Skip to main content
Log in

Trends, causes, and indices of import rejections in international shrimp trade with special reference to India: a 15-year longitudinal analysis

  • Published:
Aquaculture International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shrimp is the most valued fish traded internationally, the USA, EU, and Japan being the major countries importing shrimp from Asian countries and Ecuador. Import rejections due to quality issues lead to substantial economic loss. Year-on-year change fails to capture the nature of rejection. Unit rejection rate (URR), relative rejection rate (RRR), the trend in shrimp exports, and causes of rejection in the USA, EU, and Japan during 2002–2017 were analysed. India (151,000 t), Ecuador (95,457 t), and Vietnam (35,225 t) are the major exporter to the USA, EU, and Japan (2017). Transitional probability revealed India, China, and Thailand retained major part of their share in the USA and Japan markets. In EU market, India gained entire share of Indonesia and 93% of Bangladesh share and Vietnam retained major portion (97%) of its share. Number of consignments rejected was variable but declined of late. Indian shrimp exports were stable at US and EU markets with index of 6.90% and 7.48% for exports and 11.89% and 12.14% for rejections, respectively. URR of Indian shrimp exports declined and were 0.015, 0.03, and 0.02 for USA, EU, and Japan, with higher RRR for imports from Vietnam at EU and Japan. Box-Jenkins analysis revealed Indian shrimp rejections at the USA was higher than EU and Japan. Microbiological causes dominated the rejections by USA. Chemical was the major cause for rejections at EU and Japan. Results suggest significant improvement in the quality compliance of Indian shrimp exports. The study also used panel data analysis to assess the determinants of shrimp exports to the major importers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ababouch L, Gandini G, Ryder J (2005) Causes of rejections and rejections in international fish trade, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 473, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome

  • Alam Nazmul SM (2013) Bangladesh in the rapid alert system for food and feed notifications in the period (2000-2012): a review. Vet Med 58:399–404

  • Ancy VP, Raju KV (2016) Seafood exports from India and quality assurance standards: challenges ahead. Intercontinental Journal of Marketing Research Review 4 (in press)

  • Anders SM, Westra S (2012) Barriers to fishery exports from developing countries: the impact of U.S. FDA food safety regulation, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil

  • APEDA (2018). http://agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/indexp/reportlist.aspx

  • BFFEA (2007) Newsletter of Bangladesh frozen food exporters association: vision (2010), Dhaka—1000, Bangladesh. https://www.bffea.net/export.php

  • Bono G, Okpala COR, Alberio GR, Messina CM, Santulli A, Giacalone G, Spagna G (2016) Toward shrimp consumption without chemicals: combined effects of freezing and modified atmosphere packaging (map) on some quality characteristics of giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea) during storage. Food Chem 197:581–588

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bovay J (2016) FDA refusals of imported food products by country and category. doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20849.53609

  • Buzby JC, Roberts D (2011) Food trade and food safety violations: what can we learn from import refusal data? Am J Agric Econ 93:560–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cato JC, Subasinge S (2003) Case study—the shrimp export industry in Bangladesh, 2020 vision briefs No. 9 (No. 569-2016-39040), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

  • Chia-lin Chang, McAleer M, Nguyen DK (2016) US antidumping petitions and revealed comparative advantage of shrimp-exporting countries. Reviews in Aquaculture (1–11). https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12257

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission (2016) http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/419100/icode/

  • Cuddy JD, Valle PD (1978) Measuring the instability of time series data. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 40(1):79–85

  • Duc NM (2010) Application of econometric models for price impact assessment of antidumping measures and labelling laws on global markets: a case study of Vietnamese striped catfish. Rev Aquac 2(2):86–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahmi AS, Maksum M, Suwondo E (2015) USFDA import refusal and export competitiveness of Indonesian crab in US market. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 3:226–230

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale F, Buzby JC (2009) Imports from China and food safety issues, Economic Information Bulletin Number. 52. In: United States Department of Agriculture Imports from China and Food Safety Issues / EIB-52, Economic Research Service/USDA

  • Gautam S (2013) EU food safety regulations: implications for the Indian marine exporter. Indian J Appl Res 3:232–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson S, Jaffee S (2008) Understanding developing country strategic responses to the enhancement of food safety standards. World Econ 31(4):548–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson S, Olale E (2010) What do border rejections tell us about trade standards compliance of developing countries? Analysis of EU and US data 2002–2008, UNIDO Working Paper. https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2011-12/rejection_analysis_0.PDF

  • Henson S, Saqib M, Rajasenan D (2004) Impact of sanitary measures on exports of fishery products from India. The case of Kerala, Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper, 17, Washington, DC, World Bank

  • Hong NTK, Hien PTT, Thu TTN, Lebailly P (2017) Vietnam’s fisheries and aquaculture development’s policy: are exports performance targets sustainable? Oceanogr Fish 5(4) https://doi.org/10.19080/ofoaj.2017.05.555667

  • Hsu YC, Chen AP, Wang CH (2008) A RFID-enabled traceability system for the supply chain of live fish. In: IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics, September 1. IEEE, New York, pp 81–86

  • James CC, Carlos ALDS (1998) European Union (1997) seafood-safety ban: the economic impact on Bangladesh shrimp processing. Mar Resour Econ 13:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareem F, Brümmer B, Martinez-Zarzosoc I (2015) Food safety standards, compliance and European Union’s rejection of African exports: the role of domestic factors. No. 858-2016-60253, Global Food Discussion paper series, 74. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211042/

  • Kumar A, Kumar P (2003) Food safety measures: implications for fisheries sector in India. Indian J Agric Econ 58(3)

  • Kumar CN (2016) Sensitivity of India’s agri-food exports to the European Union: an institutional perspective, Working Papers (366), Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore

  • Loi G, Gamarro EG (2018) Border rejection trends of fishery and aquaculture products in European Union, United States of America and Japan, FAO Aquaculture Newsletter No 58

  • Mai N, Gretar Bogason S, Arason S, Vikingur Arnason S, Geir Matthiasson T (2010) Benefits of traceability in fish supply chains—case studies. Br Food J 112:976–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MPEDA (2018) India’s seafood export cross US$ 7 billion for the first time. http://mpeda.gov.in/MPEDA/admin/files/PressRelease/July02pressreleaseonexportperformance 2017-18.pdf

  • Natale F, Borrello A, Motova A (2015) Analysis of the determinants of international seafood trade using a gravity model. Mar Policy 60:98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palin C, Gaudin C, Espejo-Hermes J, Nicolaides L (2013) Compliance of imports of fishery and aquaculture products with EU legislation. European Parliament, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Pathumnakul S, Piewthongngam K, Khamjan S (2009) Integrating a shrimp-growth function, farming skills information, and a supply allocation algorithm to manage the shrimp supply chain. Comput Electron Agric 66:93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putth S, Polchana J (2016) Current status and impact of early mortality syndrome (EMS)/acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) and hepatopancreatic microsporidiosis (HPM) outbreaks on Thailand s shrimp farming. In: Addressing Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis Disease (AHPND) and Other Transboundary Diseases for Improved Aquatic Animal Health in Southeast Asia: Proceedings of the ASEAN Regional Technical Consultation on EMS/AHPND and Other Transboundary Diseases for Improved Aquatic Animal Health in Southeast Asia, Makati City, Philippines, 79–87. Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines: Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. http://hdl.handle.net/10862/3094

  • Renjini KKV (2016) Quantifying the effect of non-tariff measures and food safety standards on India’s fish and fishery products’ exports. The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Working paper (375)

  • Suzuki A, Vu HN (2013) Status and constraints of costly port rejection: a case from the Vietnamese frozen seafood export industry, IDE Discussion Papers 395, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)

  • Swann GMP (2010) International standards and trade: a review of the empirical literature, OECD Trade Policy Papers 97, OECD Publishing

  • Tran N, Wilson NL, Anders S (2011) Standard harmonization as chasing zero (tolerance limits): the impact of veterinary drug residue standards on crustacean imports in the EU, Japan, and North America. Am J Agric Econ 94(2):496–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin MT (2009) Value chains and standards in shrimp export from Bangladesh and Thailand to Japan: a comparative study on safety compliances. Asia Pac J Rural Dev 19(2):89–107

  • USFDA (2018) Import Alert (16-124): detention without physical examination of aquaculture seafood products due to unapproved drugs. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ cms_ia/importalert_27.html

  • Van Duijn AP, Beukers R, Van der Pijl W (2012) The Vietnamese seafood sector: a value chain analysis. CBI/LEI, part of Wageningen UR https://www.cbi.eu/sites/default/files/vca_study_seafood_vietnam.pdf

  • Wati LA (2018) Analyzing the development of Indonesia shrimp industry. Earth Environ Sci 137. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/137/1/012101/pdf

  • Yunus M (2009) EU ban, HACCP compliance and shrimp exports from Bangladesh. Bangladesh Dev Stud 32:41–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Murray FJ, Liu L, Little DC (2017) A comparative analysis of four internationally traded farmed seafood commodities in China: domestic and international markets as key drivers. Rev Aquac 9(2):157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the critical inputs of S.V. Alavandi, Principal Scientist and Head, Aquatic Animal Health and Environment Division, ICAR-CIBA. Authors are also thankful to ICAR-CIBA, Chennai, for providing research facilities.

Funding

The authors are grateful for the funding support by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, New Delhi, through All India Network Project on Fish Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Geetha.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geetha, R., Ravisankar, T., Patil, P.K. et al. Trends, causes, and indices of import rejections in international shrimp trade with special reference to India: a 15-year longitudinal analysis. Aquacult Int 28, 1341–1369 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00529-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00529-w

Keywords

Navigation