those without, and in the Democratic Republic of Congo, fish-related activities were described as a “bank in the water” providing 61% of cash income for some communities [2,9].

Furthermore, aquaculture significantly improves community resilience against economic and environmental shocks. In Bangladesh, aquaculture ponds in disaster-prone areas supply food and income during post-disaster periods, acting as a resilient asset [8]. The income generated from aquaculture often helps households to smooth seasonal cash shortages, acting as a financial buffer. In Brazil, the introduction of cage-cultured tilapia in reservoirs provided viable livelihoods in areas vulnerable to drought and erratic rainfall [8]. Diversifying livelihoods by combining fishing, aquaculture, and agriculture also makes communities more resilient to environmental changes. In Malawi, the increased purchasing power from selling farmed fish led to a statistically lower prevalence of underweight children in fish-farming households, as it enabled them to purchase essential fats and oils [9].

Conversely, aquaculture can have detrimental effects, particularly through resource competition, habitat destruction, and environmental degradation. For example, the conversion of mangroves for shrimp farms destroys critical nursery habitats for juvenile wild fish and reduces access to mangrove products for local communities, thereby threatening food security [2]. Shrimp aquaculture can also induce salinization in rice-growing regions, negatively impacting local food systems [2]. The enclosure of floodplains and natural water bodies for aquaculture often excludes small-scale fishers from traditional access, limiting their ability to harvest indigenous species upon which they rely [2]. This can lead to an inequitable distribution of benefits, favoring wealthier farmers with ownership of ponds and other assets, further marginalizing landless and asset-poor households [6].

Beyond direct access issues, environmental impacts also include broader habitat destruction from practices like shrimp farming, which has historically led to mangrove loss and increased coastal eutrophication, undermining wild fish stocks essential to small-scale fishers. The uncontained release of farmed fish into natural environments poses risks of disease transmission and genetic dilution, which can reduce the health and productivity of wild fish populations [10]. Economically, the increased supply of farmed fish can depress market prices, reducing income for fishers dependent on wild catches. Furthermore, the rising demand for fishmeal and fish oil—primarily sourced from wild small pelagic fish—intensifies competition between aquaculture and human consumption, potentially limiting access for impoverished populations that rely on these nutrient-rich species.

Socially, the expansion of aquaculture in coastal and floodplain areas may also marginalize resource-poor communities by eroding customary or informal access rights, leading to displacement and social inequities. The global market drive toward high-value species can further reduce local supplies and access, negatively impacting small-scale fishers’ livelihoods and food security [11]. These impacts are often amplified by climate change, as environmental shifts like altered water temperatures or increased storm frequency can undermine aquaculture infrastructure and wild fish productivity, further stressing already vulnerable small-scale fishing communities. The severity and nature of these impacts are highly variable, depending on the type and scale of practice, geographical settings, governance structures, and local community circumstances [5,12]. Therefore, strategic policies and sustainable management are essential to mitigate adverse effects and maximize aquaculture’s benefits for small-scale fishers. Strategies should promote equitable resource access, environmental protection, and social inclusion, ensuring that aquaculture development supports the livelihoods and food security of marginalized communities rather than undermining them.

3. Pro-Poor Aquaculture

3.1. Defining Pro-Poor Aquaculture

Pro-poor aquaculture, rather than being a single, formally defined concept, is best understood as a strategic and purpose-driven approach to development that aims to yield positive net benefits for impoverished individuals and communities. Its primary goal is to ensure that the economic, nutritional, and social benefits of aquaculture are channeled directly to vulnerable, low-income populations while simultaneously mitigating any potential negative consequences, thereby contributing to poverty reduction, food security, and improved livelihoods [6]. This perspective requires a holistic view that extends beyond mere production, considering the entire value chain from production to consumption, and recognizing the diverse contexts in which aquaculture is practiced globally. It explicitly addresses the needs of the poor and ensures their access to and benefit from aquaculture while mitigating adverse impacts (Figure 1), including income generation, employment, and improved access to affordable, nutrient-rich fish [6].

Pro-poor strategies seek to mitigate obstacles like limited access to land, water, credit, and technical assistance [2,6]. This requires feasible, economically viable technologies for resource-constrained farmers [6]. A core principle is to prevent elite capture and promote equitable benefit distribution, which requires careful consideration of land and water access rights. Appropriate leasing policies for government-owned water bodies can include resource-limited individuals, though vigilance against intermediary influence is needed [6]. Pro-poor aquaculture prioritizes enhancing nutrient-rich fish availability for local consumption, often by promoting small indigenous species (SIS) [2,13]. While historically subsistence-focused, it also recognizes the potential of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to bolster food security by increasing domestic supply and generating value chain employment. Pro-poor development actively aims to mitigate environmental degradation, displacement, and restricted access to common resources. Finally, it transcends mere production, strategically empowering communities, enhancing livelihoods, strengthening food security, and fostering a more equitable, sustainable sector.

These key principles are visually represented in Figure 1. While enhancing access to resources—such as land, credit, and technology—is a fundamental component of pro-poor aquaculture, it is inextricably linked to ensuring equitable benefit distribution. For example, simply improving access to resources like land or credit is not sufficient if the benefits are not distributed equitably. Therefore, strategies aimed at enhancing access must be carefully integrated with efforts to prevent elite capture and ensure that the most vulnerable populations are not marginalized.

3.2. Challenges in Pro-Poor Aquaculture Development

Pro-poor aquaculture development faces numerous interconnected challenges related to accessibility, market infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and environmental sustainability. Impoverished individuals often lack access to vital production factors like ponds, land, and water bodies due to unequal land ownership, which is disproportionately held by wealthier farmers. This severely limits opportunities for landless and asset-poor households [6,14]. Securing land and managing the high costs of small-scale investments—including feed, fingerlings, and infrastructure—remain significant barriers for the poor [2]. Additionally, limited access to credit, affordable inputs, and effective extension services hampers the adoption of improved practices, further constraining sector growth among resource-poor farmers [6]. Climate variability exacerbates these issues; aquaculture is perceived as a high-risk activity, especially with climate-induced impacts like reduced marine productivity. This discourages financial institutions from providing necessary loans or insurance, impeding expansion [8]. Consequently, small-scale farmers often bear significant uninsured risks, which deter further investment.

Deficiencies in market access and infrastructure further hinder aquaculture development, particularly in regions like Africa. Small-scale producers are vulnerable to exploitation by intermediaries and contend with inefficient value chains [6,15]. Poor transport and marketing infrastructure limit the potential benefits of improved logistics, thereby impeding overall sector growth.

Weak governance and regulatory frameworks also play a critical role. Inadequate regulation of aquaculture, especially in wetland areas, risks marginalizing vulnerable populations, causing displacement, and damaging productive capture fisheries [13]. The absence of clear property rights and enforcement mechanisms often leaves resource access contested or insecure, further disadvantaging impoverished communities. Historically, many donor and government programs prioritizing small-scale aquaculture for household consumption have faced sustainability issues due to limited capital, poor inputs, and inadequate infrastructure [15]. Furthermore, policy shifts towards supporting larger-scale enterprises to meet national fish supply demands risk neglecting the needs of the poorest, unless specific pro-poor strategies are embedded. Even within pro-poor initiatives, careful attention is needed to ensure benefits reach the most marginalized, as existing power dynamics can lead to subtle forms of exclusion.

Environmental sustainability remains a pressing concern. Pollution of water bodies from aquaculture operations degrades ecosystems and hampers sustainable development [6]. Intensification practices can lead to self-pollution, disease outbreaks, and the loss of essential ecosystem services, threatening long-term viability. The cultivation of carnivorous species, which require wild-caught fish as feed, heightens tensions over access to wild fish stocks—often vital protein sources for impoverished communities. Adding to these challenges are pervasive knowledge gaps and limited technical capacity. In Africa, for example, the lack of improved breeds, optimized feed formulations, and adequate technical training constrains sector progress [15]. Such knowledge deficits hinder the effective adaptation and scaling of aquaculture practices in developing contexts [8].

Moreover, aquaculture expansion in coastal and floodplain zones can marginalize local communities by eroding customary access rights and exacerbating social inequalities. This is because wealthier farmers are generally better positioned to adopt new technologies and practices, disproportionately benefiting from development. Consequently, interventions aimed at promoting small-scale aquaculture often fail to achieve widespread adoption beyond specific project sites, underscoring the need for more inclusive and context-sensitive approaches.

Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires integrated, context-specific strategies. These must enhance equitable access to resources and markets, strengthen governance and regulatory frameworks, prioritize environmental sustainability, and promote innovation and knowledge sharing. Such strategies should finally focus on empowering impoverished populations, safeguarding their access rights, and fostering sustainable sector growth that genuinely benefits the most vulnerable.

4. The Global Seafood Trade

4.1. Key Trends in Global Seafood Trade

Seafood holds a vital position in global trade, often surpassing many other major food commodities in both value and volume, comprising a substantial portion of agricultural exports worldwide. In 2022, global exports of aquatic animal products reached an unprecedented 70 million tonnes (live weight equivalent), valued at USD 192.2 billion [1]. This volume accounted for about 37.6% of total seafood production and contributed over 9.1% to total agricultural trade (excluding forest products), underscoring seafood’s economic significance. Developing countries notably contributed to this trade, exporting around 32 million tonnes worth USD 75 billion in 2022, representing almost half of the global volume, though their share of total value remains lower compared to developed countries.

While developing countries serve as key suppliers in the global seafood market, the destinations for these products are overwhelmingly dominated by developed countries. As shown in Figure 2 and supported by the latest FAO data, the global seafood trade in 2022 was characterized by a distinct pattern where developing countries were key exporters and developed countries were dominant importers [1]. Figure 2A highlights that several developing countries, classified as upper-middle or lower-middle income by the World Bank, are among the top ten exporters. These include China (USD 22.4 billion), Viet Nam (USD 11.2 billion), Ecuador (USD 10.1 billion), Chile (USD 8.5 billion), India, and the Russian Federation. Collectively, middle- and high-income countries each contributed approximately half of the total export value, with Asia alone accounting for 35% of the total. Conversely, Figure 2B shows a strong concentration of demand in developed countries. Nine of the top ten importers (excluding China) are high-income countries, led by the United States (USD 32.1 billion), Japan (USD 15.1 billion), and Spain (USD 9.5 billion). These countries overwhelmingly dominate global imports, collectively representing 74% of the total value [1]. These nine top importers (excluding China) alone account for 51% of the total value.

Further analysis of regional trade flows in 2022, as shown in Figure 3, reveals the intricate network connecting these markets. The figure collectively highlights the predominance of Asia and Europe as both major exporters and importers, as well as the significant intra-regional trade within these continents. Specifically, the figure shows substantial intra-regional trade, particularly in Europe (where 65% of its exports remain within the continent) and Asia (47%), which highlights trade between countries of similar economic development. However, it also demonstrates major inter-regional flows from developing to developed regions, such as from Asia to North America (43%) and Oceania (69%). Additionally, the figure shows that African countries have a relatively modest participation in aquatic trade. This limited engagement can be partially attributed to the challenge of accurately capturing data on regional trade flows, as they are not consistently reflected in official statistics.

Although Africa’s participation in the global seafood trade is modest, accounting for just 4% of total export value and 3% of total import value in 2022, its trade pattern reveals a critical dynamic: it is a net exporter of high-value seafood by value, yet a net importer of fish by quantity and protein. This unique “quality exchange” means Africa exports costly species to global markets while importing larger volumes of cheaper, nutrient-rich small pelagic species to supplement local diets, which is vital for food security. This import dependency is projected to grow, with imports expected to meet 5 million tons of consumption by 2030 and nearly half of all fish consumed by 2050, contributing to a rising trade deficit in terms of quantity and highlighting a key challenge in maintaining per capita fish consumption across the continent.

Looking beyond 2022, Figure 4 reveals evolving trends in trade dynamics. While developing regions, particularly in Asia, are projected to remain major exporters, they are also increasingly becoming significant importers. Asia’s import volume share is forecast to reach 40% by 2032, making it the largest importing region by volume. This shift is exemplified by China, which became a net importer in value terms for the first time in 2022. In contrast, developed regions like Europe are projected to see a decline in their share of global import volumes by 2032. This indicates a potential rebalancing of the trade landscape, with traditionally exporting regions becoming major consumers themselves.

The disparity between developing countries’ net seafood exports and their imports raises critical questions about food security, a pattern often termed the ‘seafood trade deficit’. A clearer definition of this term is essential for understanding its multifaceted nature. The “seafood trade deficit” is a phenomenon where a region or countries (e.g., developing countries) as a group, export a significantly higher value of seafood than they import [3].

This deficit, where developing countries predominantly export seafood while importing more, leads to concerns about local access to nutritious food. Several analytical approaches shed light on this imbalance: value-based analysis compares monetary worth, often showing developing countries exporting higher-value seafood while importing lower-value products; quantity-based analysis reveals a less pronounced disparity in volume; unit price analysis points to a ‘quality exchange’ where premium seafood is exported at higher prices while cheaper products are imported; and examining net quantity and financial compensation indicates that despite a net outward flow in volume, financial returns often exceed import costs [4]. This nuanced perspective highlights that the perceived value deficit is more significant than the volume deficit, with developing countries frequently exporting higher-value, higher-quality seafood while importing lower-value, lower-quality products, such as pelagic species like mackerel and herring in parts of Africa.

This dynamic, where local control over food resources can be diminished, is directly related to the concept of food sovereignty, defined as “the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture policies; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives” [16]. From a food security standpoint, this value-based deficit raises concerns, as high-poverty developing countries may reduce local access to vital protein by exporting high-value seafood. Conversely, increased export earnings can significantly enhance economic development and purchasing power, enabling countries to import other foods or invest in sectors that support food security [4]. The ‘quality exchange’, if properly managed, could also benefit local populations by providing essential protein at a lower cost. Despite often experiencing a net outward flow of seafood in volume, developing countries typically receive substantial financial compensation for their exports, sometimes exceeding the cost of replacing the seafood at market prices. This financial gain can support economic growth and diversify diets, implying that value-based trade deficits do not necessarily threaten food security if revenues are used effectively. However, concerns about food sovereignty persist, particularly regarding the uneven distribution of benefits within exporting countries, where wealthier elites often capture most gains, leaving vulnerable populations with limited access to seafood [4].

4.2. Impacts of Global Seafood Trade on Food Security in Developing Countries

The impact of seafood trade on food security in developing countries is a complex and contentious issue, presenting both potential benefits and drawbacks (Figure 5). The central debate revolves around whether trade strengthens food security through economic gains or weakens it by diverting crucial nutrients away from local populations. Conflicting arguments persist on this matter.

The global seafood trade presents potential negative impacts on food security in developing countries, encompassing concerns about the diversion of nutritious food, food sovereignty, effects on vulnerable populations, pressure on fish stocks, and competition with small-scale fisheries. A primary concern is that the trade of seafood, particularly high-value species, from developing to developed countries may divert fish of high nutritional value away from local consumption. This issue is central to the concept of the ‘seafood trade deficit’, where developing countries export seafood of greater value than they import. Research indicates that this emphasis on export-oriented fisheries can compromise domestic fish supplies in countries characterized by high domestic consumption and poverty. The seafood trade deficit, whether measured in value or volume, also raises concerns regarding food sovereignty, as reliance on exports can diminish the availability of a crucial local food source. Furthermore, even if a country experiences overall economic gains, the poorest populations in developing countries may suffer adverse consequences from seafood trade if they lose access to affordable fish and if the benefits of trade are not equitably distributed. Local consumers may find prices reflecting export market values inaccessible. Moreover, international markets can exert additional pressure on local fish resources in the absence of effective resource governance, potentially leading to overexploitation and diminished long-term food security. Finally, highly profitable, large-scale fisheries that cater to global markets can restrict access to food and income for small-scale fishers in developing countries [17]. A key manifestation of this dynamic is seen with fisheries and aquaculture certifications, such as those from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). While these certifications promote sustainability, their high costs often act as significant barriers for small-scale fishers and producers in developing countries. In the past, the MSC’s certification program has faced criticism for favoring large-scale fisheries and creating significant barriers for smaller operations, particularly in developing countries, due to high costs and complex requirements [18,19,20]. The substantial cost of certification, which can be up to USD 350,000 [21], has driven some fisheries to engage in Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs). This is often done to access markets that demand the MSC label, even before meeting the standards, rather than as a genuine means for improvement [22]. This practice is criticized for allowing premature sustainability claims, a problem exacerbated by the inadequate verification capacity of FIPs [23,24]. Indeed, many fisheries in developing countries seek certification as a strategic market opportunity to meet the demands of their importing partners. Nevertheless, “elite” markets in developed countries and major distributors frequently cover these certification expenses to ensure a supply of high-value, certified sustainable seafood, inadvertently directing these valuable resources away from local consumption towards global luxury markets. Another reason seafood products certified in developing countries are destined for export is that local consumers in these countries often do not prioritize sustainability labels over finding more affordable seafood. This unwillingness to pay the higher prices associated with certified products reinforces the market’s diversion toward export.

Conversely, the global seafood trade may also yield potential positive impacts on food security, including income generation and poverty alleviation, ‘quality exchange’, compensation for quantity outflow, market development, employment, and enhanced access to seafood. Seafood trade can generate substantial income and bolster purchasing power in developing countries through export growth [3,5]. This income, theoretically, can be utilized to import alternative food sources or invest in sectors that contribute to overall food security. Furthermore, developing countries frequently export high-quality, high-value seafood while importing lower-quality, lower-value seafood. This dynamic allows them to accrue greater earnings from their exports than expenditures on imports, potentially freeing up resources for other critical needs [25]. These lower-value imports can still provide essential protein [3]. Despite a net outflow of seafood quantity from developing to developed countries, available data suggest that developing countries, as a collective group, are adequately compensated for these exports, with the increased income often sufficient to replace the exported food at market prices. Trade can also stimulate both export-oriented and domestic production, fostering market development, employment opportunities, and supporting economic growth within developing countries [5,25]. Additionally, trade can enhance access to seafood for regions that would otherwise experience limited availability. However, the benefits of trade are not uniformly distributed; careful analysis of local socio-economic contexts, and the presence of effective governance structures, are crucial to ensure that trade truly contributes to food security rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

Sustainable management of fisheries and aquaculture is fundamentally crucial for long-term socioeconomic well-being and food security. A delicate balance should be struck between resource utilization and aquatic ecosystem health, while safeguarding communities reliant on these resources. This management is necessitated by the urgent need to address both the economic and social stability of these communities.

The substantial economic and social importance of fisheries, on which millions depend, makes sustainable management critical for preventing social-ecological poverty traps, particularly in the Global South. As previously discussed, potential conflicts and ecological trade-offs between capture fisheries and aquaculture, such as mangrove destruction from unsustainable practices, necessitate strategic policies and sustainable management. While aquaculture is crucial for meeting rising demand, it must minimize environmental impacts and ensure equitable benefits. Similarly, the global seafood trade must be managed to ensure its economic gains do not come at the expense of local access to nutritious food. Policies should prioritize equitable and sustainable aquaculture development and ensure that trade benefits are fairly distributed among communities.

5.1. An Integrated and Actionable Policy Framework

Effective policy frameworks are crucial for maximizing fisheries and aquaculture’s positive contributions to food security and poverty alleviation, especially in developing countries. Integration across food and agricultural systems is paramount. Policies must prioritize sustainability, promoting responsible aquaculture and reducing post-harvest losses. Trade policies should ensure equitable benefit distribution, preventing fish resource displacement from vulnerable populations. Supporting small-scale fisheries—vital for both livelihoods and food security—is crucial, as is increased attention to inland fisheries.

Mitigating negative aquaculture impacts requires focusing on sustainable practices and social equity. Regulations must prevent floodplain enclosure, protecting resource-poor users. Supporting innovation, improving market access, and integrating aquaculture with other activities can enhance benefits for small-scale fishers. Reducing aquaculture’s dependence on wild-caught fish through improved catch regulations and feed innovations is crucial to avoid competing with human consumption by vulnerable communities.

Policy implications extend to promoting sustainable growth of aquaculture to meet rising demand and alleviate pressure on capture fisheries. Thorough investigation of international fish trade is necessary to inform sound policies, ensuring equitable distribution of increased fish availability that balances fisher incomes with accessibility for low-income consumers. Accommodation of food sovereignty agendas, ensuring direct and equitable resource access for small-scale producers, is vital. Integrated policies, linking fisheries governance and food policy, are needed for informed decisions on conservation, economic growth, and food security. Addressing the poorest populations’ vulnerabilities, implementing equitable trade regulations, and ensuring effective local and national resource governance are also essential for long-term food security contributions.

Specifically, the most urgent and feasible short-term policy recommendations include the development and implementation of national aquaculture zoning plans and the strengthening of community-based co-management regimes for small-scale fisheries. These represent concrete, actionable steps. Implementing these measures would help secure access rights for vulnerable communities and guide sustainable aquaculture expansion to reduce resource conflict.

5.2. Toward a More Equitable and Sustainable Future

The global seafood trade operates like a complex marketplace. There are major, high-volume buyers and sellers, but the dynamics go far beyond a simple transaction. Imagine the large, developed countries like Europe and Northern America as the main storefronts, still doing most of the buying. At the same time, a major developing nation like China has shifted its role; it is now a massive wholesaler that both sells and buys huge quantities of seafood. Then you have smaller, local markets, such as those in parts of Africa, which sell valuable, high-end products to the big stores while also buying more affordable, essential goods for their own communities. It is a diverse, interconnected web of exchange—not a one-way street.

This perspective paper synthesizes existing evidence to highlight the multifaceted interplay of global seafood trade and aquaculture expansion on local livelihoods, offering a re-evaluation of traditional approaches. The analysis of the ‘seafood trade deficit’ and the challenges of pro-poor aquaculture development underscores a central argument: economic growth from these sectors does not automatically translate into improved food security for the most vulnerable. Instead, it requires deliberate, equity-focused interventions.

Addressing the interconnected challenges of seafood trade and aquaculture requires a comprehensive approach. This includes the establishment of clear and enforceable legal frameworks for land and water use, targeted support for small-scale producers (credit, training, resources), effective regulation of land/water use to prevent displacement, the promotion of polyculture and integrated farming systems, and diversifying aquaculture systems with low-cost, nutrient-rich species to improve nutritional outcomes and strengthen local markets. Integrating aquaculture with other sectors enhances resource-use efficiency. Investment in research and development for sustainable technologies is essential. Improved governance (environmental standards, land-use planning, social governance) ensures a net contribution to poverty reduction and food security. Rigorous impact assessments are needed to inform policymaking. Implementing these strategies can help realize aquaculture’s potential for equitable, sustainable poverty reduction and food security.

Future research should focus on developing quantitative trade-nutrition models to more accurately assess how different trade policy scenarios impact nutrient availability and consumption patterns at the local level. These models are analytical frameworks that go beyond economic value to evaluate how trade policies affect a population’s access to essential nutrients and overall dietary health. Additionally, interdisciplinary policy evaluation approaches are needed to move beyond single-sector analyses and examine the complex interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, land use, and social welfare. This will help bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and on-the-ground policy implementation, ensuring that future interventions are both effective and equitable.