Next Article in Journal
Challenges in Singapore Aquaculture and Possible Solutions
Previous Article in Journal
Limited Experimental Susceptibility of Post-Smolt Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to an Emergent Strain of Vibrio Anguillarum Serotype O3
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Aquaculture Journal
Volume 4
Issue 4
10.3390/aquacj4040022
aquacj-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Barriers to the Export of Farmed Pangasius and Tilapia from Bangladesh to the International Market: Evidence from Primary and Secondary Data

by
Md. Mehedi Alam
1,2,*,
Mohammad Mahfujul Haque
2 and
Morena Santi
3
1
Department of Fishery Resources Conservation and Management, Khulna Agricultural University, Khulna 9100, Bangladesh
2
Department of Aquaculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
3
International Centre of Excellence for Aquatic Animal Health, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth Laboratory, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Aquac. J. 2024, 4(4), 293-315; https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4040022
Submission received: 6 September 2024 / Revised: 19 October 2024 / Accepted: 4 November 2024 / Published: 22 November 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rapid growth of pangasius and tilapia aquaculture has created export opportunities for Bangladesh; however, this industry is facing multiple barriers to becoming a competitive whitefish exporter in the international market. We analyzed a widely used conceptual framework and reviewed the available literature to unpack the barriers to pangasius and tilapia exports in mainstream global markets. Primary data were collected by interviewing 60 associated stakeholders to consolidate the research objectives. A meta-analysis of the literature and primary data revealed that pangasius and tilapia exporters face various internal (company and product barriers) and external (industry, market, and macroenvironment barriers) barriers. To overcome these barriers, the pangasius and tilapia industries need separate export-oriented policies and legislation to be developed by the competent authority, namely, the Department of Fisheries (DoF), which needs to provide common guidelines to meet international standards of aquaculture practices, food safety, quality, certification, and export markets. The DoF should ensure robust oversight through effective monitoring and surveillance mechanisms to implement the regulations and policies. Drawing insights from China and Vietnam’s experiences in responsible aquaculture practices, navigating export markets, and instituting aquaculture certification could provide invaluable lessons for Bangladesh. Using these lessons to overcome impediments could catalyze the flourishing of Bangladesh’s pangasius and tilapia sectors in the global whitefish market.

1. Introduction

Seafood is one of the most traded food commodities worldwide, reaching 214 million tons (MT) of production in 2020 [1,2]. Asia represents the foremost seafood producer, making up about 90% of world aquaculture production, with China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Thailand being the major producing countries (Table 1). The main farmed seafood items exported from Asia are shrimp/prawn (Penaeus monodon/Litopenaeus vannamei/Macrobrachium rosenbergii), pangasius (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus), and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), with India, Vietnam, and China being the leading exporters of these products, respectively (Table 1). These three species are also produced by most of the other Asian countries, including Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia [3,4]; however, they have yet to enter the export market on a wider scale, except for shrimp, which are exported by all Asian countries [5,6].
Vietnam exports pangasius and other seafoods, constituting the largest pangasius exporter in the world. It exports skinless and boneless frozen/chilled pangasius fillets, which are the most common product type, being traded to more than 149 countries and territories [7]. China, Indonesia, and Vietnam are the three most important tilapia exporters to the European Union 28 (EU28) countries and the USA [4,8], while India and Thailand predominantly export shrimp to the international market [9,10]. Bangladesh mainly exports frozen freshwater prawn and tiger shrimp, and in 2021–2022, their contribution was over 70% (USD 391.03 million) of the total export value of the country (USD 558.25 million) [11].
In the international trade in seafood from Asia, pangasius and tilapia are the main export species and are subject to increasing demand [12,13]. The success of pangasius and tilapia as imported freshwater fish in many developed countries, especially Western countries, and their increased prominence on the list of widely consumed seafood products indicates a shift in food preferences. Their flaky white flesh, firm texture, and neutral flavor have been widely accepted among consumers as a low-cost alternative to marine main seafood such as cod and haddock in Europe and the indigenous channel catfish in the USA [3,14]. Haddock and channel catfish were traditionally popular, but their growing scarcity has led to increases in their prices.
In the last decade, finfish aquaculture has developed quite rapidly in Bangladesh, similarly to Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, with the expansion of pangasius culture occurring over a similar period to that in Vietnam [15]. In Bangladesh, the annual cumulative percentage of pangasius and tilapia production is increasing every year. During the 2020–2021 period, pangasius and tilapia production was 391,809 MT and 390,543 MT, respectively, contributing to about 30% of total aquaculture production [16]. Currently, Bangladesh is recognized as a leading pangasius- and tilapia-producing country, ranking second and fourth worldwide in production, respectively [11,17]. As of today, the production of pangasius and tilapia is only for consumption by the domestic market. The retail price of pangasius and tilapia in the local market is relatively low compared to other farmed fish, thereby making them popularly known as poor people’s fish in Bangladesh, although better-off people also eat a considerable amount of these fish [18,19]. However, the main constraint on domestic retail market-based pangasius and tilapia farming in Bangladesh is the downward fluctuations in market price that often make farmers frustrated [20,21].
In Bangladesh, aquaculture is the major driver of fish production, contributing to 57.10% of total production [16]. Aquaculture production in Bangladesh ranked fifth globally in 2020, and it has expanded and intensified rapidly over the last two decades [22,23,24,25]. Total fish production currently satisfies national demand, and it has even recorded surplus production, accounting for 4.62 million MT against demand of 4.24 million MT in 2020–2021 [16]. This overproduction has led the demand for fish in the domestic market to become stagnant, causing a drop in prices. On the other hand, the input costs have steadily increased, including those for feed, seed, drugs and chemicals, and labor. Farmers seek alternative markets and aim to export their fish products into international mainstream markets to attain premium prices.
Other Asian countries like China, Vietnam, and Indonesia have managed to grow export markets for tilapia and pangasius alongside their shrimp and prawn exports [26]. Thus far, despite the growing international demand for pangasius and tilapia fillets, Bangladesh has lagged behind to establish export market venues, even if producing comparable quantities to Vietnam, China, and Indonesia [27]. Efforts have been made to stimulate export by establishing fish processing factories for species like pangasius and tilapia, along with government subsidies to these factories to earn foreign currency. However, challenges in accessing export markets have limited opportunities for farmers to acquire foreign exchange, leaving factories affected by domestically oriented aquaculture practices. The interest of the growing Bangladeshi youth is shifting from domestic pangasius and tilapia fish to eggs and chicken. Failure to capture the export market could impact the development of the pangasius and tilapia sector [28,29].
In this context, based on primary and secondary evidence, this research aimed to answer the research question of why Bangladesh cannot export pangasius and tilapia as a large producer and identify the major barriers, unlike some other Asian countries that produce and export them. The specific objectives of the study were (i) identify the internal and external export barriers imposed on the finfish sector in Bangladesh, (ii) use primary and secondary data to rank the relative influence of the main situation-specific barriers currently stalling export growth in Bangladesh, and (iii) provide a roadmap to enable Bangladesh to plan for increased export growth in the finfish aquaculture sector.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study was conducted in the Mymensingh district (Figure 1), renowned as the “epicenter of aquaculture”, leading in pond fish production in Bangladesh since 1995 [16,30]. The selection of the study site was justified based on the available official production data (Table 2) concerning pangasius and tilapia aquaculture reported by the Fisheries Resource Survey System (FRSS) of the Department of Fisheries (DoF) of Bangladesh. The aquaculture site selected is considerably developed due to favorable biophysical resources and climatic conditions. These include the availability of ponds and agricultural land, warm climate, and fertile soil, along with research and development support from Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU), Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (BFRI), fish processing plants, hatcheries, feed industries, and drugs and chemical companies [31,32].

2.2. Conceptual Framework

Concept and Classifying Export Barriers

The export barrier study began in the late 1960s/early 1970s and was influenced by emerging trade knowledge and foreign investment [34]. The term “export barriers” highlights restrictions that impede companies’ ability to initiate, grow, or continue to trade in overseas markets. Export barriers vary widely and are perceived by firms in various ways and degrees of intensity [35]. The literature suggests different frameworks for classifying barriers to export. Katsikeas and Morgan [36] identified four groups of export barriers: external, operational, internal, and informational barriers. Tesfom and Lutz [37] and Tesfom et al. [38] reported internal and external export barriers that can influence an international trade strategy. Altintas et al. [39] explicated a comprehensive categorization framework, describing 20 categories of export barriers. Arteaga-Ortiz and Fernandez-Ortiz [40] identified four categories of export barriers: knowledge (e.g., lack of information, company ignorance of basic aspect of exporting), resources (e.g., lack of financial resources, insufficient production capacity), procedures (e.g., complexity of documentation or bureaucracy linked to export operations, logistics difficulties), and exogenous (e.g., uncertainty in international markets, strong international competition). In most recent studies, Mendy et al. [41] outlined export barriers into three generic categories: (i) social barriers, (ii) political barriers, and (iii) economic barriers. Uner et al. [42] cited that export barriers are associated with marketing functions, including meeting quality standards, product adaptation, transportation challenges, marketing network establishment, foreign market pricing, logistics, after-sales services, and adapting export promotion activities. The above typology aids in export issue comprehension, guiding strategic marketing and national export support. Based on the literature review, classic authors on export internationalization recommended internal and external export barriers as the main barriers [38,43], and significantly impact firms’ export performance [44]. Therefore, the conceptual framework used here to understand the barriers to the export of pangasius and tilapia in Bangladesh was adapted from Tesfom and Luz [33], as shown in Figure 2.
Internal export barriers are usually associated with limited organizational resources and capabilities such as market knowledge, global experience, capital, and skilled personnel. Leonidou [44] acknowledged the main internal obstacles to export as functional, information, and marketing barriers. Limited market information, expertise gaps, and inadequate managerial support may impede a firm’s ability to effectively recognize and capitalize on opportunities in overseas markets [43]. Product export barriers often affect competitive advantage and influence the decision between an offensive and a defensive export strategy. Product barriers influence the company’s export-marketing strategy and can be categorized into quality and technical suitability [33]. Product adaptation is deemed necessary in particular circumstances where foreign governments impose unique legislation to set quality criteria for specific items. Based on this, we adopted two types of barriers: company barriers (market knowledge and information, financial resources, managerial and human resources) and product barriers (higher cost of production and quality of product) for pangasius and tilapia export in this study.
The external export barriers are rooted in the home and host environment within which the farm operates. The nature of the external export barriers tends to vary according to the industry, the host market, and the home-market-related factors. The intensity of exporting activities varies considerably based on the industry’s attractiveness and degree of competition [45]. Numerous studies show key barriers impacting export strategies, include lack of time to learn cultural/language differences, tariff and administrative barriers, risks associated with foreign currency exchange, unavailable foreign warehousing facilities, and slow payment or risk of nonpayment by foreign buyers [45,46,47]. Leonidou [44] argued that the lack of immediate contact with overseas markets, combined with the tendency of many foreign buyers to ask for more credit facilities, increases the possibility of slower payments. However, in this study, industry barriers (industry structure, competitiveness of international market), market barriers (customers’ barriers, procedural complexity, lack of certification), and macroenvironment barriers (governmental barriers, exogenous logistical constraints) were considered as external barriers based on the published literature in discovering the barriers to pangas and tilapia exports.

2.3. Data Collection Techniques

This study combined a through literature review with primary data analysis from a questionnaire survey. The sequential steps we adhered to throughout the methodological approach are outlined below.

2.3.1. Secondary Information and Literature Search

Secondary data from peer-reviewed publications were analyzed to identify major export barriers for pangasius and tilapia from Bangladesh to the global market. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature searches were made in two databases: Web of Science and Scopus, as suggested by Green et al. [48]. To capture the data, search terms included “seafood” plus one of: export barriers, export constraints, export problems, export impediments, export challenges, export obstacles, and export hindrances. The terms “aquaculture”, “finfish”, “shrimp”, “pangasius”, and “tilapia” were provided as alternatives to “seafood”. Only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English since 2010 were used to ensure the quality of the collected information. The study selection criteria, both inclusive and exclusive, were finalized per research questions. The results of the search strategies were screened to extract the inclusion of relevant articles. Duplicate records were discarded during the selection procedure, followed by the removal of articles not relevant to the research questions, and restricted access articles were eliminated. Finally, the search strategy outcomes were meticulously reviewed by reading the titles and abstracts. After a rigorous assessment, all remaining articles were crosschecked according to the objectives, eliminating redundancy and ensuring comprehensiveness. The finalized articles have been meticulously curated and integrated into the systematic review. The publication count dropped significantly from 235 to 64 after this screening procedure. After addressing language issues and eliminating duplicates, 158 reviews were selected in the screening round. Later, 91 articles were deemed irrelevant and subsequently excluded. Consequently, 67 articles were included and nominated for appropriateness verification, from which another 21 articles were eliminated for lack of full document access. Ultimately, 46 empirical studies were included in the comprehensive analysis of this research study to describe the export barriers of pangasius and tilapia from Bangladesh to the global market. Moreover, some of the literature extensively explores the export opportunities and challenges facing Bangladeshi farmed fish, as detailed in Table 3.

2.3.2. Primary Data Collection

A purposive sampling technique was adopted to gather information from key stakeholders interested in pursuing export revenues in the study area. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected using the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tool, which included key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and questionnaire interviews. The KIIs were conducted with relevant authorities and processing plant staff, such as Upazila Fisheries Officers (UFOs) at the study site, responsible personnel of the Fish Inspection and Quality Control (FIQC) Lab, and processing plants to unpack the barriers of pangasius and tilapia exports in the mainstream export market. The UFOs are Bangladesh’s official monitoring authority for aquaculture farmers and seafood processing plants. At the same time, FIQC Lab analyzes seafood in the laboratory and provides a mandatory export certificate. A total of 10 KIIs were conducted (i.e., 3 UFOs, 3 FIQC personnel, and 4 processing plant staff). Information and opinions were gathered primarily from semistructured one-on-one questionnaire interviews for quantitative data. Staff and representatives (5 each individual) of feed mills and aqua-medicine companies were surveyed to gather data about the use of feed and aqua-medicine by pangasius and tilapia farmers. Accordingly, 40 fish farmers were interviewed, 20 from each pangasius (5 large and 15 small and medium) and tilapia (5 large and 15 small and medium) farmers to gather information concerning good aquaculture practice, international trade knowledge, traceability, etc. Those farmers who showed preparedness to export and collaborated with the processing factories were selected, and employees from a current processing plant were questioned as it would potentially be the target for pangasius and tilapia fillet exports from the region. The rationale behind stakeholder selection is premised on the notion that fish export barriers are influenced by the interlinked roles of key stakeholders, including farmers, feed and drug suppliers, processing plant operators, and regulatory authorities. Achieving high-quality fish products relies on implementing proper farming practices, maintaining suitable environmental conditions, and using safe feed and aqua-medicines. Fish products must undergo processing in certified facilities to meet export standards. Regulatory compliance mandates obtaining approval from competent authorities to ensure that all elements of the production and processing chain conform to international export standards. The questionnaire interviews were carried out between March and May 2022 at the peak season of aquaculture farming inception in Bangladesh (Table 4). Two FGDs were conducted to cross-check and validate the data from different aquaculture stakeholders. The first author, along with two research assistants (who had completed master’s degrees in fisheries and aquaculture science), conducted surveys of sampled respondents.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Internal Export Barriers of Farmed Pangasius and Tilapia

3.1.1. Company Barriers

Limitation of Market Knowledge and Information

Adequate and proper information about the opportunities for the export of a firm’s products, for both small and medium-sized enterprises, abroad is a major barrier in Bangladesh. Most pangasius and tilapia farmers (91%) were unaware of the potential to export their produce abroad. All surveyed farmers were unfamiliar with national and international sources of information regarding foreign agents, distributors, potential buyers, and marketing opportunities, and they lacked knowledge of pricing in foreign markets. The networking facilities among farmers, both at the individual and intragroup level, were demonstrated to be significantly inadequate [27]. Transfer of information and knowledge between and among farmers and other stakeholders was very limited, and it was found that there was no well-organized association of white fish exporters in Bangladesh. Islam et al. [58] argued that transferring knowledge, skill, and experience can help the pangasius sector develop from a scattered and unreliable industry into a commercially viable value chain with access to global markets. A similar picture was observed among exporters, who have very limited knowledge of foreign markets, business practices, and competition; and lack of management to generate foreign sales. Islam et al. [58] reported similar findings, stating that stakeholders in the pangasius value chain should have an understanding of international markets requirement, quality standards, certification processes, trading methods, and policies to orient the industry towards export. Language and cultural differences are among the most frequently mentioned barriers in the literature on exporting [35]. This study found that stakeholders were unable to interact with foreign buyers, business associations, the chamber of commerce, and industries to further develop the export marketing of frozen foods due to the lack of a common language used in international trade.

Insufficient Financial Resource

Insufficient financial resources have been identified as a key factor in determining the failure of export ventures [59]. These barriers are associated with both a lack of working capital to finance export sales and a lack of finance for market research, as well as difficulties associated with operating with different currencies and collecting payments abroad [60]. At the small-enterprise level, all surveyed respondents indicated that the production cost of pangasius and tilapia farming would increase due to the requirement of maintaining international standards for food safety and quality. Adapting to higher prices is challenging, given the rising costs of fuel, labor, maintenance, and essential supplies. Similarly, the establishment cost of a processing plant increased considerably due to stringent quality standards set by international trade. In addition, it needs to invest in the recruitment of expertise, obtaining marketing information, adaptation to the products as market demands, achieving price competitiveness, marketing channels management, implementation of promotion activities, branding export policy, capital for export self-financing, cost, and procedures for bank loans for export financing, export insurance, government tax, domestic currency exchange rate, tariffs, and sale cost in export markets, and the inflow of money from sales on export markets. Although some processing plants have already been established privately to export globally demandable pangasius and tilapia through acquiring loans from commercial banks and taking financial support from an international agency, like Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), they cannot move forward adequately due to the continuous financial support required [56].
The government provides a 7–10% subsidy to the processors involved in the export of processed shrimp from Bangladesh and a 2–5% incentive for white fish processors [61]. The processing plant operators reported that fish processors take out bank loans to construct and operate their factories, while shrimp processors receive exemption from bank interest despite incurring losses from export. In contrast, finfish processors for pangasius and tilapia do not have this incentive. Comparatively, the total farmed shrimp production (130,384 MT) and contribution (4.94%) were 3.01 and 2.99 times less than pangasius and tilapia, respectively [16]. Therefore, the incentives including tax breaks should be increased to attract investment in the pangasius and tilapia processing sector. Credit sources available in Bangladesh for aquaculture farming, processing, and marketing are both formal (commercial banks, government-initiated institutions, and schemes) and informal (money lenders, traders, relatives, and others) but there are no distinct credit or input incentives for this sector [62]. Very few stakeholders obtained this formal credit and the remaining are dependent on informal credit, which is subject to hefty interest rates. China is dominating seafood processing because they established several special programs for fish processing like processing trade regulations and exempted high tariff rates for export seafood items [63]. Vietnam also has agreements to comply with international trade regulation with numerous countries and territories for their seafood export.

Scarcity of Skilled Managerial and Human Resource

Management skills and experience are crucial factors for internationalization [64]. The lack of qualified personnel is a significant internal resource barrier to exportation [65]. Managerial resources and capabilities include creating, maintaining, negotiating, and developing an appropriate relationship with customers in export markets [66], as well as obtaining essential market information. However, skilled and efficient human resources were inadequate in both aquaculture farms and processing plants in Bangladesh. KII findings indicated that hiring skilled technical staff from abroad was complex and could hinder both internal and international growth. Furthermore, due to a lack of qualified managers, the long-term strategic objectives and activities cannot be evaluated properly for export; therefore, the seafood is unable to access the new international export markets. Overcoming this situation requires considerable efforts and training the domestic human resources for capacity building to meet the desired standards of knowledge and technology, especially to meet the demands of the seafood sector.

3.1.2. Product Barriers

Higher Cost of Fillet Preparation and Production System

The respondents contend that Bangladeshi pangasius and tilapia possess lower flesh content, necessitating a higher volume of fish per kilogram of fillet, which in turn increases the cost of fillet production for export. One kg of pangasius and tilapia fillet production in Bangladesh requires an average of 3.5 kg of fresh fish [12], compared to 3.1 kg of raw pangasius and tilapia needed in other exporter countries (i.e., Vietnam, Brazil) [67]. KII results indicated that the lower yield is primarily due to the small size of the fish and the inadequate skills of the fillet-producing operators in the processing plants. The farm-gate price of pangasius in Bangladesh is USD 1.09–1.28/kg and USD 1.14–1.37/kg for tilapia. The total costs involved in the export of pangasius and tilapia fillet, including production, transportation, processing, health certification fees, taxes, and other maintenance expenses, range from USD 4.38 to 5.01 for pangasius and USD 4.74 to 5.60 for tilapia fillet. This figure significantly exceeds the international market prices, which are USD 2.70–3.33/kg for pangasius fillet in USA and EU28 [3,68] markets, and USD 5.26/kg for fresh tilapia fillet exported from Vietnam and China [68].
Export preparation costs for pangasius and tilapia fillets in Bangladesh are high due to expensive feed (75–79%), poor-quality seeds, and low pond yields. The elevated feed costs in Bangladesh are primarily attributable to the scarcity of domestic feed ingredients, with over 50% of aquaculture feed ingredients being reliant on imports. Islam et al. [69] reported that 100% of meat and bone meal ingredients are imported from the EU28 countries. The adulteration of feed ingredients by traders sometimes reduces feed quality, increases the feed conversion ratio (FCR), and drives up production costs [70]. The farmers interviewed claimed that the importers mixed unconventional ingredients such as crumble stones, sand particles, finely ground limestone, rock dust, and low-value protein-containing local ingredients (e.g., mustered oil cake and rice bran) with high-value protein-containing ingredients, like meat and bone meal and fish meal. Farmers frequently encounter contamination in purchased feed ingredients, which they identify through external features, internal structure, physical appearance, color, flavor, taste, texture, size, and shape. Due to ingredient scarcity, farmers are often forced to purchase expensive, low-quality feed. Additionally, outdated feed manufacturing technology, high import taxes, higher interest rates on bank loans, and lower government subsidies for ingredient imports significantly increase fish feed costs [71]. Fish farmers face high operational expenses without government subsidies due to expensive feed. China and Vietnam have initiated measures to reduce these costs. Vietnam has no import duties on soybean meal, whereas China imposes 3% duty, and Bangladesh a 10% duty. Additionally, bank loan interest rates for aquaculture in Bangladesh are 9%, compared to 4% in Vietnam [72].
The lack of good-quality seeds represents another factor amplifying the production cost [73]. Aquaculture in Bangladesh relies solely on hatcheries for seed production, with over 1000 in operation, 97% of which are privately owned. Many hatcheries use the same broodstock year after year without renewing it, leading to inbreeding, hybridization, negative selection, and improper broodstock management. These practices harm aquaculture by producing poor-quality fish fries with lower survival and slower growth, increasing the production costs for the farmers [16]. Bangladesh has established legislation to enhance quality seed production and safeguard genetic integrity; however, it lacks provisions for financial assistance or incentives for hatchery owners/operators. Vietnam has implemented various programs, such as targeted incentives, transportation subsidies, price support, and exemption from value-added tax (VAT) for international enterprises’ seed production, to address concerns regarding seed availability, quality, and regional imbalance [74]. As a result, pangasius and tilapia farmers in Vietnam and China possess a competitive advantage over those in Bangladesh for generating profits from the export market.

Quality of Product

In Bangladesh, KII outputs show that pangasius and tilapia producers do not meet the quality control and standard practices required for the export market. Many farmers use a high stocking density and feeding rate, resulting in unused feed and poor water quality. This situation is worsened by limited water exchange and the use of water with low oxygen content [75,76]. Poor water quality and management systems are seen to affect the color of pangasius meat, resulting in yellow and reddish color, and sometimes off-flavors/odor [52]. Similar findings were described by Hoque et al. [3], who stated that poor water exchange in farming is likely to increase the concentration of organic matter in the water, resulting in higher planktonic growth and adverse coloring of the fish flesh. Pangasius flesh color other than white is recognized as poor-quality low-price seafood in the USA and EU28 markets [19]. Islam et al. [52] reported that one of the main barriers to the export appears to be the yellow flesh color of pangasius. For export purposes, the production of pangasius and tilapia must involve strict monitoring and maintenance of water quality to comply with hygienic and sanitation standards at all levels [27]. Additionally, the water must be free from pathogenic bacteria, prohibited antibiotics (nitrofurans and chloramphenicol), and other hazardous chemicals including pesticides, heavy metals, hormones, histacin, and contaminants [17]. In Bangladesh, it was found that pangasius and tilapia farmers indiscriminately use drugs and chemicals in their fish farms without adhering to a prescription from a competent authority [30]. Free disease diagnostic support provided by processing, feed, and drug companies is also seldom due to a lack of responsible skilled manpower from the government and nongovernment organizations [77]. Many farmers use their own experience in conjunction with advice from other local farmers, local drug shops, and representatives of drugs and chemical companies throughout the country to manage the use of drugs and chemicals [78]. In seafood export trading countries, Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP), Good Hygiene Practices (GHP), and Good Manufacture Practices (GMP) under the framework of international food safety rules are required to ensure safe fish production for export to the mainstream market [79]. The stakeholders involved in the pangasius and tilapia farming industry, such as farmers, depot owners, and concerned workers of different processing factories, have almost no knowledge about GAP, GHP, and GMP, and the compliances for water quality, feed quality, and drugs and chemical use, which all affect the development of aquaculture certification [79].
Traceability is another important element in quality assurance, especially in food safety and the buyer’s requirement for exporting seafood. The hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) procedure for finfish in Bangladesh, especially pangasius and tilapia, is not as established as for shrimp farms. Despite starting commercial pangasius and tilapia farming in the early 1990s, Bangladesh’s traceability system remains underdeveloped, hindering export. The numerous small-scale farmers and complex intermediary system add to the challenge. Stakeholders, including farmers, hatcheries, depots, processing plants, feed mills, and ice plants, lack knowledge in traceability implementation. Hence, international markets do not recognize the safety and quality standards of Bangladeshi fish products [56]. To access export markets like the EU28, UK, and USA, Bangladesh requires a traceability system. The Bangladesh Aquaculture Alliance (BAA) had worked to ensure traceability and quality by trying to incorporate all stakeholders into the certification system, including fish and shrimp farmers, hatchery owners, ice plant owners, feed producers and millers, processing facilities, and exporters. Their objective was to produce marketable fish or shrimp exclusively through the adaptation of environment-friendly, ecologically sustainable, and socially responsible methods [80]. However, their activities were not extended widely, owing to many social and environmental problems at the field level.
China adopted a traceability system to improve the quality and safety of seafood, and its regulations are adequate to support international standards for exporting [81]. The National Fisheries Quality Assurance Veterinary Directorate (NAFIQAVED) in Vietnam planned to implement a traceability system for pangasius, assigning each farm a code for product tracking. Farms would require to keep records of all inputs, including fingerlings, feeds, veterinary drugs, and environmental treatment substances [82]. This kind of traceability presents challenges for Bangladesh, contributing to difficulties in their fish exports. Consequently, exporters may consider exploring markets with lower fish quality standards as an initial step for exporting pangasius and tilapia from Bangladesh.

3.2. External Barriers of Farmed Pangasius and Tilapia

3.2.1. Industry Barriers

Industry Structure

Investment in the seafood export industry, particularly in establishing fish processing plants, poses a significant bottleneck for advancing Bangladesh’s aquaculture industry. Findings reveal that most pangasius and tilapia processing plants were developed with substantial bank loans rather than own capital, with some also receiving international support from agencies such as Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), Denmark. The installation cost of a processing plant is approximately USD 20–30 million, covering plant design, machinery installation, product export promotion, employee training, and markets exploration. Most machinery and equipment for preparing pangasius and tilapia fillets are imported from countries, including the USA, Denmark, China, and Vietnam, further raising the installation cost.
In contrast, government subsidies and other incentives for the finfish processing sector are 50% lower compared to those for shrimp/prawn processing [83]. Despite the processing plants’ adequate capacity and considerable efforts, their operations have been unsuccessful due to the inadequate quantity and quality of raw materials, resulting in operational disruptions and economic losses. Consequently, respondents from the processing plant anticipate that failures in fish export could undermine global trust in Bangladeshi seafood, particularly when compared to exports from Vietnam and China. Long-term failure in fish exports may trigger a series of problems, including investment depletion in processing plants, misallocation of government funds via bank loans, widespread unemployment, and potential collapse of the industry.

Competitiveness of the International Market

International competition for seafood export has surged, with more fish processing units worldwide. Factors like fish flesh color, flavor, size, disease presence, and antibiotic residues influence market success [3]. Importing countries seek certification schemes for responsible aquaculture practices and traceability in seafood purchases. In China, around 120 factories process tilapia processing to meet the growing demand for fillets in the export market (Table 5). The processing facilities designated for export have adopted quality control assurance and comprehensive product traceability throughout the entire processing system. This enables processors to maintain greater flexibility in the highly competitive industry [4]. Vietnamese pangasius processing industries adhere to world-class welfare and hygiene standards, producing high-quality products under superior conditions. There are 100 licensed pangasius processing and exporting companies in Vietnam, with China being their largest market, followed by the EU28, USA, and Japan (Table 5). In contrast, processing factories in Bangladesh have attempted to adopt international standards; however, due to irresponsible farming systems, pangasius and tilapia have not entered the export market. Ensuring the supply of adequate quantities and quality raw materials remains essential for these industries to move forward and effectively compete on the international stage alongside Vietnam and China.

3.2.2. Market Barriers

Customer Barriers

The international trade of seafood largely depends on food-safety characteristics, country of origin, eco-friendliness, and organic or sustainable production practices. Food safety remains a paramount concern, with consumers often wary of the use of pesticides, genetic modification, antibiotics, and other substances or technology [87,88]. Locally produced pangasius and tilapia in Bangladesh struggle to reach global status due to traditional farming practices. These fish bear a “bad quality” stigma internationally, largely because producers and processors lack food safety certificates. This certification is crucial for increasing customers’ purchase intentions. Without it, pangasius and tilapia face quality, safety, environmental, and animal welfare concerns among international consumers. Additionally, off-flavors and yellow meat hinder their acceptance in EU28, UK, and USA markets, where white flesh is preferred for its perceived taste, safety, and environmental benefits [3,18,19]. Exporters of pangasius and tilapia are contending with challenges regarding their product image in the international market. In response, Vietnam has improved food safety standards across all stages of the supply chain, from pond to plate. This comprehensive approach has successfully attracted international consumers through multiple factors, including quality, price, convenience, food safety, social considerations, environmental concerns, animal health and welfare, and traceability [7]. Similarly, in China, the international trade of tilapia is being developed by producing healthy aquaculture products that meet high consumer preferences ranging from farm to table [63].

Procedural Complexity of Export

Despite significant simplification of export rules and procedures by the Bangladesh government, the seafood sector continues to face complex challenges. Firstly, exporters need to obtain company name clearance for seafood export and then registration from the Office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms under the Ministry of Commerce. After obtaining the name clearance, a bank account needs be opened in any bank in Bangladesh under the same name. Exporters have claimed an additional challenge, noting that they encounter high transaction costs in terms of both time and money due to procedural complexities. Moreover, exporters have to obtain other licenses, including a trading license from the city cooperation, and obtain a tax identification number and register with different departments (VAT, Excise, and Customs) of the National Board of Revenue. Then, the company has to register with the Factories Act 1965, which regulates working conditions and ensures safety in processing establishments. Environmental clearance is also required from the Department of Environment (DoE) for the construction of a factory for seafood export. Finally, the health/salubrity certificate is required for seafood export issued by DoF after FIQC laboratory testing. After completing the whole procedure above, customs offices issue clearance permits for seafood export abroad [89]. There is no single agency or department in Bangladesh to manage the seafood sector. Haque et al. [27] explained that fisheries laws and regulations are administered by various agencies and departments of the Government of Bangladesh, including DoF, BFRI, Bangladesh Water Development Board, DoE, Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change, Ministry of Land, Ministry Shipping, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Labor and Employment, and Ministry of Industries. Many fish processing plants have been established despite navigating multiple bureaucratic obstacles. However, these complex procedures still pose a barrier to the export of quality seafood, especially finfish. Consequently, there is a need to develop a single agency or department for well-organized management, processing, and export of the fisheries and aquaculture sector. This would align the entire legal framework with international standards through appropriate changes, enhancements, and refinements. Haque et al. [27] suggested that DoF could take the lead in establishing an umbrella platform that links the intra- and intergovernmental ministerial sectors to harmonize the standards with the existing laws and regulations for the management and development of the seafood sector.

Lack of Standard Aquaculture Certification

Sustainable aquaculture certification influences international trade as an entry barrier by ensuring that food safety, animal health, environmental and social issues, and traceability are met in the production chain through independent third-party standards [27,90]. Furthermore, many seafood-importing countries are tightening their food safety legislation and demanding that exporting countries implement standardized inspection, examination, and certification procedures [91]. Therefore, sustainability certification is becoming increasingly important to exporting seafood. Globally, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and GlobalGAP certification have become the main sustainability certification schemes for seafood export. According to the KII results, no pangasius and tilapia farms in Bangladesh have yet been included under any sustainability certification schemes. Despite being one of the biggest aquaculture producers globally, Bangladesh’s aquaculture certification system remains in its infant stage compared to other Asian countries. In the last two decades, Bangladesh has worked to initiate aquaculture certification, particularly for shrimp aquaculture, through projects like the Organic Shrimp Project (OSP). Initially backed by the Swiss government via the Swiss Import Promotion Program, the project aimed to promote small and medium enterprises. A German-based organic shrimp importer later took over, but the project failed due to reliance on farmers, government support, technological improvements, market diversification, premium pricing, and country-specific standards [92]. However, China and Vietnam produce tilapia and pangasius following ASC, GlobalGAP, BAP (Best Aquaculture Practice), and Natureland standards. With the increasing impact of GlobalGAP, the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Developments has developed VietGAP, which intends to raise the standards of Vietnamese aquaculture and become the first step to attaining international certification [7,93].

3.2.3. Macroenvironment Barriers

Governmental Barriers

Inadequate policy, outdated legislation, and regulations are seafood export barriers. Munemo [94] described that domestic governments’ export regulations, inadequate diplomatic support, protectionist measures, and import substitutions also hinder export. In Bangladesh, the government introduced various administrative rules and regulations to improve the aquaculture sector but adopted no specific set of standards for finfish food safety and hygiene at the farm level. There is also no clear export agenda for seafood, especially pangasius and tilapia, in the mainstream market. Islam et al. [58] stated that Bangladesh lacks legislation for the pangasius industry. This results in farmers and exporters not receiving proper guidance for production, processing, and export. Unlike shrimp farming, which benefits from developed governance and enforcement, pangasius and tilapia farming suffer due to week regulation. While traceability and farming practices are promoted in shrimp farming through governments and international research projects, this does not extend to finfish farming. Establishing regulatory standards for land, water, feed, drugs, and chemical use at farms is crucial to bridging the gap between authorities and farmers, ensuring compliance with standard farming practices (Table 6). Consequently, international markets do not recognize the safety and quality standards of Bangladeshi fish products [56]. To secure access to export markets, including the EU28, UK, and USA, Bangladesh must develop appropriate policies, rules, and laws for the pangasius and tilapia industry.

Exogenous Logistical Constraints

Technological advancements, infrastructure development, efficient international communication and transportation, regional economic integration, and trade agreements contribute to the growth of international seafood trade [95,96]. Distance and inefficient transportation occasionally pose barriers to seafood trade because they increase transportation costs and the risk of fish spoilage. Seaport is the main trade route of export for seafood from Bangladesh to the international market. Akter et al. [55] reported that both seaports, Chittagong and Mongla, are struggling with existing efficiency, shackled by operational inefficiency, fragile infrastructure, institutionalized informal practices, the burden of bureaucracy, poor level of digitalization, and disruptive communication systems. The significant distance between the processing plants and the two main ports, coupled with the deteriorated road connection, creates a bottleneck for commodity transportation and causes delays in exports. As a result, exporters often incur additional costs due to these transportation delays. Over the past decade, however, Bangladesh has experienced a remarkable transformation in its transport and communication infrastructures, fundamentally transforming connectivity and mobility within the country. Additionally, Bangladesh has developed infrastructure within the seafood industry, along with processes and human resources for the entire whitefish value chain in the pangasius or tilapia sectors. This progress is expected to facilitate a favorable transformation in Bangladesh’s fish exports, potentially bolstering its economic resilience and competitiveness in the global market.
Exporters have also mentioned that fluctuation in foreign currency exchange rate presents a significant barrier to seafood export. Nguyen and Jolly [7] reported that the fluctuation in exchange rates affects the revenue and profits of farmers, processors, and exporting firms. A similar statement was made by Dhar et al. [97], stating that pangasius and tilapia exporters are uncertain about their profits due to frequent exchange rate fluctuations, which are considered a major constraint to exports.

4. Other Nonexporter Asian Countries

Vietnam and China have emerged as the primary exporters of pangasius and tilapia. However, despite the potential for pangasius and tilapia production in several Asian countries, such as Indonesia, India, Thailand, and Bangladesh, their export activity remains limited or negligible. Indonesia is one of the largest producers of pangasius and tilapia, with production volume increasing significantly in recent years due to growing domestic demand and strong government support, which has made this sector a high-priority area for aquaculture development [98,99]. The pangasius from Indonesia has virtually no exports, while tilapia is largely consumed domestically, despite efforts by the government to implement policies to boost exports of these species. The existing literature reveals that the main bottlenecks for exporting pangasius and tilapia from Indonesia include a lack of good/certified fry, high operational costs (e.g., feed, seed, and transport cost), limited financial support from banks for producers, an absence of traceability system, and inadequate infrastructure facilities. The Indonesian pangasius and tilapia industries are primarily composed of small-scale producers, which complicates the implementation of a traceability system [100]. In Thailand, tilapia has become the second most important aquaculture species after shrimp. In 2022, the estimated annual tilapia production of tilapia reached 210,000 MT, making it the most farmed finfish species and the leading finfish sold in local markets [101]. The recent increase in tilapia production has led to market saturation domestically, compelling farmers to explore export opportunities. Tilapia processors face significant challenges related to the quality of the meat (muddy/off-flavor and chemical/antibiotic residues) and the quantity, as sufficient supply of raw material meeting the required size for orders is necessary [102]. Moreover, the tilapia industry in Thailand has yet to develop a comprehensive food safety and traceability system. The Thai Department of Fisheries prioritizes the production of fish free from drug residues as part of its policy. Implementing these practices could significantly benefit the tilapia industry, particularly as it targets expansion into export markets [103]. The Thai government has also initiated efforts to promote pangasius culture for export, motivated by the success of the Vietnamese pangasius industry. However, issues related to quality of flesh and flavor might have constrained the success of this initiative. Both pangasius and tilapia in Thailand are often grown in ponds with poor-quality feeds, especially waste cafeteria feeds, resulting in poor-quality, off-flavored fish with diminished market value, similar to the situation observed in Bangladesh [104].
India has commenced commercial culture of pangasius and tilapia, yet the sector faces challenges, such as high feed costs, inadequate infrastructure facilities, and substandard product quality [105]. One specific issue is the fillet color of India’s pangasius, which does not meet the requisite whiteness for overseas exports. These challenges of exporting pangasius and tilapia are common among nonexporting countries in Asia. Various Asian countries have been working on policy guidelines and standards to export pangasius and tilapia, similar to Vietnam and China; however, none have achieved success thus far. Bangladesh, whose development of pangasius farming coincided with Vietnam and China, could emulate the same approach to enter the mainstream international export market.

5. Conclusions

In Bangladesh, the farming of pangasius and tilapia has evolved significantly, establishing robust linkages that support the livelihoods of numerous stakeholders. Despite the substantial production volumes of the species, export trade remains underdeveloped due to the lack of adherence to national or international standards for responsible aquaculture practices. This study identifies both internal barriers (e.g., company and product barriers) and external barriers (e.g., industry, market, and macroenvironment barriers) that impede the export of pangasius and tilapia from Bangladesh to the global market. This analysis is based on primary data and a comprehensive review of the secondary literature. Company barriers, such as limited market knowledge and information, insufficient financial resource, and a lack of skilled management and human resource, along with higher cost of fillet preparation and production system, and quality of product, severely impede pangasius and tilapia export. Additionally, exporters face industry barriers, such as structural issues and international competition; market challenges like customer barriers, complex export procedure, and the absence of standard aquaculture certification; and macroenvironmental barriers, including governmental barriers, and exogenous logistic constraints. As a result, despite their export potential, Bangladeshi pangasius and tilapia are perceived as low quality internationally and are sold exclusively in the domestic market. To gain access to the export market, Bangladesh must improve its aquaculture practices and management systems. Developing specific export-oriented policies and legislation tailored for the pangasius and tilapia industries, established by the Department of Fisheries (DoF), is essential. These policies should place special emphasis on aquaculture practices, food safety, quality, certification, and export markets [106]. The DoF must ensure vigilant supervision via efficient monitoring and surveillance mechanisms to effectively enforce the prescribed regulations and policy mandates. If necessary, a specialized wing could be established within the DoF to oversee the quality of fish products and meet the stringent demands of export markets. This unit would focus on implementing rigorous quality control protocols, ensuring compliance with international standards, and adopting sustainable practices to enhance the global competitiveness of Bangladeshi fish products.
It is well established that aquaculture certification schemes minimize the export barriers for seafood, as evidenced by Vietnam and China, which are major exporters of pangasius and tilapia to mainstream international markets due to their adoption of these certification schemes. In this context, Bangladesh can learn from China and Vietnam to adopt responsible aquaculture practices to remove such barriers. The government of Bangladesh should take the necessary steps to sustain pangasius and tilapia aquaculture by promoting responsible aquaculture guidelines linked with export trade, similar to the approach taken for the shrimp industry.

Author Contributions

M.M.A.: Conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, roles/writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. M.M.H.: Conceptualization, methodology, fund acquisition, supervision, roles/writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. M.S.: Roles/writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Ocean Country Partnership Programme (OCPP) under the project “Shrimp Health in Coastal Aquaculture of Bangladesh (Project No, 2022/21/Other)”, funded through Official Development Assistance (ODA) as part of the UK’s Blue Planet Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study did not require approval from the Institutional Review Board, as it did not involve any experiments on animals or humans. Additionally, it did not include surveys or interviews with sensitive populations, such as ethnic groups, minorities, or individuals with specific diseases.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Harrison, L.O.J.; Engelhard, G.H.; Thurstan, R.H.; Sturrock, A.M. Widening mismatch between UK seafood production and consumer demand: A 120-year perspective. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2023, 33, 1387–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hoque, M.S.; Haque, M.M.; Nielsen, M.; Rahman, M.T.; Hossain, M.I.; Mahmud, S.; Mandal, A.K.; Frederiksen, M.; Larsen, M.P. Prospects and challenges of yellow flesh pangasius in international markets: Secondary and primary evidence from Bangladesh. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. El-Sayed, A.F.M.; Fitzsimmons, K. From Africa to the world—The journey of Nile tilapia. Rev. Aquac. 2023, 15, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Haque, M.M.; Islam, M.S.; Hossain, M.I.; Jahan, H. Conditions for participation of marginalized households in shrimp value chains of the coastal region of Bangladesh. Aquaculture 2022, 555, 738258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khan, M.A.; Hossain, M.E.; Islam, M.S.; Rahman, M.T.; Dey, M.M. Shrimp export competitiveness and its determinants: A novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2022, 27, 221–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nguyen, T.A.T.; Jolly, C.M. Global value chain and food safety and quality standards of Vietnam pangasius exports. Aquac. Rep. 2020, 16, 100256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dai, Y.Y.; Yuan, Y.M.; Yuan, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, H.Y. Competitiveness of Chinese and Indonesian tilapia exports in the US market. Aquac. Int. 2020, 28, 791–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jatuporn, C. Impact Assessment of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Shrimp Exports in Thailand: An Empirical Study Using Time Series Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, N.D.; Krishnan, M.; Sivaramane, N.; Ramasubramanian, V.; Kiresur, V.R. Market integration and price transmission in Indian shrimp exports. Aquaculture 2022, 561, 738687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. DoF. National Fish Week 2023 Compendium; Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2023; 160p. (In Bangla) [Google Scholar]
  12. Uddin, M.T.; Goswami, A.; Rahman, M.S.; Dhar, A.R.; Khan, M.A. Value chain of pangas and tilapia in Bangladesh. J. Bangladesh Agril. Univ. 2018, 16, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saha, P.; Hossain, M.E.; Prodhan, M.M.H.; Rahman, M.T.; Nielsen, M.; Khan, M.A. Profit and loss dynamics of aquaculture farming. Aquaculture 2022, 561, 738619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Thong, N.T.; Nielsen, M.; Roth, E.; van Nguyen, G.; Solgaard, H.S. The estimate of world demand for Pangasius catfish (Pangasiusianodon hypopthalmus). Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2016, 21, 400–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Belton, B.; Haque, M.M.; Little, D.C.; Sinh, L.X. Certifying catfish in Vietnam and Bangladesh: Who will make the grade and will it matter? Food Policy 2011, 36, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. DoF. Yearbook of Fisheries Statistics of Bangladesh, 2020–2021; Fisheries Resources Survey System (FRSS), Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2022; Volume 38, 138p. [Google Scholar]
  17. Alam, M.M.; Haque, M.M. Presence of antibacterial substances, nitrofuran metabolites and other chemicals in farmed pangasius and tilapia in Bangladesh: Probabilistic health risk assessment. Toxicol. Rep. 2021, 8, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Uddin, M.T.; Rasel, M.H.; Dhar, A.R.; Badiuzzaman, M.; Hoque, M.S. Factors Determining Consumer Preferences for Pangas and Tilapia Fish in Bangladesh: Consumers’ Perception and Consumption Habit Perspective. J. Aquat. Food Prod. 2019, 28, 438–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hossain, A.; Badiuzzaman; Nielsen, M.; Roth, E. Consumer willingness to pay for quality attributes of pangasius (Pangasianodoan hypophthalmus) in Bangladesh: A hedonic price analysis. Aquaculture 2022, 555, 738205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deb, P.; Dey, M.M.; Surathkal, P. Fish price volatility dynamics in Bangladesh. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2022, 26, 462–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Islam, I.; Nielsen, M.; Bosselmann, A.S. Drivers of captive relationships in the pangasius and tilapia value chains in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 2023, 574, 739721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alam, M.M.; Tikadar, K.K.; Hasan, N.A.; Akter, R.; Bashar, A.; Ahammad, A.K.S.; Rahman, M.M.; Alam, M.R.; Haque, M.M. Economic Viability and Seasonal Impacts of Integrated Rice-Prawn-Vegetable Farming on Agricultural Households in Southwest Bangladesh. Water 2022, 14, 2756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Siddique, M.A.B.; Ahammad, A.K.S.; Mahalder, B.; Alam, M.M.; Hasan, N.A.; Bashar, A.; Biswas, J.C.; Haque, M.M. Perceptions of the Impact of Climate Change on Performance of Fish Hatcheries in Bangladesh: An Empirical Study. Fishes 2022, 7, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Siddique, M.A.B.; Ahammad, A.K.S.; Bashar, A.; Hasan, N.A.; Mahalder, B.; Alam, M.M.; Biswas, J.C.; Haque, M.M. Impacts of climate change on fish hatchery productivity in Bangladesh: A critical review. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mahalder, B.; Haque, M.M.; Siddique, M.A.B.; Hasan, N.A.; Alam, M.M.; Talukdar, M.M.N.; Shohan, M.H.; Ahasan, N.; Hasan, M.M.; Ahammad, A.K.S. Embryonic and Larval Development of Stinging Catfish, Heteropneustes fossilis, in Relation to Climatic and Water Quality Parameters. Life 2023, 13, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Prompatanapak, A.; Lopetcharat, K. Managing changes and risk in seafood supply chain: A case study from Thailand. Aquaculture 2020, 525, 735318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Haque, M.M.; Alam, M.M.; Hoque, M.S.; Hasan, N.A.; Nielsen, M.; Hossain, M.I.; Frederiksen, M. Can Bangladeshi pangasius farmers comply with the requirements of aquaculture certification? Aquac. Rep. 2021, 21, 100811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Islam, M.J.; Sayeed, M.A.; Akhter, S. Consumers profile analysis towards chicken, beef, mutton, fish and egg consumption in Bangladesh. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2818–2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rahman, M.N.; Islam, A.R.M.T. Consumer fish consumption preferences and contributing factors: Empirical evidence from Rangpur city corporation, Bangladesh. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thornber, K.; Bashar, A.; Ahmed, M.S.; Bell, A.; Trew, J.; Hasan, M.; Hasan, N.A.; Alam, M.M.; Chaput, D.L.; Haque, M.M.; et al. Antimicrobial Resistance in Aquaculture Environments: Unravelling the Complexity and Connectivity of the Underlying Societal Drivers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 14891–14903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jahan, K.M.; Belton, B.; Ali, H.; Dhar, G.C.; Ara, I. Aquaculture Technologies in Bangladesh: An Assessment of Technical and Economic Performance and Producer Behavior; Program Report 153; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Alam, M.M.; Haque, M.M.; Aziz, M.S.B.; Mondol, M.R. Development of pangasius–carp polyculture in Bangladesh: Understanding farm characteristics by, and association between, socio-economic and biological variables. Aquaculture 2019, 505, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cavusgil, S.T.; Zou, S. Marketing strategy performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kahiya, E.T. Five decades of research on export barriers: Review and future directions. Int. Bus. Rev. 2018, 27, 1172–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mataveli, M.; Ayala, J.C.; Gil, A.J.; Roldán, J.L. An analysis of export barriers for firms in Brazil. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2022, 28, 100200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Katsikeas, C.S.; Morgan, R.E. Differences in Perceptions of Exporting Problems Based on Firm Size and Export Market Experience. Eur. J. Mark. 1994, 28, 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tesfom, G.; Lutz, C. A classification of export marketing problems of small and medium sized manufacturing firms in developing countries. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2006, 1, 262–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tesfom, G.; Lutz, C.; Ghauri, P. Solving export marketing problems of small and medium-sized firms from developing countries. Afr. J. Bus. 2006, 7, 57–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Altintas, M.H.; Tokol, T.; Harcar, T. The effects of export barriers on perceived export performance: An empirical research on SMEs in Turkey. EuroMed J. Bus. 2007, 2, 36–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arteaga-Ortiz, J.; Fernandez-Ortiz, R. Why don’t use the same export barrier measurement scale? An empirical analysis in small and medium-sized enterprises. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2010, 48, 395–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mendy, J.; Rahman, M.; Bal, P.M. Using the “best-fit” approach to investigate the effects of politico-economic and social barriers on SMEs’ internationalization in an emerging country context: Implications and future directions. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 62, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Uner, M.M.; Kocak, K.; Cavusgil, E.; Cavusgil, S.T. Do barriers to export vary for born global and across stages of internationalization? An empirical inquiry in the emerging market of Turkey. Int. Bus. Rev. 2013, 22, 800–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sinkovics, R.R.; Kurt, Y.; Sinkovics, N. The effect of matching on perceived export barriers and performance in an era of globalization discontents: Empirical evidence from UK SMEs. Int. Bus. Rev. 2018, 27, 1065–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Leonidou, L.C. An Analysis of the Barriers Hindering Small Business Export Development. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2004, 42, 279–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Albaum, G.; Strandskov, J.; Derr, E. International Marketing and Export Management, 3rd ed.; Addison-Wesley: Harlow, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  46. Terpstra, V.; Sarathy, R. International Marketing; Dryden Press: Wilmington, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cateora, P.; Gilly, M.C.; Graham, J. International Marketing; Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Chicago, IL, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  48. Green, B.N.; Johnson, C.D.; Adams, A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. J. Chiropr. Med. 2006, 5, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hobbs, J.E.; Khorana, S.; Yeung, M.T. Moving beyond least developed country status: Challenges to diversifying Bangladesh’s seafood exports. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2023, 27, 498–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hossain, A.; Nielsen, M.; Islam, A.H.M.S. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for quality attributes of farmed fish in Bangladesh: A logit regression and a hedonic price analysis. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2024, 28, 262–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Uddin, M.N.; Kabir, K.H.; Roy, D.; Hasan, M.T.; Sarker, M.A.; Dunn, E.S. Understanding the constraints and its related factors in tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) fish culture at farm level: A case from Bangladesh. Aquaculture 2021, 530, 735927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Islam, S.R.; Haque, M.M.; Razzak, M.A.; Schlüter, L.; Ahsan, E.; Podduturi, R.; Jørgensen, N.O.G. Yellow tainting of flesh in pangasius (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus): Origin of the color and procedures for removal. Aquat. Sci. Eng. 2021, 36, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shamsuzzaman, M.M.; Mozumder, M.M.H.; Mitu, S.J.; Ahamad, A.F.; Bhyuian, M.S. The economic contribution of fish and fish trade in Bangladesh. Aquac. Fish. 2020, 5, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Emran, S.J.; Taslim, Q.N.; Taslim, M.A. Standards as trade barriers: The case of shrimp export of Bangladesh of EU. J. Bangladesh Stud. 2015, 17, 36–45. [Google Scholar]
  55. Akter, R.; Alam, M.T.; Tasnim, S. Problems and Prospects of Mongla Seaport in Bangladesh. Thoughts Econ. 2022, 32, 67–84. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hossain, M.M.; Rahman, M.A.; Bapary, M.A.J.; Bhattacharjee, D.; Roy, N.C.; Rahman, H.M.M. Prospects and impediments of fish processing plants in north east region of Bangladesh. IJRDO-J. Agric. Res. 2017, 3, 10–26. [Google Scholar]
  57. Alam, S.; Tomossy, G.F. Overcoming the SPS concerns of the Bangladesh fisheries and aquaculture sector: From compliance to engagement. J. Int. Trade Law Policy 2017, 16, 70–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Islam, I.; Nielsen, M.; Badiuzzaman, B.; Schulze-Ehlers, B. Knowledge transfer from experienced to emerging aquaculture industries in developing countries: The case of shrimp and pangasius in Bangladesh. J. Appl. Aquac. 2020, 33, 73–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Phan, T.H.; Stachuletz, R.; Nguyen, H.T.H. Export Decision and Credit Constraints under Institution Obstacles. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bertheussen, B.A.; Dreyer, B.M.; Hermansen, Ø.; Isaksen, J.R. Institutional and financial entry barriers in a fishery. Mar. Policy 2021, 123, 104303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dhaka Tribune. More Cash Incentives for Chilled Fish Exporters Soon. 2022. Available online: https://www.dhakatribune.com/business/275517/more-cash-incentives-for-chilled-fish-exporters (accessed on 15 March 2024).
  62. Mitra, S.; Khan, M.A.; Nielsen, R. Credit constraints and aquaculture productivity. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2019, 23, 410–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hu, F.; Zhong, H.; Wu, C.; Wang, S.; Guo, Z.; Tao, M.; Zhang, C.; Gong, D.; Gao, Z.; Tang, C.; et al. Development of fisheries in China. Reprod. Breed. 2021, 1, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Oura, M.M.; Zilber, S.N.; Lopes, E.L. Innovation capacity, international experience and export performance of SMEs in Brazil. Int. Bus. Rev. 2016, 25, 921–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Phan, H.T. Working Conditions, Export Decisions, and Firm Constraints-Evidence from Vietnamese Small and Medium Enterprises. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kotorri, M.; Krasniqi, B.A. Managerial Characteristics and Export Performance–Empirical Evidence from Kosovo. South East Eur. J. Econ. Bus. 2018, 13, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Barroso, R.M.; Muñoz, A.E.P.; Cai, J. Social and Economic Performance of Tilapia Farming in Brazil; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1181; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  68. FAO. GLOBEFISH Highlights 4th Issue 2022, with Jan.–Jun. 2022 Statistics—International Markets on Fisheries and Aquaculture Products. Quarterly Update; Globefish Highlights No. 4-2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023; 65p. [Google Scholar]
  69. Islam, I.; Nielsen, M.; Schulze-Ehlers, B.; Badiuzzaman, B. Exploring Performance Deficits in the Fish Feed Supply Chain of Bangladesh. Oper. Supply Chain. Manag. 2022, 15, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Agustin, A.F.; Albarki, H.R.; Martin, R.S.H.; Jayanegara, A. Identification of fish meal adulterated with rice bran by using an image analysis method. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2023; Volume 1241, p. 012138. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mamun-Ur-Rashid, M.; Belton, B.; Phillips, M.; Rosentrater, K.A. Improving Aquaculture Feed in Bangladesh: From Feed Ingredients to Farmer Profit to Safe Consumption; Working Paper; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2013; Volume 34, p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  72. ABL (Agrani Bank Limited). Changing Interest Rates of Bank Loan in Different Sectors; Agrani Bank Limited, Head Office: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bunting, S.W.; Bostock, J.; Leschen, W.; Little, D.C. Evaluating the potential of innovations across aquaculture product value chains for poverty alleviation in Bangladesh and India. Front. Aquac. 2023, 2, 1111266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hishamunda, N.; Ridler, N.B.; Bueno, P.G.; Yap, W. Commercial aquaculture in Southeast Asia: Some policy lessons. Food Policy 2009, 34, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zaki, M.A.A.; Qalansawe, A.N.; Nour, A.E.M.; El Basuini, M.F.; Dawood, M.A.O.; Alkahtani, S.; Abdel-Daim, M.M. The impact of stocking density and dietary carbon sources on the growth, oxidative status and stress markers of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) reared under biofloc conditions. Aquac. Rep. 2020, 16, 100282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Khan, M.A.; Begum, R.; Nielsen, R.; Hoff, A. Production risk, technical efficiency, and input use nexus: Lessons from Bangladesh aquaculture. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2021, 52, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dong, H.T.; Chaijarasphong, T.; Barnes, A.C.; Delamare-Deboutteville, J.; Lee, P.A.; Senapin, S.; Mohan, C.V.; Tang, K.F.J.; McGladdery, S.E.; Bondad-Reantaso, M.G. From the basics to emerging diagnostic technologies: What is on the horizon for tilapia disease diagnostics? Rev. Aquac. 2023, 15, 186–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bell, A.G.; Thornber, K.; Chaput, D.L.; Hasan, N.A.; Alam, M.M.; Haque, M.M.; Cable, J.; Temperton, B.; Tyler, C.R. Metagenomic assessment of the diversity and ubiquity of antimicrobial resistance genes in Bangladeshi aquaculture ponds. Aquac. Rep. 2023, 29, 101462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Suman, S.; Manyam, S.; Satyanarayana, K.V.; Vijayaraghavan, K. Food Safety System in Bangladesh: Current Status of Food Safety, Scientific Capability, and Industry Preparedness; Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2021; 47p. [Google Scholar]
  80. The Fish Site. Bangladesh Launches Aquaculture Alliance. 2011. Available online: https://thefishsite.com/articles/bangladesh-launches-aquaculture-alliance (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  81. Jin, C.; Levi, R.; Liang, Q.; Renegar, N.; Zhou, J. Food safety inspection and the adoption of traceability in aquatic wholesale markets: A game-theoretic model and empirical evidence. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 2807–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dong, K.T.P.; Saito, Y.; Hoa, N.T.N.; Dan, T.Y.; Matsuishi, T. Pressure–State–Response of traceability implementation in seafood-exporting countries: Evidence from Vietnamese shrimp products. Aquac. Int. 2019, 27, 1209–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kabir, R.I.; Narayanan, S.; Belton, B.; Hernandez, R.; Haque, M.M. Shrimp Value Chains in Bangladesh: A Scoping Study of Possible Research Interventions; Initiative Note No. 8; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2023; 33p. [Google Scholar]
  84. Mehar, M.; Mekkawy, W.; McDougall, C.; Benzie, J.A.H. Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) trait preferences by women and men farmers in Jessore and Mymensingh districts of Bangladesh. Aquaculture 2023, 562, 738799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hai, A.T.N.; Speelman, S. Understanding vulnerability and resilience of Vietnamese pangasius farming in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aquaculture 2023, 575, 739733. [Google Scholar]
  86. Tan, N.D.; Tuyen, V.T.X.; Ha, H.T.N.; Dao, D.T.A. Overview: The value chain of Tra catfish in Mekong Delta Region, Vietnam. Vietnam J. Chem. 2023, 61, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Saleh, R.; Bearth, A.; Siegrist, M. How chemophobia affects public acceptance of pesticide use and biotechnology in agriculture. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 91, 104197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wu-Wu, J.W.F.; Guadamuz-Mayorga, C.; Oviedo-Cerdas, D.; Zamora, W.J. Antibiotic Resistance and Food Safety: Perspectives on New Technologies and Molecules for Microbial Control in the Food Industry. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. BTP (Bangladesh Trade Portal). Fish and Fish Product Export Approval License. 2024. Available online: https://bangladeshtradeportal.gov.bd/index.php?r=searchProcedure/view1&id=45 (accessed on 21 September 2024).
  90. Amundsen, V.S.; Osmundsen, T.C. Becoming certified, becoming sustainable? Improvements from aquaculture certification schemes as experienced by those certified. Mar. Policy 2020, 119, 104097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Marti, L.; Puertas, R.; García-Álvarez-Coque, J.M. The effects on European importers’ food safety controls in the time of COVID-19. Food Control. 2021, 125, 107952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Paul, B.G.; Vogl, C.R. Key Performance Characteristics of Organic Shrimp Aquaculture in Southwest Bangladesh. Sustainability 2012, 4, 995–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Nguyen, H.D.M.; Matty, D.; Wim, V. Inclusiveness of consumer access to food safety: Evidence from certified rice in Vietnam. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100491. [Google Scholar]
  94. Munemo, J. The effect of regulation-driven trade barriers and governance quality on export entrepreneurship. Regul. Gov. 2021, 16, 1119–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pinnaduwa, U.; Mendis, E.; Kim, S.K. Improvements in Seafood Products through Recent Technological Advancements in Seafood Processing. In Encyclopedia of Marine Biotechnology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 2913–2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Russo, G.L.; Langellotti, A.L.; Torrieri1, E.; Masi, P. Emerging technologies in seafood processing: An overview of innovations reshaping the aquatic food industry. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023, 23, e13281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dhar, A.R.; Uddin, M.T.; Nielsen, M. Enhancing export potential of Pangasius and Tilapia through quality assurance and safety compliances: Case study of processing plants and exporters in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 2021, 531, 735921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Inderaja, B.M.; Tarigan, N.B.; Verdegem, M.C.J.; Keesman, K.J. Observability-based sensor selection in fish ponds: Application to pond aquaculture in Indonesia. Aquac. Eng. 2022, 98, 102258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Atma, Y.; Jusnita, N.; Melanie, S.; Taufik, M.; Yusuf, M. Transforming pangasius Greeefish waste into innovative nano particles: Elevating fish gelatin from derivative to product enhancement. Mater. Today Sustain. 2024, 26, 100750. [Google Scholar]
  100. Hasibuan, S.; Syafriadiman, S.; Aryani, N.; Fadhli, M.; Hasibuan, M. The age and quality of pond bottom soil affect water quality and production of Pangasius hypophthalmus in the tropical environment. Aquac. Fish. 2023, 8, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lertwanakarn, T.; Purimayata, T.; Luengyosluechakul, T.; Grimalt, P.B.; Pedrazzani, A.S.; Quintiliano, M.H.; Surachetpong, W. Assessment of Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) Welfare in the Semi-Intensive and Intensive Culture Systems in Thailand. Animals 2023, 13, 2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Edwards, P. The early history of freshwater fish production and consumption in Thailand. Front. Aquac. 2023, 2, 1238991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sampantamit, T.; Ho, L.; Lachat, C.; Sutummawong, N.; Sorgeloos, P.; Goethals, P. Aquaculture Production and Its Environmental Sustainability in Thailand: Challenges and Potential Solutions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Podduturi, R.; da Silva David, G.; da Silva, R.J.; Hyldig, G.; Jørgensen, N.O.G.; Petersen, M.A. Characterization and finding the origin of off-flavor compounds in Nile tilapia cultured in net cages in hydroelectric reservoirs, São Paulo State, Brazil. Food Res. Int. 2023, 173, 113375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Arumugam, M.; Jayaraman, S.; Sridhar, A.; Venkatasamy, V.; Brown, P.B.; Kari, A.Z.; Tellez-Isaias, G.; Ramasamy, T. Recent Advances in Tilapia Production for Sustainable Developments in Indian Aquaculture and Its Economic Benefits. Fishes 2023, 8, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Alam, M.M.; Jørgensen, N.O.G.; Bass, D.; Santi, M.; Nielsen, M.; Rahman, M.A.; Hasan, N.A.; Bablee, A.L.; Bashar, A.; Hossain, M.I.; et al. Potential of integrated multitrophic aquaculture to make prawn farming sustainable in Bangladesh. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1412919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aquacj 04 00022 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of export barriers for pangasius and tilapia from Bangladesh to the mainstream market (adapted from Cavusgil and Zou [33]).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of export barriers for pangasius and tilapia from Bangladesh to the mainstream market (adapted from Cavusgil and Zou [33]).
Aquacj 04 00022 g001
Aquacj 04 00022 g002
Figure 2. Map of Bangladesh showing the study site in Mymensingh district; scale is applicable to the map of Bangladesh only.
Figure 2. Map of Bangladesh showing the study site in Mymensingh district; scale is applicable to the map of Bangladesh only.
Aquacj 04 00022 g002
Table 1. Major aquaculture producers and the status of the production and export of farmed pangasius, tilapia, and shrimp from top Asian countries [1].
Table 1. Major aquaculture producers and the status of the production and export of farmed pangasius, tilapia, and shrimp from top Asian countries [1].
Name of CountriesProduction
(Million MT)		World Rank Based on ProductionMajor Species
PangasiusTilapiaShrimp
China 49.61stPP&EP&E
India8.62ndPPP&E
Indonesia5.23rdPP&EP&E
Vietnam4.64thP&EP&EP&E
Bangladesh2.65thPPP&E
Thailand0.910thPPP&E
P = producer; E = exporter.
Table 2. Division-wise and corresponding division top districts of aquaculture, pangasius and tilapia production, with color-coded sections highlighting the study areas [16].
Table 2. Division-wise and corresponding division top districts of aquaculture, pangasius and tilapia production, with color-coded sections highlighting the study areas [16].
Division-Wise Total Pond Aquaculture Production
(Ascending Order)		 Division-Wise Top Pond Production District
DivisionProduction (MT) DistrictProduction (MT)Pangasius Production (MT)Tilapia Production (MT)
Khulna614,249Aquacj 04 00022 i001→Mymensingh *314,515144,44823,494
Chattogram536,951→Cumilla227,30346,75641,731
Mymensingh *406,344→Jashore196,51614,59321,779
Rajshahi405,005Aquacj 04 00022 i002→Bogura93,08424,5016518
Dhaka306,517Aquacj 04 00022 i003→Dinajpur54,29491827927
Rangpur232,155→Barishal50,35614,60811,270
Barishal149,285→Gazipur36,94020858019
Sylhet80,564Aquacj 04 00022 i004→Moulvibazar24,40220127413
* “Mymensingh” represents both the name of a division and a district in Bangladesh.
Table 3. Referenced paper on seafood export barriers from Bangladesh.
Table 3. Referenced paper on seafood export barriers from Bangladesh.
Sl. No.Study About Constraints of Seafood Export from BangladeshAim/ObjectivesReferencesBarriers at Different Levels
InternalExternal
Company Product Industry Market Macroenvironment
a.Challenges to diversifying seafood exports.To examines Bangladesh’s fish and seafood export limits and identifies constraints.[49] ✓✓✓
b.Preference for quality attributes in Bangladeshi farmed fish.To investigate the consumer preferences for farmed fish in Bangladesh.[50]✓✓ ✓
c.Consumer willingness to pay for quality attributes of farmed pangasius
in Bangladesh.		To estimate the implicit price of the quality attributes of pangasius in Bangladesh.[19]✓✓ ✓
d.Constraints of tilapia
culture at farm level.		To understand and analyze constraints faced by the tilapia fish farmers at farm level in Bangladesh. [51] ✓ ✓
e.Prospects and challenges of yellow flesh pangasius in international markets.To assess yellow discoloration causes in Bangladeshi pangasius fillets, suggest mitigation measures, and evaluate economic viability.[3] ✓✓✓
f.Yellow tainting of flesh in pangasius. To investigate pangasius yellow flesh color reduction.[52] ✓ ✓✓
g.Economic contribution of fish and fish trade.To show the economic trend regarding the contribution of the fisheries sector.[53] ✓ ✓
h.Trade barriers of shrimp export from Bangladesh. To identify the causes of shrimp export trade barriers.[54] ✓ ✓
i.Value chain of pangasius and tilapia.To develop pangas and tilapia value chain map and estimate the value addition by different actors.[12]✓✓ ✓
j.Export trend of shrimp and export constraints.To evaluate the frozen “shrimp” export marketing system, prospect, problems and solutions.[55]✓✓
k.Prospects and impediments of fish processing plants.To evaluate the problems and prospects of fish processing plants. [56]✓✓✓✓
l.Export concern of Bangladesh fisheries and aquaculture.To assess impact of trade barriers on the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Bangladesh.[57]✓✓ ✓
Note: “✓” symbol indicates the problems identified from the cited articles in Table 3.
Table 4. Methodology used for primary data collection.
Table 4. Methodology used for primary data collection.
Respondent CategoryNumber of RespondentsStudy MethodsData/Information Gathered
UFOs (Upazila Fisheries Officers)3Key informant interviewFarmers’ knowledge of international trade, certification, governance, national infrastructure, and communication.
FIQC personnel2Key informant interviewInternational standard, product quality, market access.
Staff of processing plants5Key informant interviewIndustry structure, processing ability, manufacturing product and its quality, skilled and unskilled staff, financial crisis, buyer demand, market knowledge.
Personnel/staff of feed mills5Questionnaire interviewsFeed quality, types of feed, mixture of ingredients, source of ingredients, application of feed rules and regulations.
Representative of aqua medicine company5Questionnaire interviewsTypes of medicines, banned/unauthorized medicines, application systems, dosages, farmers’ perception.
Aquaculture producers
▪
Large farmers
10
(5 pangasius; 5 tilapia)		Questionnaire interviews, FGDsProduction system, good aquaculture practices, financial crisis, international trade knowledge, traceability.
▪
Small and medium farmers
30
(15 pangasius; 15 tilapia)		Questionnaire interviews, FGDsProduction system, export knowledge, and good aquaculture practices.
Table 5. Comparison of pangasius and tilapia production, processing, and export of top Asian countries.
Table 5. Comparison of pangasius and tilapia production, processing, and export of top Asian countries.
Name of CountriesProduction (Million MT)Export Value (Million USD)Farming Areas (ha)No. of Processing Plants Reference
PangasiusTilapiaPangasiusTilapiaPangasiusTilapia
China—1.66—872—133,000 ha120 tilapia processing plants.[16,84,85,86]
Vietnam1.560.142200455700Pond = 30,000 ha;
cage = 1.2 million m3		100 pangasius processing plants (some factories also used for tilapia).
Indonesia0.421.17—78.4——10 pangasius processing plants.
Bangladesh0.410.41——43,000—3 both pangasius and tilapia processing plants.
Thailand—0.21————
Note: “—" indicates the unavailability of data.
Table 6. Development of aquaculture governance systems over the years in Bangladesh.
Table 6. Development of aquaculture governance systems over the years in Bangladesh.
Sl. No.General AreasSpecific Policy/Regulation
A.Basic legislation (a) National fisheries policy, 1998
B.Accessibility legislation(a) National land use policy, 2001
(b) Fish and fish products (inspection and quality control) act, 2019
(c) Bangladesh water act, 2013
(d) Bangladesh water development board act, 2000
C.Environment influence
assessment		(a) Environment conservation act, 1995
(b) Environment conservation rules, 1997
(c) Environment court act, 2000 (as amended in 2002)
D.Water and wastewater (a) Bangladesh water act, 2013
E.Fish movement(a) The fisheries quarantine act, 2018
F.Disease control(a) Animal disease act, 2005
(b) Animal disease rules, 2008
G.Drugs and chemicals rules(a) National drug policy, 2016
H.Fish feed rules(a) Fish feed and animal feed act, 2010
(b) Fish feed rules, 2011
I.Fish hatchery rules(a) Fish hatchery act, 2010
(b) Fish hatchery rules, 2011
J.Food safety(a) Fish and fish product (inspection and quality control) ordinance, 1983
(b) Fish and fish product rules, 1997
K.Aquaculture investment(a) Foreign private investment (promotion and protection) act, 1980
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alam, M.M.; Haque, M.M.; Santi, M. Barriers to the Export of Farmed Pangasius and Tilapia from Bangladesh to the International Market: Evidence from Primary and Secondary Data. Aquac. J. 2024, 4, 293-315. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4040022

AMA Style

Alam MM, Haque MM, Santi M. Barriers to the Export of Farmed Pangasius and Tilapia from Bangladesh to the International Market: Evidence from Primary and Secondary Data. Aquaculture Journal. 2024; 4(4):293-315. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4040022

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alam, Md. Mehedi, Mohammad Mahfujul Haque, and Morena Santi. 2024. "Barriers to the Export of Farmed Pangasius and Tilapia from Bangladesh to the International Market: Evidence from Primary and Secondary Data" Aquaculture Journal 4, no. 4: 293-315. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4040022

APA Style

Alam, M. M., Haque, M. M., & Santi, M. (2024). Barriers to the Export of Farmed Pangasius and Tilapia from Bangladesh to the International Market: Evidence from Primary and Secondary Data. Aquaculture Journal, 4(4), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj4040022

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop