Using Blockchain to Implement Traceability on Fishery Value Chain

Estrela Ferreira Cruz

1,2 a

and Ant

onio Miguel Rosado da Cruz

1,2 b

Instituto Polit

ecnico de Viana do Castelo, 4900-347, Viana do Castelo, Portugal

Centro ALGORITMI, Escola de Engenharia, Universidade do Minho, Guimar

aes, Portugal

Keywords:

Blockchain, Solidity, Smart Contract, Ethereum, Value Chain Traceability Platform, Quality Monitoring and

Tracing, Business Process Modeling, BPMN.

Abstract:

Nowadays, consumers increasingly want to be informed about the products they are buying or consuming,

especially when it comes to food, such as ﬁsh. Besides nutritional information, consumers want to know

about the ﬁsh origin, whether it has been properly stored and transported, etc. At the same time, for public

health reasons, authorities may need to know the current location of certain ﬁsh lots (which have been caught

or produced in a speciﬁc location, have been stored in a certain place, have been transported by a certain truck,

etc.). In other words, consumers and society in general demand transparency throughout all the value chain of

ﬁsh products. In this paper, we are proposing a blockchain-based platform to allow to trace ﬁsh lots, back and

forth, throughout the entire ﬁsheries value chain. To implement the traceability platform, we deﬁne a smart

contract to be used on the Ethereum blockchain.

1 INTRODUCTION

Fish and ﬁsh products are one of the main sources of

protein in the human diet. According to Gephart et

al., the consumption of seafood is growing every year

and, as a consequence, seafood industry is also chang-

ing (Gephart et al., 2017). Caught worldwide, ﬁshery

production has been almost static since the late 1980s,

which means that the most part of the increasing ﬁsh

consumption has been based in aquaculture produc-

tion (Gephart et al., 2017), which now comprises half

of global seafood production. Aquaculture represents,

today, 53% of the total ﬁshery products consumption,

if non-food uses are excluded (Food and Organiza-

tion, 2018).

At the same time, consumers are becoming in-

creasingly demanding and want to be informed, not

only about the nutritional value of the ﬁsh they are

buying, but also about its origin and its preservation

status along the value chain. For this, it is necessary

to keep track of all the activities throughout the entire

ﬁsh value chain, since capture or aquaculture produc-

tion up to the supermarket, or to the plate. It is neces-

sary to know the origin (wild or aquaculture), when,

who, how, where it was captured (or raised), trans-

ported, stored, transformed, etc. In other words, it is

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6426-9939

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-1160

necessary to implement traceability in all the ﬁsh and

ﬁshery value chain.

Authorities, such as the European Union, are

proposing directives requiring knowledge of the ori-

gin of certain products (Union, 2002), improving

product traceability and faster recalls when neces-

sary. The ISO (International Standards Organization)

22005 family of standards gives the principles and ba-

sic requirements for the design and implementation of

a feed and food traceability system. It can be applied

by an organization operating at any step in the feed

and food chain (22005:2007, 2007). However, from

capture or production until it reaches the ﬁnal con-

sumer, ﬁsh can pass through several companies. This

means that the same ﬁsh or ﬁsh lot can be part of sev-

eral companies’ processes. So, it is necessary to inte-

grate all processes internal to each company involved

in the value chain, to know the whole history of the

ﬁsh. This processes’ integration has been proposed in

(da Cruz et al., 2019).

To implement traceability in the ﬁsheries and

aquaculture value chain we propose, in this paper, the

use the blockchain technology, mostly because this

technology ﬁts perfectly in the purpose of product

traceability, as it allows registering all chain activities

in a distributed, transparent, secure and trustfull man-

ner. The traceability platform is being created with

two main goals. The ﬁrst one is to give the author-

ities information about the current location of a ﬁsh

Cruz, E. and Rosado da Cruz, A.

Using Blockchain to Implement Traceability on Fishery Value Chain.

DOI: 10.5220/0009889705010508

In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT 2020), pages 501-508

ISBN: 978-989-758-443-5

501

lot. Respecting to public health threats (ﬁsh contam-

ination or other threats) the authorities need to recall

the ﬁsh lots (and/or its derivatives) as soon as possi-

ble. The second goal is to give the ﬁnal consumers

the possibility to know the origin of the ﬁsh (where

it was captured or raised), who captured it (or created

it), when it was captured, under what conditions it was

stored, under what conditions it was transported, what

process of transformation it suffered and in what con-

ditions, etc..

Nowadays, blockchain is being seen as one of the

technologies that better ﬁts the needs of traceability in

a supply chains (da Cruz and Cruz, 2020). In fact, the

blockchain technology is being used as a distributed

database (Saberi et al., 2019; Tian, 2017) in many ar-

eas including traceability in agriculture and food sup-

ply chains, as is the case of (Tian, 2017; Biswas et al.,

2017; Tan et al., 2019; Caro et al., 2018).

Blockchains can be cataloged as permissionless

public blockchains, permissioned public blockchains

(hybrid blockchains) and permissioned private

blockchains (closed networks) (Pedersen et al., 2019;

Pahl et al., 2018). Herein we use a permissionless

public blockchain, namely Ethereum.

The structure of presentation is as follows: In

the next section, related work is presented. Then, in

section 3 previous work by the same authors is pre-

sented, including the value chain’s integrated busi-

ness process model and a non-blockchain-based so-

lution. Section 4, explains the development of the

Blockchain-based platform, including the smart con-

tract. In section 5, some conclusions are drawn and

some ideas for future work are disclosed.

2 RELATED WORK

As a way of preventing potential public health dis-

asters caused by food products, authorities like the

European Union create directives requiring the reg-

istering and control of the origin of certain products

(Union, 2002), improving product traceability and en-

abling faster recalls when necessary. As a conse-

quence, several proposals for the implementation of

traceability have been carried out within food value

chains, including ﬁsh products. Next we highlight the

traceability platforms for ﬁsh and ﬁsh products.

2.1 Fishery Traceability

In (Moga, 2017) the authors propose a system (called

TraSiPesc) to trace ﬁsh and ﬁshery products. The au-

thors designed the system by identifying the factors

that inﬂuence the acceptance of traceability by the ﬁsh

and ﬁshery products business sector, including end

user and consumers and taking in consideration the

general principles of traceability, the European Union

(EU) and the national legal framework, as well as the

particularities of the ﬁshery industry.

Yan et al. proposes a platform for the aquatic

foods supply chain (Yan et al., 2013), which supports

the traceability in the supply chain of aquatic prod-

ucts from production to sales, including the distribu-

tion. This platform includes information about pro-

duction like, for example, water quality monitoring.

The authors present the overall structure of the trace-

able platform and its system-level and network struc-

ture features. The approach is applied in a case study

in China to tilapia products.

In (Parre

no-Marchante et al., 2014), a platform to

track the aquaculture products from the farm to the

consumer is proposed. The platform implementation

is based on web services, which are prepared to re-

ceive data captured by RFID systems. This data is in-

tegrated with data collected with Wireless Sensor Net-

works (WSN) infrastructure. The paper also presents

an analysis of the beneﬁts obtained by the introduc-

tion of the created platform, based on predeﬁned ob-

jectives and the evaluation of KPIs.

In (Nicolae et al., 2017) the authors propose a

structural design for a monitoring tool to support the

traceability in Romanian ﬁsheries supply chain. The

tool has the purpose of monitoring the safety and

quality of ﬁsh and ﬁshery products. The paper pro-

poses a general scheme for the traceability system.

Gardner et al. performed a study in Madagas-

car about the value chain speciﬁcally on octopus and

mangrove mud crab(Gardner et al., 2017). The pa-

per was focused on value chain, post-harvest, and the

trade of the two ﬁsheries species. The authors iden-

tiﬁed all octopus and mud crab ﬁshery stakeholders.

The project focused on reducing post-harvest mortal-

ity in the mud crab ﬁshery, sponsored by European-

Union funded Smartﬁsh programme, is being imple-

mented since 2013 (Gardner et al., 2017). The study

concludes that post-harvest value chains of both ﬁsh-

eries are poorly understood, are not well deﬁned and

that there is a lack of monitoring systems and reliable

data.

2.2 Traceability using Blockchain

According to Ruoti et al., blockchain has strong

points like shared governance and operations, re-

silience to data loss, provenance tracking and au-

ditable (Ruoti et al., 2019). These points are very im-

portant to the ﬁshery value chain. The value chain op-

erators want to be part of a system but do not blindly

ICSOFT 2020 - 15th International Conference on Software Technologies

502

trust each other. Using blockchain technology, they

can share governance and operations. The consen-

sus protocol is an agreement between those opera-

tors about the operations that will be executed by the

system. Besides, the data is stored and replicated in

each node (e.g., each one of the value chain operators)

meaning, resilience to data loss. On the other side,

when a transaction is performed, a new block is ap-

pended to the blockchain with information about the

transaction including the timestamp. This new block

is approved by the consensus protocol approved by

the value chain operators, so, the blockchain is au-

ditable.

Several authors opted to use the blockchain tech-

nology to implement traceability in value chains, as

is the case of (Caro et al., 2018), (Rejeb, 2018) and

others.

Abderahman Rejeb implements traceability in the

Tilapia supply chain, from farmers to the ﬁnal con-

sumers in Ghana (Rejeb, 2018). Tilapia is one of the

most consumed ﬁsh species in Ghana. The author

used the Blockchain technology to implement trace-

ability of the aquaculture ﬁsh (Rejeb, 2018).

Caro et al. present a blockchain-based solu-

tion to implement traceability in Agri-Food supply

chains (Caro et al., 2018). The authors presented

two blockchain implementations, Ethereum and Hy-

perledger Sawtooth, evaluated and compared the per-

formance of both the implementations, regarding la-

tency, CPU, and network usage (Caro et al., 2018).

In (da Cruz et al., 2020) the authors are using

blockchain technology to trace and calculate the car-

bon footprint of products and organizations. The au-

thors are using a solidity smart contract to imple-

ment a platform in Ethereum permissionless public

blockchain. The paper also presents a distributed ap-

plication providing to consumers information about

the carbon footprint of a product or organization

stored in the blockchain.

Peter Howson discusses how blockchain can be

used to improve consumer conﬁdence in the ﬁsh value

chain and gives an example of how blockchain tech-

nology can help preserve marine life (Howson, 2020).

3 PREVIOUS WORK

The ﬁsh can be sold fresh or can be preserved for a

longer time, if subjected to a transformation process,

like if it is salted, frozen, canned, smoked, etc. In

some cases, the same ﬁsh undergoes several transfor-

mations, such as for example the cod ﬁsh, which after

being caught, can be salted, soaked and then frozen.

In the meantime, it is transported and stored several

times (Cruz et al., 2019).

Regardless of the preservation method, the ﬁsh

can come from aquaculture or from the wild (sea,

rivers or lakes). As a consequence, we can have many

different value chains.

In (Cruz et al., 2019) the authors, after studying

several different ﬁshery value chains, leveraged the

similarities between those and proposed an integrated

business process model for ﬁsh and ﬁshery products,

and the corresponding domain entities model for the

integrated value chain. The authors also identiﬁed

all stakeholders (operators involved) in ﬁsh products

(capture and aquaculture) value chain, with the pur-

pose of identifying the information that needs to be

gathered in a common platform for supporting the

traceability of ﬁsh and ﬁshery products from the sea

or aquaculture farms to the plate (Cruz et al., 2019;

Cruz and da Cruz, 2019).

The ﬁsh-lot oriented business process model cre-

ated is represented in BPMN (Business Process

Model and Notation) language, in Figure 1. The

model abstracts all activities in the ﬁshery and aqua-

culture value chain that handle or transform ﬁsh prod-

uct’s lots, to enable the traceability and quality moni-

toring of ﬁsh and ﬁshery products. This business pro-

cess model identiﬁes seven value-chain level process

activities: Production, Registration and Quality As-

sessment, Sale, Storing, Transportation, Transforma-

tion and Down. With the exception of the Production

and Down activities, which may only happen once per

each product lot, every other activity may happen sev-

eral times in the ﬁsh product lot lifespan (Cruz et al.,

2019).

As we can see in Fig. 1 the value chain starts in

the ﬁshing vessel or aquaculture farm, where infor-

mation about capture or production must be gathered.

This information may be provided by the producer it-

self (case of aquaculture companies) or by the vessel

or ﬁshery auction company. Products are, then, regis-

tered and have their quality assessed.

Then, after the registration and quality assess-

ment, a ﬁsh lot may be sold, stored or transformed

(see second complex gateway in Fig. 1). After any

of these activities, the lot is received, and its quality

assessed. It may stay within this iteration of activities

during some time.

The quality of the ﬁsh product lot is assessed ev-

ery time the product suffers a transformation, a stor-

age or a transportation. Sometimes, new lot’s are cre-

ated and registered (as in the case of transformation).

Usually, after being stored, a lot is sold. And, after

being sold, if the buyer is not the ﬁnal consumer, the

product lot may be transported to the purchasing or-

ganization, and that event must also be registered in

Using Blockchain to Implement Traceability on Fishery Value Chain

503

Figure 1: Fishery and Aquaculture value chain integrated process (extracted from (Cruz et al., 2019).

the platform for traceability purposes.

Despite the traceability and quality data being di-

rectly persisted in the value chain traceability plat-

form, the data itself must be communicated by the in-

volved value chain operator’s relevant process. This

way, each identiﬁed integrated process activity corre-

sponds to an event in the value chain. The information

is provided by the external participants that in Figure

1 send messages to the activity that store information,

represented in the business process.

From this integrated business process, we ex-

tracted the domain model, by using the approach pre-

sented in (Cruz et al., 2015). The obtained domain

model has then been manually reﬁned and has been

used as a basis for the smart contract data structures

in the platform architecture (see Figure 2).

In (da Cruz et al., 2019) the authors designed and

created a platform to implement traceability in the

ﬁshery and aquaculture Value Chain. In this article

we are going to implement a platform with the same

goal but using the Ethereum blockchain technology.

4 FISH TRACEABILITY

PLATFORM USING

BLOCKCHAIN

The smart contract that is the basis of the traceability

platform must register and provide traceability infor-

mation, so that, given the identiﬁcation of a lot num-

ber, the platform must provide its current location (or

locations) and all the history of the product lot, that is

all the activities/events occurred since capture or pro-

duction (e.g. where, when and how it was created (or

captured), transacted, stored, transported, etc.).

The value chain operators are responsible to

gather and store information of the process activity

they are executing (e.g. capture, transform, etc.), so

each operator is a participant in the blockchain (rep-

resented by a ValueChainOperator entity).

There are four different types of users (User en-

tity): The SysAdmin, that can create and add new

operators; The worker, that represents a person that

works to a value chain operator and is responsible

for storing information about the executed activities;

The workerAdmin, which is an Administrator within

the scope of a value chain operator; and, a ﬁnal con-

sumer, who is any unregistered user, which can read

the traceability information about any ﬁsh lot.

A Solidity smart contract is composed by the dec-

laration of the data involved and a set of functions, in-

cluding a constructor. This code resides at a speciﬁc

address on the Ethereum blockchain. The smart con-

tract, presented in subsection 4.1, is the basis for the

entire application. In it, all the needed data structures

are deﬁned, as well as all support functions. These

structures are designed according to the model in Fig-

ure 2, but have been adapted to be both functional and

resource-efﬁcient on the blockchain.

4.1 Smart Contract Implementation

A Smart Contract is “a digital contract that con-

trols user’s digital assets, formulating the participant’s

rights and obligations” (Lin and Liao, 2017). Sev-

eral languages may be used to create smart con-

tracts like: Solidity (Bragagnolo et al., 2018), Hawk

ICSOFT 2020 - 15th International Conference on Software Technologies

504

Figure 2: Domain Model (extracted from (Cruz et al., 2019)).

(Kosba et al., 2016), and others. In the approach pre-

sented here, solidity is being used. Solidity is a high-

level programming language used for implementing

smart contracts on several blockchain platforms (Bra-

gagnolo et al., 2018), including in Ethereum, the

blockchain being used herein.

A Solidity Smart Contract is composed by the dec-

laration of data types needed (set of data structs), a set

of data storage variables and a set of functions, includ-

ing a constructor. After deployment, the Solidity con-

tract runs on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM),

on a speciﬁc Ethereum address.

All non-query Ethereum operations incur a cost,

counted by the amount of “gas” that the operation

consumes. This gas is calculated based on various cri-

teria and one of these is the type of transaction and the

volume of information to be added to the blockchain.

To minimize this cost, we have tried to build all the

structures using the minimum needed space for the

attributes.

Basically, and based on the model presented in

Figure 2, each one of the entities represented in the

domain model is roughly implemented as a “struct”

in the contract, with the corresponding attributes. As

an example, some of the deﬁned data structure types

are presented next.

pragma solidity >=0.5.0 <0.7.0;

pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;

contract FishTraceability {

// -- General Product Structure --

struct Product{

uint32 id;

string name;

string description;

string nutritionTable;

}

struct ProductLot{

uint32 lotNumber;

uint32 idValueChainOperator;

Using Blockchain to Implement Traceability on Fishery Value Chain

505

uint32 idProduct;

string unit;

uint32 amount; //integer base

uint16 exp; //negative exponent of 10

Date lotCreationDate;

uint32[] lotEventIDs;

}

struct ValueChainOperator{

uint32 id;

string name;

string addressLocation;

string phone;

string email;

OperType operType;

}

enum OperType{

ShipOwner,

AquacultureFarm,

Logistics,

Industry,

Retailer

}

// -- Events in the Value Chain --

struct Event{

uint32 idEvent;

uint16 eventType; // 0-Capture,

// 1-Production, 2-Transformation,

// 3-Transport, 4-Storage,

// 5-Sale,6-Downed,7-QualityAssessment

}

struct CaptureEvent{

uint32 idEvent;

string description;

string geographicZone;

uint32 latitude;

uint32 longitude;

string unit;

uint32 amount;

uint16 exp;

uint32 idValueChainOperator;

Date eventDate;

uint32 vesselId;

string anglingMethod;

uint32 newLotNumber; //New Lot number

}

struct TransformationEvent{

uint32 idEvent;

string transformationProcess;

string unit;

uint32 amount;

uint16 exp;

OriginLotsQty originLot1;

OriginLotsQty originLot2;

uint32 idValueChainOperator;

Date eventDate;

uint32 newLotNumber;

}

Since there is no inheritance between “structs”,

the inheritance from Event, represented in Figure 2,

is implemented by having a unique idEvent between

all types of events (Capture, Production, Transport,

Transformation, etc.).

In the mappings for events, deﬁned within the con-

tract storage variables set, there is a mapping for each

event type, that maps the idEvent to the respective

structure, and a mapping for all events, that allows

to determine the type of event from the idEvent. An

extract of the storage variables illustrating the events

mappings, can be seen next:

mapping(uint32 => Event) private events;

uint32 private eventsCount;

mapping(uint32 => CaptureEvent)

public captureEvents;

mapping(uint32 => AquacultureProdEvent)

public productionEvents;

mapping(uint32 => SaleEvent) public saleEvents;

mapping(uint32 => TransportEvent)

public transportEvents;

mapping(uint32 => StorageEvent)

public storageEvents;

mapping(uint32 => TransformationEvent)

public transformationEvents;

mapping(uint32 => QualityAssessmentEvent)

public assessmentEvents;

mapping(uint32 => DownedEvent)

public downedEvents;

A set of functions is implemented in order to al-

low to add (store) and read information from the

blockchain. Basically, each activity or event opera-

tion (capture, transformation, etc.) is implemented as

a function. A function may have pre-conditions that

can be generic or speciﬁc. As example, the function

that allows registering a Fish capture event, is shown

in Figure 3. The function has two pre-conditions (see

require()).

All objects created in the functions of the contract,

and stored in the deﬁned storage variables, are stored

in the blockchain and cannot be modiﬁed. This, cou-

pled with the fact that it is not possible to change

a contract that has already been published, except

through a new publication (which would make the

new contract have a different address from the pre-

vious one and therefore not have access to data from

the previous one), implies that the implemented struc-

ture is extremely solid, leveraging the beneﬁts of the

blockchain (decentralization, immutability, security,

and transparency).

More elaborate functions like tracking all events

from all the lots that have given origin to a new prod-

uct lot are being done outside the Smart contract, in a

services software layer that accesses the contract. An

example is, from a can of tuna, obtain all the value

ICSOFT 2020 - 15th International Conference on Software Technologies

506

// Create Fish capture event

function createFishCaptureEvent(string memory _description, string memory _geographicZone,

uint32 _vesselId, string memory _anglingMethod, uint32 _idValueChainOperator, uint32 _idProduct,

uint32 _lotNumber, string memory _unit, uint32 _amount, uint16 _exp,

Date memory _eventDate) public {

require((users[msg.sender].worksToValueChainOperId == _idValueChainOperator) &&

(users[msg.sender].userType == 1 || users[msg.sender].userType == 2),

"You need to work to the organization!");

require(products[_idProduct].id != uint32(0), "Product does not exist!");

eventsCount++;

events[eventsCount] = Event(eventsCount, 0);

productLots[_lotNumber] = ProductLot(_lotNumber, _idValueChainOperator,

_idProduct, _unit, _amount, _exp, _eventDate, new uint32[](0));

productLots[_lotNumber].lotEventIDs.push(eventsCount);

captureEvents[eventsCount] = CaptureEvent(eventsCount, _description, _geographicZone, _unit,

_amount, _exp, _idValueChainOperator, _eventDate, _vesselId, _anglingMethod, _lotNumber);

Figure 3: Smart contract function for registering a ﬁsh capture event.

chain activities since the tuna ﬁsh has been captured.

This involves several product lots and may involve

several value chain operators.

The registration of Transformation events is, for

now, limited to one or two origin product lots, be-

cause of a Solidity unimplemented feature, which im-

pairs copying a struct array elements from memory

function parameters to blockchain storage.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In the value chain of ﬁsh and its derivatives there are

many operators involved, from ﬁsh capture or aqua-

culture production to the ﬁnal consumer, including

transport, logistics and industry. Each company con-

trols its internal processes, however, in order to under-

stand and be sure that the ﬁsh is in good condition for

consumption, it is necessary to know its entire value

chain path. For that, we need to know the value chain

process that arises from integrating all the companies’

processes involved in the ﬁsh path.

In this article we implement the integrated process

of all operators in a ﬁsh value chain using a smart con-

tract on the Ethereum blockchain. The implemented

smart contract is thought for the ﬁsh and ﬁsheries

value chain, but can be easily adapted to other food

products value chains. The implemented smart con-

tract enables the value chain of ﬁsh and its derivatives

to become more transparent, and thus the value chain

can improve its reputation and gain credibility and im-

prove consumer conﬁdence. The platform has other

advantages like improve communication and the co-

ordination between the involved parties and improve

the integrated process. It also allows to control the

quantity and the species of wild ﬁsh that are caught

and the places and the season in which certain species

can be caught, helping to preserve marine diversity in

the oceans.

Working with blockchain involves reviving some

ways to save memory, since a transaction can be more

expensive and slower if it involves a larger volume of

data. The solidity programming language itself has

some issues, as for instance, only allowing a maxi-

mum of 16 function parameters, and not allowing pa-

rameters with variable length.

Blockchain is a technology suitable for traceabil-

ity, where each operator will have their copy of the

data, allowing all operators to work together even

without having to trust each other completely.

In order for the ﬁnal consumer, or the authori-

ties, to easily access the information stored on the

blockchain, it is necessary to create a tool that pro-

vides this information in an easy and user-friendly en-

vironment. This is a work in progress.

As future work it would be also appropriate to col-

lect the stored information to make data analysis and

present statistics about this data.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This contribution has been developed in the context

of Project ”ValorMar –Valorizac¸

ao integral dos re-

cursos marinhos: potencial, inovac¸

ao tecnol

ogica e

novas aplicac¸

oes” (reference POCI-01-0247-FEDER-

024517) funded by FEDER (Fundo Europeu de De-

senvolvimento Regional) through Operational Pro-

gramme for Competitiveness and Internationalization

(POCI).

Using Blockchain to Implement Traceability on Fishery Value Chain

507

REFERENCES

22005:2007, I. (2007). Traceability in the feed and food

chain. Technical report, International Organization for

Standardization.

Biswas, K., Muthukkumarasamy, V., and Tan, W. L. (2017).

Blockchain based wine supply chain traceability sys-

tem. In Future Technologies Conference (FTC).

Bragagnolo, S., Rocha, H., Denker, M., and Ducasse, S.

(2018). Smartinspect: Solidity smart contract inspec-

tor. In IWBOSE 2018 - 1st International Workshop

on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering, Cam-

pobasso, Italy.

Caro, M. P., Ali, M. S., Vecchio, M., and Giaffreda, R.

(2018). Blockchain-based traceability in agri-food

supply chain management: A practical implementa-

tion. In 2018 IoT Vertical and Topical Summit on Agri-

culture - Tuscany (IOT Tuscany).

Cruz, E. F., Cruz, A. M., and Gomes, R. (2019). Analysis of

a traceability and quality monitoring platform for the

ﬁshery and aquaculture value chain. In 14th Iberian

Conference on Information Systems and Technologies.

Cruz, E. F. and da Cruz, A. M. R. (2019). A food value

chain integrated business process and domain models

for product traceability and quality monitoring: Pat-

tern Models for Food Traceability Platforms. In 21st

International Conference on Enterprise Information

Systems (ICEIS), Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

Cruz, E. F., Santos, M. Y., and Machado, R. J. (2015). De-

riving a data model from a set of interrelated business

process models. In 17th International Conference on

Enterprise Information Systems, pages 49–59.

da Cruz, A. M., Cruz, E. F., Moreira, P. M., Carreira, R.,

ao Gomes, J., Oliveira, J., and Gomes, R. (2019). On

the design of a platform for traceability in the ﬁshery

and aquaculture value chain. In 14th Iberian Confer-

ence on Information Systems and Technologies.

da Cruz, A. M. R. and Cruz, E. F. (2020). Blockchain-based

traceability platforms as a tool for sustainability. In

22st International Conference on Enterprise Informa-

tion Systems (ICEIS), vol. 2, pp 330–337. SciTePress.

da Cruz, A. M. R., Santos, F., Mendes, P., and Cruz, E. F.

(2020). Blockchain-based traceability of carbon foot-

print a solidity smart contract for ethereum. In 22st

International Conference on Enterprise Information

Systems (ICEIS), vol. 2, pp 258–268. SciTePress.

Food, F. and Organization, A. (2018). The state of world

ﬁsheries and aquaculture. Tech report, United Na-

tions.

Gardner, C. J., Rocliffe, S., Gough, C., Levrel, A., Single-

ton, R. L., Vincke, X., and Harris, A. (2017). Value

Chain Challenges in Two Community- Managed Fish-

eries in Western Madagascar: Insights for the Small-

Scale Fisheries Guidelines. Springer Int’l Pub AG.

Gephart, J. A., Troell, M., Henriksson, P. J., Beveridge,

M. C., Verdegem, M., Metian, M., Mateos, L. D., and

Deutsch, L. (2017). The ‘seafood gap’ in the food-

water nexus literature—issues surrounding freshwater

use in seafood production chains. Advances in Water

Resources, 110:505 – 514.

Howson, P. (2020). Building trust and equity in marine con-

servation and ﬁsheries supply chain management with

blockchain. In Marine Policy.

Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., and Papamanthou,

C. (2016). Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptogra-

phy and privacy-preserving smart contracts. In IEEE

Symposium on Security and Privacy.

Lin, I.-C. and Liao, T.-C. (2017). A survey of blockchain

security issues and challenges. International Journal

of Network Security, 19(5):pp 653–659.

Moga, L. M. (2017). Cloud computing based solutions for

monitoring the supply chain of ﬁsh and ﬁshery prod-

ucts. In 2017 8th Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Computing

and Information Systems (ICICIS), pp 33–38.

Nicolae, C. G., Moga, L. M., Bahaciu, G. V., and Marin,

M. P. (2017). Traceability system structure design for

ﬁsh and ﬁsh products based on supply chain actors

needs. In Animal Science, volume LX.

Pahl, C., Ioini, N. E., and Helmer, S. (2018). A decision

framework for blockchain platforms for iot and edge

computing. In Proceedings of the 3rd International

Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Secu-

rity - Volume 1: IoTBDS, pages 105–113.

Parre

no-Marchante, A., Alvarez-Melcon, A., Trebar, M.,

and Filippin, P. (2014). Advanced traceability system

in aquaculture supply chain. Journal of Food Engi-

neering.

Pedersen, A. B., Risius, M., and Beck, R. (2019). A ten-step

decision path to determine when to use blockchain

technologies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18.

Rejeb, A. (2018). Blockchain potential in tilapia supply

chain in Ghana. In Acta Technica Jaurinensis, vol. 11.

Ruoti, S., Kaiser, B., Yerukhimovich, A., Clark, J., and

Cunningham, R. (2019). Blockchain technology:

What is it good for? Communications of the ACM,

63(1).

Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., and Shen, L. (2019).

Blockchain technology and its relationships to sus-

tainable supply chain management. International

Journal of Production Research, 57(7):2117–2135.

Tan, B., Yan, J., Chen, S., and Liu, X. (2019). The impact

of blockchain on food supply chain: The case of wal-

mart. In Int’l Conf. on Smart Blockchain.

Tian, F. (2017). A supply chain traceability system for food

safety based on haccp, blockchain amp; internet of

things. In International Conference on Service Sys-

tems and Service Management.

Union, E. (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the Eu-

ropean Parliament and of the Council of 28 January

2002. Technical report, Ofﬁcial Journal of the Euro-

pean Communities.

Yan, B., Shi, P., and Huang, G. (2013). Development

of traceability system of aquatic foods supply chain

based on rﬁd and epc internet of things. Transactions

of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,

29(15):172–183.

ICSOFT 2020 - 15th International Conference on Software Technologies

508