World food prices hit an all-time high in February 2011 and are still almost two and a half times those of 2000. Although three billion people worldwide use seafood as a key source of animal protein, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations–which compiles prices for other major food categories–has not tracked seafood prices. We fill this gap by developing an index of global seafood prices that can help to understand food crises and may assist in averting them. The fish price index (FPI) relies on trade statistics because seafood is heavily traded internationally, exposing non-traded seafood to price competition from imports and exports. Easily updated trade data can thus proxy for domestic seafood prices that are difficult to observe in many regions and costly to update with global coverage. Calculations of the extent of price competition in different countries support the plausibility of reliance on trade data. Overall, the FPI shows less volatility and fewer price spikes than other food price indices including oils, cereals, and dairy. The FPI generally reflects seafood scarcity, but it can also be separated into indices by production technology, fish species, or region. Splitting FPI into capture fisheries and aquaculture suggests increased scarcity of capture fishery resources in recent years, but also growth in aquaculture that is keeping pace with demand. Regionally, seafood price volatility varies, and some prices are negatively correlated. These patterns hint that regional supply shocks are consequential for seafood prices in spite of the high degree of seafood tradability.

(197words)This paper presents the results of a global review of organisations that provide sustainable fisheries information -including ecolabels, recommendation lists and supermarkets -to consumers and supply chain intermediaries. It examined 17 organisations and key supermarkets that communicate on the sustainability of world fisheries and aquaculture products. Certification schemes assess a relatively small number of specific fisheries and indicate sustainability through labels. Recommendation lists cover more species and areas but in less detail. FAO guidelines for fisheries ecolabelling and aquaculture certification constituted the benchmarks with which improving conformance was found. However, significant variation in fisheries' assessment exists, affecting the accuracy and precision of information and advice provided. Inconsistent approaches and contradictory advice among certification schemes and recommendation lists potentially increase consumer confusion and 2 reduce their credibility. The review identifies seven critical attributes schemes must address -scope, accuracy, independence, precision, transparency, standardisation and costeffectiveness -and recommends that certification schemes and recommendation lists enhance their consistency and credibility through compliance with these attributes and FAO guidelines. Fish sustainability information schemes play an important role in securing a sustainable future for the oceans. Uptake of this review's recommendations should reduce consumer confusion and increase confidence in the benefits of sustainable purchasing.

Sustainability of global fisheries is a growing concern. The United Nations has identified three pillars of sustainability: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. The fisheries literature suggests that there are two key trade-offs among these pillars of sustainability. First, poor ecological health of a fishery reduces economic profits for fishers, and second, economic profitability of individual fishers undermines the social objectives of fishing communities. Although recent research has shown that management can reconcile ecological and economic objectives, there are lingering concerns about achieving positive social outcomes. We examined trade-offs among the three pillars of sustainability by analyzing the Fishery Performance Indicators, a unique dataset that scores 121 distinct fishery systems worldwide on 68 metrics categorized by social, economic, or ecological outcomes. For each of the 121 fishery systems, we averaged the outcome measures to create overall scores for economic, ecological, and social performance. We analyzed the scores and found that they were positively associated in the full sample. We divided the data into subsamples that correspond to fisheries management systems with three categories of access—open access, access rights, and harvest rights—and performed a similar analysis. Our results show that economic, social, and ecological objectives are at worst independent and are mutually reinforcing in both types of managed fisheries. The implication is that rights-based management systems should not be rejected on the basis of potentially negative social outcomes; instead, social considerations should be addressed in the design of these systems.

& This article centers on an FAO project that focused on price transmission in fishery and aquaculture value chains, and the research conducted via case studies in 14 developed and developing countries. A brief overview of the project with the methodology of analysis and findings for each country is summarized in this work. In addition, general policy recommendations that emerged as key themes across all value chains are discussed. Across all case studies, it was found that relative to other players in the value chain, small-scale fishers and fish farmers are receiving the smallest economic benefits for their products. Processors and retail markets were found to be receiving more of the distributional benefits of the value chain owing to their stronger bargaining power. With this finding, policy recommendations aim to safeguard the interests of small-scale fishers and fish farmers by improving their prices and margins while allowing the resource to achieve long-term sustainability from an economic, social and biological perspective.

魚病研究 F i s h P a t h o l o g y , 4 4 ( 3 ), 1 0 7 -1 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 . 9 © 2 0 0 9 T h e J a p a n e s e S o c i e t y o f F i s h P a t h o l o g y I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r a d e i n Aq u a t i c An i ma l s a n d Aq u a t i c An i ma l He a l t h : Wh a t L e s s o n s Ha v e We L e a r n e d S o F a r i n Ma n a g i n g t h e Ri s k s ?Me l b a G. B o n d a d -Re a n t a s o * , A u d u n L e m a n d Ro h a n a P . S u b a s i n g h eDe p a r t