Collapse and recovery of seafood wholesale prices in time of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread around the world, disrupting economies, societies and daily life. Early research anticipated significant negative impacts for the globalized seafood supply network. Here, we explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on wholesale prices from five major seafood markets around the world. An anomalies analysis was used to establish a 5-year baseline price for each commodity. Daily price data from 2020 were compared to the baseline to identify collapses (>1.96 SE from baseline) and analyse collapse characteristics (timing, duration and magnitude). Non-uniform price collapses were observed across, and within, the markets analysed. Toyosu (Tokyo) Market experienced price collapses to 51% of commodities, Rungis (Paris) 36%, Mercamadrid (Madrid) 19%, Mercado La Nueva Viga (Mexico City) 35% and the Portland Fish Exchange (Portland, Maine) 32%. Collapse magnitude varied from 11% to 79% of the 5-year average price. Average collapse duration ranged from 13 to 24 weeks with some commodities (4%-22%) remaining collapsed at the end of 2020. For markets where volume data were available, collapses were also noted (59% of commodities in Toyosu, 10% in Mercamadrid and 19% in Portland Fish Exchange); in these cases, the volume collapse was more severe than the related price collapse. To better detect, anticipate and respond to future shocks, we recommend that relevant government agencies conduct comprehensive economic reviews of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the seafood supply chain, including the outcomes of emergency measures, short- and long-term implications of market volatility and identify areas of supply and labour vulnerabilities.

INTRODUCTION

Fisheries are known to regularly experience economic, ecological and technological shocks. Natural disasters that disturb fisheries operations or productivity, trade and political disputes that interrupt seafood supply networks and sudden and unanticipated shifts in fisheries management policies have been noted to have significant impacts on fisheries (Smith et al., 2020). While analyses of shocks to fishery production have revealed that fisheries in different regions of the world experience shocks with varying frequency and intensity, shocks are consistently seen over recent decades which “suggests that shocks are a common feature of [seafood] production systems” (Gephart et al., 2017, p. 28). Observed fishery shocks were most commonly attributed to political challenges, fishery management and overexploitation of fisheries (Gephart et al., 2017). As COVID‐19 impacted societies, markets and imports and exports around the world, its implications on fisheries and coastal communities, both from the public health and economic perspective were anticipated to be unprecedented and largely unknown.

At the time of writing, over a year after the WHO declaration of the COVID‐19 pandemic in March 2020, a high level of uncertainty about the future course of the pandemic persists. We also do not know what the long‐term impacts will be for fisheries and fishing communities. In nations where fisheries are recognized as an essential service, operations have adapted to evolving health guidance (Smith et al., 2020) with associated costs. Concerns have been raised around the health of those working in the fishery sector (Bennett et al., 2020) as the nature of fisheries work carries some risk for COVID‐19 transmission (Sorensen et al., 2020). Additionally, migrant and temporary workers have faced uncertainty around travel, additional precautionary measures (Baker, 2020; White, 2020; Withers, 2020) and stigma associated with fear that workers may carry the virus into the communities where they work (Havice et al., 2020).

In addition to the health concerns that accompany the pandemic, the fishery sector has been subject to economic impacts. Research that emerged early in the pandemic highlighted media and anecdotal observations of fishery closures (Artelle et al., 2020; Stueck, 2020), shortened fishing seasons (White et al., 2021), shutdowns and large‐scale market disruptions (Bennett et al., 2020). Demand for seafood has shifted as a result of disease containment measures (Jamwal & Phulia, 2021). Public health measures mandated business closures, physical distancing and lockdowns, shifting seafood demand away from hospitality and food service (Havice et al., 2020; Love et al., 2021) and towards shelf‐stable and frozen products that help mitigate fluctuating supply and demand and are more easily stored and prepared at home (Havice et al., 2020; White et al., 2021). Reports early in the pandemic suggested that due to increased demand, new regional and local supply chains were being established and increasingly used; however, the extent to which these shifts will persist remains unknown (Bassett et al., 2021). The flow of fisheries products along globalized supply chains has been impeded by disruptions to international trade and transportation, including reduced freight availability, increased cost (Havice et al., 2020; Lennane, 2020) and backlogs (Havice et al., 2020). Coping strategies that emerged in the first months of the pandemic disruptions included increased food sharing, reliance on local networks, increased direct marketing (Bennett et al., 2020), diversifying supply chains (Love et al., 2021) and increased reliance on subsistence fisheries (Higgs, 2021).

Surveys conducted early in the pandemic have confirmed some of the anticipated impacts discussed above. Survey data collected from fishers in the Northeast United States reported a loss of income related to the pandemic within the first months (Smith et al., 2020). Other survey data from aquaculture producers in the United States support earlier media and anecdotal reports of reduced demand, resulting in increased costs for producers and the need to seek out new market channels (van Senten et al., 2020). It is important to recognize that costly health precautions may be difficult to implement and further supportive measures may not be accessible for fishers (Okyere et al., 2020). The pandemic's impact on mobility was highlighted early on as particularly concerning for a sector that relies on a globalized supply chain (Havice et al., 2020). This concern was confirmed by reports that international supply chains had become “effectively inactive since the onset of COVID‐19 [as of May 30, 2020]” (Bassett et al., 2021, p. 3) and the loss of domestic and international markets had a significant impact on those in the United States fishery sector.

Measures to mitigate the impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the fishery sector had associated real costs with knock‐on economic implications. In some cases, those working in the sector are confronted with weighing the risk of potential exposure to the virus and the financial repercussions of refraining from working (Smith et al., 2020). Fishery sector workers have lost income and employment due to fishery closures and supply chain impacts (FAO, 2021a; van Senten et al., 2020). Disruptions to the supply chain impact those at all points along the chain with backlogs and oversupply or too little product available (Jamwal & Phulia, 2021). Each of these impacts has potential to cause long‐term consequences for the fisheries sector.

While the impacts of the pandemic are still evolving, we are increasingly able to gather data to inform our understanding of how the pandemic impacts unfolded throughout 2020. Research that was conducted early in the pandemic sought to utilize the data that was available at the time to understand the evolving impacts of the pandemic on the fishery sector. As we have learned to live with the pandemic, research methods, data availability and our understanding of the short‐ and longer term impacts of the pandemic have improved.

Literature that emerged early in the pandemic outlined three main concerns around the market impacts of the pandemic based on common and grounded assumptions of supply and demand. First, there was a common expectation of a widespread drop in demand for fish and seafood products as a result of pandemic restrictions and reduced activity to prevent the spread of the disease. Second, there was a further expectation that products destined for hospitality, restaurants and catering services (such as higher value, luxury and fresh products) would be more severely impacted. Third, the spread of the pandemic and associated restrictions was expected to cause multiple opportunities for bottlenecks along the seafood supply chain, such as during processing, storage and transportation. Each of these market‐driven impacts has the potential to jeopardize income, economic security and livelihoods for those along the seafood supply chain and can of course act separately or simultaneously.

In this article, we explore whether these expectations were realized by analysing daily wholesale price data from five seafood markets across global regions, including some of the largest markets in the world. We recognize that price is not necessarily reflective of income, as fishers and wholesalers could choose to switch to lower cost and lower risk alternatives (Dahl & Ogland, 2014). However, price uncertainty and lower overall prices can certainly reflect overall earnings and the state of local economies where fisheries play a major role (Watson et al., 2021). We, therefore, used market price data given its utility and availability across markets, and we combined this price data with volume data wherever possible as a first step in understanding the economic impact of the pandemic on fishworkers and consumers. We particularly focus on understanding how seafood markets and specific commodities responded to the economic and social shocks of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and whether response patterns were uniform around the world. Further, we contribute to related research by analysing the length and extent of price recovery periods for seafood commodities—an area largely unexplored in the early pandemic literature.

METHODOLOGY

Data

We collected data and analysed the economic impacts of COVID‐19 on five seafood markets around the world where daily prices were publicly available: Tokyo Toyosu Central Wholesale Market (Japan), Marché de Rungis (France), Mercamadrid (Spain), Mercado La Nueva Viga (Mexico; henceforth referred to as “La Viga”), Portland Fish Exchange (Maine, United States), See Table 1 for details of the selected markets. The first four markets represent four of the top ten most important fish markets in the world (Fiorillo, 2014). The Portland Fish Exchange was included as a proxy for North American markets given that daily prices were not publicly available for the larger Fulton Seafood Market (New York City). Data analysis focused on price changes from January 1 to December 31, 2020. Additional data from 2015 to 2019 were incorporated into the analysis to allow for an anomalies analysis to account for seasonal fluctuations in prices and the variability of fish/seafood prices, thereby reducing the likelihood of falsely associating price fluctuations with COVID‐19. Data were accessed in February 2021. All data publicly available on each market's webpage were retrieved and processed using Python (version 3.6.4).

TABLE 1

Details of the markets selected for analysis include the statistics and characteristics that highlight their importance for the global seafood supply chain and provide context for the interpretation of COVID‐19 impacts on each market. Mexico and Madrid both identify “frequent” prices, which is understood here to be a mid‐range price

Market	Location	Intrafish ranking	Market details	Total volume (tons/day fish and seafood)	Total sales	Number of commodities	Price available	Volume data available
Tokyo Toyosu Central Wholesale Market a	Tokyo, Japan	1	Largest seafood market in the world	1342 t/day	14 M USD/day	91	High Mid Low	Yes
Marché de Rungis b	Paris, France	2	“largest fresh product market in the world” Meat, fish, produce, flowers	375 t/day (2016)	€852 million in fish/seafood in 2016	129	High Mid Low	No
Mercamadrid	Madrid, Spain	4	“second most important seafood market in the world, after Tokyo” c Fish, meat, produce	471 tons/day (2019) d		129	Frequent	Yes
Mercado de la Nueva Viga e	Mexico City, Mexico	7	Largest seafood market in Latin America Seafood, some other food products	1500 tons/day		51	Frequent	No
Portland Fish Exchange	Portland, Maine, United States	N/A	Oldest wholesale fresh fish auction in the U.S. (Seafood Source, 2012)	N/A	N/A	57	Average	Yes

Tokyo Central Wholesale Market Transaction Data (Tokyo‐to Chuo Oroshiuri Ichiba Shijo Torihiki Joho, in Japanese). https://www.shijou.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/torihiki/.

Rungis Marché International, (n.d.).

Mercamadrid. (n.d. a). Mercado central de pescados.https://www.mercamadrid.es/mercado‐central‐de‐pescados/

Mercamadrid. (n.d. b). Récord histórico en la comercialización, con más de tres millones de toneladas. https://www.mercamadrid.es/record‐historico‐en‐la‐comercializacion/.

La Neuva Viga CDMX. (n.d.). La Neuva Viga Twitter. https://twitter.com/lanuevaviga?lang=en.

“second most important seafood market in the world, after Tokyo”

Analysis of price collapse

We performed an anomaly analysis using 5 years of data (2015–2019) to estimate weekly average values of price and weight. In order to identify anomalies and following standard methods for time‐series anomaly detection to avoid false positives (Celik et al., 2011), we used a threshold of 1.96 SE, representing a 95% confidence interval, a standard practice in time series’ anomaly detection (Cordero‐Quirós et al., 2019; Madaan et al., 2019).

Data were considered in two blocks; pre‐2020 and 2020. The year was divided into 52 numbered weeks and the average value per week of the year was estimated (regardless of the year) to account for pre‐2020 seasonal seafood price fluctuations. Standard errors were estimated for each week of the year pre‐2020. For 2020, an average of all values per week of the year was estimated. Averages in 2020 were compared to the average pre‐2020 to determine significant changes per week of the year (weeks 1–52). Prices were adjusted for inflation in national currency up to 2020 using the Consumer Price Index (The World Bank, 2020).

We defined a price collapse as a weekly price value that was below the threshold of −1.96 SE for four or more consecutive weeks. Conversely, if a commodity that experienced a collapse presented values higher than −1.96 SE for four consecutive weeks, we considered it as a recovery. Following these definitions, some commodities could experience more than one collapse over the analysed time period. We report the mean for the week of the first and second collapses, as well as the duration in number of weeks, and magnitude measured as the per cent variation from the 5‐year baseline.

RESULTS

Price collapses were observed across all the markets analysed; however, price responses to the pandemic were not uniform across markets nor consistent within a market (Table 2). Toyosu Market experienced the highest occurrence of price collapses with half (51%) of its listed commodities followed by Rungis (Paris) 36% of commodities, La Viga (Mexico City) 35% of commodities, the Portland Fish Exchange (Portland, ME) 32% of commodities and Mercamadrid (Madrid) 19% of commodities. The average duration of collapse ranged from 13 to 24 weeks. In all markets, the price of some commodities (4%–22%) never recovered, remaining below the threshold to the end of 2020. For markets where volume data were available, collapses were also noted (Toyosu – 59% of commodities, Mercamadrid – 10% of commodities and Portland Fish Exchange – 19% of commodities). For all markets, the mean week of collapse happened after week 12 (Mar 16–22). The mean and mode duration of collapses varied across markets. The magnitude of collapse varied from 10.7% of the previous average to 78.6%. For markets with volume data available, the collapse in volume was more severe in magnitude than the related price collapse.

TABLE 2

Summary statistics for all markets in relation to commodities that presented collapses

Market	Variable	N total	N collapsed	N recovered	N second collapse	N yet to recover (as of Dec 31 2020)	Mean week collapse (± SE)	Mean duration collapse in weeks (± SE)	Mean magnitude collapse (%)
Tokyo Central Toyosu Wholesale Market	High Price	91	47 (51%)	28 (31%)	15	19 (20%)	12.19 ± 1.2	17.57 ± 1.3	−18.1 ± 1.5
	Volume	91	54 (59%)	41 (45%)	11	13 (14%)	16.76 ± 1.7	16.02 ± 1.4	−44.5 ± 3.3
Marché de Rungis	High Price	129	46 (36%)	18 (14%)	6	28 (22%)	17.87 ± 2.1	18.11 ± 1.6	−16 ± 1.9
Mercamadrid	Mid‐ Price	245	46 (19%)	31 (13%)	14	15 (6%)	15.76 ± 2	13.74 ± 1.4	−18.5 ± 1.5
	Volume	245	25 (10%)	19 (8%)	2	6 (2%)	22.2 ± 2.7	8.11 ± 0.6	−70.4 ± 4
Mercado de la Nueva Viga	Mid‐ Price	51	18 (35%)	16 (31%)	8	2 (4%)	12.28 ± 3.4	17.44 ± 3	−10.7 ± 1.7
Portland Fish Exchange	Mid‐ Price	57	17 (32%)	11 (21%)	2	6 (11%)	13.52 ± 2.2	24.33 ± 2.5	−58.8 ± 6.2
	Volume	57	11 (19%)	7 (12%)	2	4 (7%)	21.27 ± 2.4	11.29 ± 2.9	−78.6 ± 5.1

We used mid‐price for all markets, except France and Japan, for which High Price data were more complete and thus was considered more reliable. N total refers to the total number of commodities that were analysed for each market. N collapse refers to the number of commodities that experienced a collapse. Mean values are presented for the week and the duration of the first collapse and the magnitude of the first collapse, expressed as a per cent variation from the 5‐year baseline. N yet to be recovered refers to commodities that remain below 1.96 SE by week 53. Percentages are not weighted. Mean collapse data are for commodities that were considered to be recovered within 2020. Commodities that were not recovered by December 31 2020 have been excluded from collapse characteristics data.

Price and volume collapses were not uniform among the markets analysed. As seen in Figure 1, the date, duration and temporal distribution of collapse varied between markets. Similarly, collapse characteristics varied between commodities within each market (See Tables S1–S5, Figures [Link], [Link], [Link], [Link], [Link]). In both La Viga (Mexico City) and Mercamadrid (Madrid), notable proportions of commodities were already at levels considered to be collapsed at the beginning of 2020, which can be understood to likely be unrelated to the COVID‐19 pandemic. At La Viga (Mexico City), several varieties of shrimp and a few other commodities started 2020 with very low prices. For Mercamadrid (Madrid), 31 commodities across a range of species (halibut, herring, salmon, snapper and others) started below the averages from the previous years. Across all markets, a large proportion of collapses occurred within the first few months of the year, with no clear trend in collapse durations. Notably, La Viga (Mexico City) saw less widespread collapse with shorter durations.

FIGURE 1

The week of first and second collapse (only for commodities that experienced recovery), duration of collapse in weeks and magnitude of collapse for each market analysed. The dashed line indicates the mean value

Tokyo Toyosu Central Wholesale Market – Japan

Toyosu (and its predecessor in Tsukiji) is one of the three central wholesale markets operated by the City of Tokyo that handle seafood products. Accounting for 90% of the total sales (in value) in Tokyo, it is the primary seafood market in Japan. Nationally, the market accounts for over 25% of the wholesale seafood sales (Tokyo Central Wholesale Market, 2015).

Japan initially had a mixed response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, relying primarily on voluntary measures rather than compulsory closures and other restrictions. A nationwide State of Emergency declaration in April 2020 was short‐lived (lifted in May 2020) (Prime Minister of Japan, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). The government's focus quickly pivoted to economic concerns, highlighted by a massive subsidy program to encourage domestic tourism and dining out in the latter half of 2020. While some large entertainment facilities voluntarily closed, most retail shops and restaurants continued to operate throughout 2020, albeit with reduced hours of operations and with some measures of social distancing. Thus, Japan did not experience a severe lockdown of its economy akin to those experienced in China, Europe or North America (Government of Japan, 2020).

Consequently, price fluctuations observed were likely driven by speculations over global and domestic seafood demands rather than as a direct response to the government's COVID‐related restrictions. Price collapses staggered throughout the year (See Table 2, Figure S1), with most occurring between week 5 (early February) and week 30 (mid‐August). Twenty three (25%) of commodities experienced a price collapse prior week 12, prior to the State of Emergency declaration. The duration of price collapse ranged with four commodities (4%) recovering within 8 weeks, 19 commodities (21%) within 20 weeks and 19% of commodities remaining collapsed through the end of 2020. Collapse magnitude ranged from −47% to no collapse, with the average magnitude of collapses around 18%.

Volume collapses preceded price collapse with 13 (14%) prior to week 8 and 27 (30%) prior to week 12 (see Table 2, Figure S1). No significant trend was noted in weight data, suggesting that the volume of both supply and demand remained unchanged. Fifty‐nine per cent of commodities experienced a collapse in volume. Forty‐five per cent experienced a second collapse during the year as well and 14% remained collapsed at the end of 2020.

With 91 commodity types, daily price data from the Toyosu Market allowed for comparison across product forms (i.e. “fresh/chilled”, “frozen” and “prepared”), which revealed that some product forms responded differently to the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, some fresh/chilled products were more likely to collapse than their frozen and prepared counterparts (see Table 3). The latter two product types allow for longer shelf‐life, thus enabling buyers to respond to mid‐ to long‐term market forecast rather than short‐term conditions. Corresponding volume data suggest that there were shifts from fresh towards frozen products (see Figure 2) with sellers foregoing price premium associated with the fresh products. There was a notable erosion of the high price premium within commodities (See Figure 3), potentially related to demand shifting to more shelf stable products and the impact of COVID precautions on the hospitality sector, where premium products are more commonly desired.

TABLE 3

Comparison of presentations

Market	Presentation	N	% Collapse price	% Collapse weight
Tokyo Toyosu Central Wholesale Market	Frozen	19	5 (26%)	8 (42%)
	Prepared	19	6 (32%)	10 (53%)
	Fresh	53	36 (68%)	36 (68%)
Marché de Rungis	Frozen	21	1 (5%)	–
	Processed	33	14 (42%)	–
	Fresh	75	31 (41%)	–
Mercamadrid	Frozen	112	1 (1%)	0 (0%)
	Fresh	133	45 (34%)	25 (19%)
Mercado de la Nueva Viga	–	–	–	–
Portland Fish Exchange	–	–	–	–

FIGURE 2

Time series of the daily high price for fresh and frozen bluefin tuna at the Toyosu Central Wholesale Market from January 1 2015 to December 31 2020. The dashed line indicates April 7, 2020, the date that the government of Japan declared a national State of Emergency as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic

FIGURE 3

Time series of the volume of fresh and frozen bluefin tuna sold at Toyosu Central Wholesale Market from January 1 2015 to December 31 2020. The dashed line indicates April 7, 2020, the date that the government of Japan declared a national State of Emergency as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic

Marché de Rungis – France

Coronavirus containment measures have been in place in France throughout the pandemic to various extents. On March 14, 2020, restaurants, food service establishments, schools and non‐essential businesses were required to close. This was closely followed by a lockdown which limited movement to essential purposes only, which entered into force on March 17, 2020 (Gouvernement Français, n.d.). The initial lockdown announcement was for a period of at least 15 days; however, the period was ultimately extended until May 11, 2020 when progressive re‐opening began. The general closure of restaurants ended on June 2, 2020, and the nationwide State of Health Emergency put in place on March 24 ended on July 10, 2020. Following the development of a second epidemic wave in September/October 2020, a second nationwide State of Health Emergency entered into force on October 17, comprising notably the establishment of a curfew (from 9 PM to 6 AM) for areas with high rates of virus activity. On October 30, 2020, France entered a second national lockdown which ended on December 15, 2020. It was less restrictive than the first one, leaving schools open (but not universities) and enabling many sectors to continue their activities. This was not the case for restaurants that remained closed until June 2021.

At Marché de Rungis, 43% of commodities experienced a collapse in 2020 (See Figure 1). The greatest proportion (54%) of collapses occurred prior to week 12 (late March), although some commodities saw impacts as early as week 6 (Mid‐February) or as late as week 50 (mid‐December) (See Figure S2). Average collapse duration was about 18 weeks, although, as seen in Figure 1 collapse duration varied. twenty‐two per cent of commodities remained collapsed at the end of 2020. The initial collapse was, on average, 16% below average baseline prices. The notable price collapse around week 12 corresponds with the announcement of a 15‐day national lockdown that began March 17, 2020. A second lockdown followed in October 2020; however, there was no subsequent collapses in price for species that had recovered.

Fresh commodity price collapses were more significant than for comparable frozen and prepared commodities. Forty‐one per cent of fresh commodities collapsed, 34% of processed commodities collapsed and 5% (one) frozen commodity price collapsed (See Table 3). It is of note that frozen fish benefited from an increased demand by consumers in 2020 compared to previous years, especially during the lockdown periods (FranceAgriMer, 2020a, 2020b).

In 2020, the average first sale price reported across French fish auctions declined by 2% to 3.38 €/kg, in opposition to the upward trend observed in 2019 (FranceAgriMer, 2021a). The price declines were observed in almost all commodity categories (as white fish, small pelagics, cephalopods) but with diverse situations within categories in view of the different market outlets (FranceAgriMer, 2021a). Our analysis of the daily prices at Marché de Rungis confirms this nationwide variability in price response. For example, our analysis shows that turbot and grey sea bream experienced a significant price collapse during the initial lockdown in week 12. This price collapse lasted until the end of 2020 for the turbot, while grey sea bream recovered by week 27 and collapsed again in week 39. Despite these commodities supply common market (i.e. restaurations, FranceAgriMer, 2020c, 2021b; Jégou, 2020) and share similar characteristics, their response diverged. Another similar commodity, sole, showed no effect at the national level with prices remaining comparable to 2019 (FranceAgriMer, 2021b).

Mercamadrid – Spain

The first case of COVID‐19 was reported in Spain on January 31, 2020 (Reuters, 2020b). The announcement of a national state of emergency on March 14, 2020 mandated essential movement only, with all non‐essential food service establishments closed (Gobierno de España, 2020). On March 28, a mandate for all non‐essential workers to stay home for 2 weeks was enacted (Reuters, 2020b). The State of Emergency was eventually ended June 21, 2020 (Dellana, 2020). However, curfews and other COVID‐19 precautions remained in place amid continuing presence of the disease.

There was no significant trend on the impact of COVID‐19 on prices for Mercamadrid when analysing whether more expensive resources experienced longer, larger or more frequent collapses. However, negative changes in price and volume were predominant, with 19% of commodities showing price collapses. The average collapse duration of 13.7 weeks (Table 2) with 6% of commodities remaining collapsed at the end of 2020. Average magnitude of collapse was 18.5% below the 5‐year price baseline. Volume collapses were also noted with 10% of commodities experiencing a volume collapse and 2% remaining collapsed at the end of 2020. Collapses in volume were larger than those observed for price, with the mean magnitude of 70.4% below the 5‐year baseline.

Thirty‐four per cent of fresh commodities collapsed, while only one (1%) frozen commodity experienced a price collapse. This may be connected to the strength of the frozen product market in the face of lockdowns and uncertainty about whether fresh product would be used in the home or HORECA market amid the uncertainty of the pandemic. Overall, there is indication that Spanish fisheries were able to recover relatively quickly from initial market downturns brought about by national lockdowns. This was due to a reduction in operating costs resulting from decreased effort and a lower price of fuel, coupled with stable revenue from a range of government subsidy programs. These include existing income support programs that were triggered by reduced fishing revenue, as well as specific supports implemented to stabilize the Spanish economy in response to the Covid‐19 pandemic (Ortega et al., 2020).

Mercado La Nueva Viga – Mexico

The first COVID cases in Mexico were reported on Feb 28, 2020. Over a month later, on March 30, 2020, a Health Emergency was declared, and all non‐essential activities were suspended for 30 days (Reuters, 2020a). A traffic light system was announced on May 14, 2020 to provide guidance on COVID precautions in various areas of Mexico (KPMG, 2020). Additionally, in early May, another large market in Mexico City was designated an “Area of High Contagion” but was not closed given food markets’ role in the local food supply chain (Torres, 2020). Throughout the pandemic, different areas of the country have moved among the four levels (green, yellow, orange and red) of the traffic light system to advise the public on restrictions and other precautionary measures, but few – if any – mandatory closures have been enacted after May of 2020.

Many commodities (n = 21, 41%) were below the 5‐year baseline price at the beginning of 2020 indicating that the market was already facing a downturn prior to the declaration of the pandemic (See Figure S4). Many of these commodities remained collapsed throughout the year (n = 17, 33%) and have been excluded from the analysis here, as the reason for the price drop is likely not due to COVID and would artificially increase the duration of collapses experienced by other commodities. An additional 10 (19%) commodities traded in this market experienced a collapse prior to week 12 (late March) following the declaration of the pandemic. Unlike other markets in this study, the late March collapses were short, lasting 8–12 weeks on average. Four per cent of commodities that collapsed throughout 2020 remained collapsed at the end of 2020 (See Table 2). The mean magnitude of collapse was 10.7% below the average price for the commodity.

A number of commodity prices were already flagged as ‘collapsed’ in our data at the beginning of 2020 and, for the most part, remained collapsed throughout, such as shrimp, prawn and oyster. These collapses were likely not related to the COVID‐19 pandemic, as these species are fished nationally and the market impact preceded reports of COVID in Mexico. There is a very high (60%) proportion of informal workers in Mexico, with most people unable to work from home. Therefore, daily activities at the La Viga market were mainly impacted by official physical closures of the market rather than market behaviour of consumers or fishmongers. Given the key role of La Viga market in supplying Mexico City's seafood restaurant sector, it is likely that official restaurant closures during the earlier stages of the pandemic explain the generalized price collapses, but relatively rapid recovery once official restrictions ended (Figure 1). There were widespread reports of disruptions to prices and demand for seafood experienced by national fishers (Pradilla, 2020; Toledo, 2020), but without income support programs and few alternative employment options due to the wider economic downturn caused by the pandemic, fisheries continued to operate with lower profits (Environmental Defense Fund de Mexico, Ethos Laboratorio de Políticas Públicas, & Impacto Collectivo, 2021). These effects would not be visible with data from La Viga market, which compiles production from across the country, but future research should aim to explore such impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic at the fisher level.

Portland Fish Exchange – United States

The Portland Fish Exchange opened in 1986 to support the fish and seafood industry in the state of Maine. The auction provides a venue for producers and others along the seafood supply chain to connect as well as to provide a hub for information and advocacy to support the sector (Portland Fish Exchange, 2022).

On January 31, 2020, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services declared COVID‐19 a Public Health Emergency (United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Press Office, 2019), followed by the March 13, 2020 announcement of a National Emergency dating back to March 1, 2020 (Proclamation9994, 2020). In Maine, the state where the Portland Seafood Exchange is located, the first case of COVID‐19 was reported on March 12, 2020 (State of Maine, n.d.). On March 18, 2020, restaurants and bars closed to dine in food service for a period of 14 days (Exec Order No. 14 FY 19/20, 2020). Followed by the March 24, 2020, mandate for all non‐essential businesses ordered to close if public facing. Essential businesses were ordered to implement safety measures such as limiting capacity and socially distanced ordering and pick up options. One week later, a Stay at Home directive was issued. On April 29, 2020, the Stay Safer at Home Executive Order was issued, allowing the reopening of businesses deemed safe. Citizens were still encouraged to stay at home when possible. The gradual reopening of HORECA and other businesses followed in staged approaches through May and June 2020 (State of Maine, n.d.).

The Portland Fish Exchange data suggested a strong impact of COVID‐19 on seafood prices (See Table 2, Figure S5). Thirty‐two per cent of commodities experienced a price collapse. The average week of collapse was 10.9 and average duration of collapse was 24.3 weeks. Eleven per cent of commodities remained collapsed at the end of 2020. The average magnitude of collapse was 61.1%.

The Portland, Maine market data analysed here illustrate a widespread drop in prices across species and commodities associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic. The significant price collapse has been linked to the impact of public health measures on HORECA markets in the US and abroad (Martens in NRDems Forum: Virtual Roundtable on Coronavirus Impacts to American Fisheries and the Seafood Supply Chain, 2020; Smith et al., 2020). With the loss of domestic and export markets some fishers reported that buyers asked them not to fish as they would be unable to move the volume of landings usually sold (Martens in NRDems Forum: Virtual Roundtable on Coronavirus Impacts to American Fisheries and the Seafood Supply Chain, 2020). Trade statistics show lower export volumes for seafood products in 2020 (United States Census Bureau, n.d.). Preliminary landing statistics confirm that for many species 2020 landings were below previous years, while others saw growth in value or volume (Department of Marine Resources, 2021).

DISCUSSION

Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic

Overall, the large‐scale, prolonged market‐driven impacts anticipated in the early pandemic literature were not observed. While the world continues to experience recurring waves of COVID‐19 infections, we do not yet know the full extent of the short‐ or long‐term impacts. In 2021, some parts of the seafood sector seemed to experience a swift recovery, and in some cases, record prices were noted (FAO, 2021b; Nilson, 2022). Whether full recovery is possible or whether a new normal is established remains to be seen.

The COVID pandemic had a significant impact on price for some seafood commodities across the markets analysed, though the magnitude and duration of impact vary between commodity type and market. There are various possible explanations for the variations in price impacts. The price collapse in the first few weeks of the pandemic is an immediate reaction to the evaporated demand due to pandemic closures and restrictions, as anticipated by the research emerging early in the pandemic. The decline in demand occurs mostly in March, though commodities exported to China in large quantities may have felt the impact as early as December 2019 and early 2020. The durations and levels of restrictions across markets might affect commodity prices as well as the degrees to which these markets are reliant on international demand. For example, commodity prices in Mexico rebounded swiftly after the first collapse because Mexico eased restrictions faster compared to other countries and the market supplies predominantly local consumptions.

Research emerging early in the pandemic anticipated the nature of the commodities and how they are consumed would play a role in the impacts observed. Some research cited reports of increased sales in shelf‐stable (Havice et al., 2020; White et al., 2021) and frozen seafood commodities (Love et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2020; White et al., 2021), suggesting that these commodities may be less significantly impacted compared to their fresh counterparts. Our analysis did not find this to be a widespread impact, with a few exceptions such as bluefin tuna at Toyosu and octopus at Rungis. Furthermore, the expectation that commodities with lower average prices might not have experienced as big of a drop as those with high average prices as the latter are considered luxury goods, was not observed across all markets. By contrast, in Portland there was a weak, but significant trend where lower value resources decreased the most in price and volume.

The seafood market over the past decades has developed from a series of local and regional markets into a global commodity market (Crona et al., 2016; Swartz et al., 2010), encompassing a wide range of species groups (Anderson et al., 2018). The export value of seafood exceeds that of any other food commodity, and its value exceeds that of all other animal proteins combined (Asche et al., 2015). This deeply integrated global supply chain means that when a shock hits the seafood commodity market, the impact is felt throughout the supply chain and across the world. In this case, we did not find a consistent relationship across markets. This suggests that the role that each market plays in the domestic and international seafood market factors into how the impacts of the pandemic were realized.

Recovery

Government response

In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, governments around the world implemented measures to prevent the spread of the illness, as well as programs to support individuals, businesses and sectors impacted by the widespread disruptions resulting from the disease. The scope and rapidity of these responses may have contributed to the quick recovery observed in some markets and commodities. Government responses throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic have included income support programs (Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the United States’ Paycheck Protection Program, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund changes to provides support for temporary cessation of fishing), business support programs (United States’ CARES Act fisheries funding, Japan's No.4 and No.5 Safety Nets for Financing Guarantee) and attempts to create markets for fish/seafood products (US‐ Eat Seafood America campaign, UK Eat Out to Help Out campaign). Any combination of these support measures may have contributed to the recovery of commodities, but it is outside the scope of this paper to assess which supports most effectively supported recovery. While these adaptations suggest that fisheries demonstrate capacity for resilience, it is necessary to ensure that as the pandemic impacts persist, fisheries remain in consideration for supportive measures.

Responses within the supply chain

The seafood sector is diverse and has employed numerous adaptation strategies to address impacts of the pandemic. Some price and volume impacts may have been softened or masked because of the seasonality of the fishery, adaptation strategies employed and the level of volatility that those in the fishery sector are accustomed to given the nature of the sector. Private sector responses include stopping fishing activities, reducing catch in the wake of dropping prices (as seen in Portland), and direct‐to‐consumer sales (Smith, 2020). The recovery in prices following the first collapse might be attributed to easing of restrictions as well as adaptations by businesses. Adaptations occurred in many shapes and forms: fishers chose to stop fishing, thereby reducing supply, or to pivot to catching and selling species that can be sold in local markets and consumed at home. Some supply chains may have become more localized during the pandemic (White et al., 2021). All these factors could contribute to the initial recovery.

Price volatility and uncertainty are generally viewed as unfavourable, and both are defining traits of commodity prices in 2020. Moreover, the volatility mainly involves sharp decreases in prices (as opposed to increases), which are associated with the waves of the pandemic. These are bound to have negative effects on businesses (Campbell et al., 2021) as well as people's well‐being. Despite the rebound efforts, the commodity prices reflect lower demand and volumes, and thus lower revenues for fishers and businesses in fisheries.

What does this mean?

Our analysis looks at commodity prices and price trends around the world to explore the economic impact of the pandemic. We see from price data that commodities across all markets are affected, though the duration and magnitude differ across locations and commodity types. While an analysis of prices reveals differences across markets, a look at prices alone cannot reveal the root causes of these differences, nor potential policies to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on prices.

The responses discussed above suggest that those within the fishery sector may be used to managing the volatility that is characteristic of the sector. This may have contributed to muting the effect of the pandemic and allowing them to weather the early pandemic shocks with generally short‐lived and relatively mild economic impacts. Further study is needed to confirm this with data that is more directly indicative of income, economic security and livelihood impacts.

Long‐term economic impacts of the pandemic are yet unknown. As the pandemic draws on for nearly 2 years at the time of writing, countries around the world remain amid repeated waves of new virus variants and infection surges. As such, a complete retroactive analysis is not possible at this time. However, we are already seeing some economic impacts that are likely to have mid‐ to long‐term impacts. For example, in 2021, we began to see rising inflation that has potential to introduce further economic hardship to those who have weathered the pandemic.

Seafood supply chains are complex, dynamic systems with numerous actors and potential chokepoints. When faced with a shock, any of the actors or key points along the supply chain may be vulnerable. Decision makers need to understand the context of their seafood supply chain in order to understand the landscape of actors, relationships and key breaking points. By understanding the supply chain prior to the arrival of a shock, decision makers may be better equipped to respond to evolving shocks in a way that is informed by the unique characteristics of the market. Further, by developing an understanding of the complexity of the seafood supply chain prior to the arrival of a shock responses and support measures can be implemented in a way that is adapted to the shock and its manifestations within that market, rather than operating based on limited knowledge of how a shock may be felt. In order to build this understanding, it will be necessary to conduct a comprehensive economic review of the COVID‐19 pandemic to learn from this event. Stakeholders can provide valuable information about what connections are most vulnerable and where adaptations are possible. While proactively engaging with stakeholders along the supply chain to learn about the complexity of their relationships and interactions prior to the arrival of shocks would be preferable, at the very least a retroactive analysis of the COVID‐19 pandemic can assist decision makers to understand the impact of shocks to better address them.

FUTURE RESEARCH

COVID‐19 presents an interesting case to study market responses to a shock; however, there are several limitations to this analysis and opportunities for future study. The pandemic was felt at different times and to different extents around the world, therefore a direct comparison of individual markets may not be appropriate. By considering respective dates for each market, we have attempted to account for the time lag associated with the spread of the pandemic; however, the globalized nature of the seafood supply chain means that events in other nations may have impacted prices in a way that is not accounted for here. The development of a global database of fish and seafood prices would allow for a more thorough understanding of the timing and extent of the pandemic's impacts. Volume data presented another challenge. Volume of seafood sold was only available for three (Toyosu Central Wholesale Market, Mercamadrid and Portland Fish Exchange) of the markets analysed. Further data around the volume sold at various price points were not available across markets. As well, fisheries catch information at a similar temporal resolution was also not available. Further research that incorporates the volume landed and sold would allow for a deeper understanding of the supply side of the fish price impacts and analysis of the supply–demand disruptions caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The pace and magnitude of change related to the COVID‐19 pandemic has been rapid, with significant shifts in cases, restrictions and lockdowns occurring within days and weeks, rather than the usual monthly, quarterly or annual scale that is often used to evaluate economic performance in non‐COVID times (Krugman, 2022). The rapidity of price fluctuation has far exceeded what is observed in “normal” times. Adapting to this faster rate of change requires that the range and availability of data be improved to allow for detection and response to rapidly developing market disruptions and be able to address the economic and social implications. Further, fisheries related data are often not available in real time and may be delayed by months to years. The timeliness of data availability must also be improved to support our understanding of how shocks are impacting those along the seafood supply chain in near‐real time.

The COVID pandemic provides a case study that we can learn from to improve how governments, industry partners and others respond to shocks in the fishery sector. Relevant government agencies can use the COVID‐19 pandemic to understand the impact, response and longer term implications of shocks to the fishery sector. Through rigorously reviewing the short‐ and long‐term implications of the pandemic, as well as the details and adequacy of government intervention they can gain an understanding of the implications on the market as well as income, economic security and livelihoods for those working within the seafood supply chain. With an improved understanding of these impacts decision makers will be able to more accurately identify strengths and vulnerabilities within the supply chain.

Decision makers should apply the lessons gleaned from the COVID‐19 pandemic to a model/map/network of their seafood supply chain to gain an understanding of the landscape of actors, actions and key points for the continuity of the supply chain. Other industries related to large‐scale logistics and supply chain management may provide tools and approaches that can be drawn upon to build a model/map/network. Combining this model with improved data availability would allow for timely monitoring of volumes and values throughout the supply chain to trigger investigations of shifts in the seafood supply chain and respond appropriately in the face of future shocks. Building a comprehensive understanding of the supply chain will also allow policies to be made at the level of observed market impacts, not solely on assumptions of economic dynamics.

Fig S1

Click here for additional data file.

Fig S2

Click here for additional data file.

Fig S3

Click here for additional data file.

Fig S4

Click here for additional data file.

Fig S5

Click here for additional data file.

Table S1‐S5

Click here for additional data file.

1. INTRODUCTION	963
2. METHODOLOGY	966
2.1. Data	966
2.2. Analysis of Price Collapse	967
3. RESULTS	967
3.1. Tokyo Toyosu Central Wholesale Market‐ Japan	968
3.2. Marché de Rungis‐ France	968
3.3. Mercamadrid‐ Spain	969
3.4. Mercado La Nueva Viga‐ Mexico	970
3.5. Portland Fish Exchange‐ United States	971
4. DISCUSSION	971
4.1. Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic	971
4.2. Recovery	972
4.2.1. Government response	972
4.2.2. Responses within the supply chain	972
4.2.3. What does this mean?	972
5. FUTURE RESEARCH	973
6. RECOMMENDATIONS	973
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT	973
REFERENCES	974