Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=brfs21
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture
ISSN: 2330-8249 (Print) 2330-8257 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs21
Scenarios for Global Aquaculture and Its Role in
Human Nutrition
Jessica A. Gephart, Christopher D. Golden, Frank Asche, Ben Belton, Cecile
Brugere, Halley E. Froehlich, Jillian P. Fry, Benjamin S. Halpern, Christina C.
Hicks, Robert C. Jones, Dane H. Klinger, David C. Little, Douglas J. McCauley,
Shakuntala H. Thilsted, Max Troell & Edward H. Allison
To cite this article: Jessica A. Gephart, Christopher D. Golden, Frank Asche, Ben Belton, Cecile
Brugere, Halley E. Froehlich, Jillian P. Fry, Benjamin S. Halpern, Christina C. Hicks, Robert C.
Jones, Dane H. Klinger, David C. Little, Douglas J. McCauley, Shakuntala H. Thilsted, Max Troell
& Edward H. Allison (2020): Scenarios for Global Aquaculture and Its Role in Human Nutrition,
Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2020.1782342
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1782342
© 2020 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Published online: 09 Jul 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
REVIEW
Scenarios for Global Aquaculture and Its Role in Human Nutrition
Jessica A. Gephart
a,b
, Christopher D. Golden
c,d
, Frank Asche
e
, Ben Belton
f,g
, Cecile Brugere
h
,
Halley E. Froehlich
i,j
, Jillian P. Fry
k
, Benjamin S. Halpern
l,m
, Christina C. Hicks
n
, Robert C. Jones
o
, Dane H.
Klinger
c,p
, David C. Little
q
, Douglas J. McCauley
i,r
, Shakuntala H. Thilsted
g
, Max Troell
s,t
, and
Edward H. Allison
g,u
a
The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, University of Maryland, Annapolis, Maryland, USA;
b
Department of
Environmental Science, American University, Washington, DC, USA;
c
Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public
Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;
d
Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA;
e
Institute for Sustainable Food Systems and Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and
Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA;
f
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA;
g
WorldFish, Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia;
h
Soulfish Research & Consultancy, York, UK;
i
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA;
j
Environmental Studies,
University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA;
k
Department of Health Sciences, College of Health Professions, Towson
University, Towson, Maryland, USA;
l
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara,
California, USA;
m
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA;
n
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK;
o
Global Provide Food and Water Team, The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, Virginia, USA;
p
Center for Oceans, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA;
q
Institute of Aquaculture, University
of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK;
r
Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA;
s
Beijer Institute of
Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden;
t
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm
University, Stockholm, Sweden;
u
Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Program, Earthlab, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, USA
ABSTRACT
Global demand for freshwater and marine foods (i.e., seafood) is rising and an increasing
proportion is farmed. Aquaculture encompasses a range of species and cultivation methods,
resulting in diverse social, economic, nutritional, and environmental outcomes. As a result,
how aquaculture develops will influence human wellbeing and environmental health out-
comes. Recognition of this has spurred a push for nutrition-sensitive aquaculture, which
aims to benefit public health through the production of diverse, nutrient-rich seafood and
enabling equitable access. This article explores plausible aquaculture futures and their role
in nutrition security using a qualitative scenario approach. Two dimensions of economic
development –the degree of globalization and the predominant economic development
philosophy –bound four scenarios representing systems that are either localized or global-
ized, and orientated toward maximizing sectoral economic growth or to meeting environ-
mental and equity dimensions of sustainability. The potential contribution of aquaculture in
improving nutrition security is then evaluated within each scenario. While aquaculture could
be “nutrition-sensitive”under any of the scenarios, its contribution to addressing health
inequities is more likely in the economic and political context of a more globally harmon-
ized trade environment and where economic policies are oriented toward social equity and
environmental sustainability.
KEYWORDS
Aquatic foods; food
security; food sovereignty;
globalization; nutrition
security; nutrition-sensitive
1. Introduction
Achieving global food and nutrition security goals
within environmental boundaries will require trans-
formation of global food production and distribution
systems. This dual challenge will become ever more
critical to solve with a global population headed to 10
billion by 2050, shifting socio-economic
demographics, and with dietary trends toward more
resource-intensive foods (Tilman and Clark 2014;
Springmann et al. 2018; Willett et al. 2019).
Fish and other aquatic foods from both freshwater
and marine environments (hereafter referred to as
“seafood”) are central to meeting food and nutrition
security goals (B
en
e et al. 2015; Thilsted et al. 2016;
CONTACT Edward H. Allison eha1@uw.edu; e.allison@cgiar.org WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia 11960.
Present Address: American University, Beeghly 104, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016-8002, USA.
ß2020 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE
https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1782342
World Health Organization 2018; Willett et al. 2019);
and potentially providing more environmentally sus-
tainable animal-source foods (Hilborn et al. 2018;
Hallstr€
om et al. 2019). Globally, per capita seafood
supply increased from 9.0 kg in 1961 to 20.2 kg in
2015 (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]
2018a), with rising prices in capture fisheries indica-
tive of even stronger demand (Tveterås et al. 2012).
This demand for seafood will increase significantly
over the medium term (2030–2050) if historical trends
in income and population growth, urbanization, and
diets are maintained (Willett et al. 2019).
Although wild seafood has been harvested from
oceans and inland waters for millennia, large increases
in fishing effort over the past century, coupled with
anthropogenic pressures including habitat degradation
and pollution, have placed increasing pressure on wild
fish stocks (Lynch et al. 2016; Pauly and Zeller 2016).
As a result, global capture fisheries production peaked
in the mid-1990s and has since plateaued (FAO
2018a). Under optimal management conditions, cap-
ture fisheries output could potentially increase by
about 20% (Costello et al. 2019), although this seems
unlikely in practice. In contrast, over the past three
decades, farmed seafood production (aquaculture)
grew at a rate of more than 8% per year and now pro-
duces around half of all seafood destined for human
consumption (FAO 2018a; Edwards et al. 2019).
Aquaculture therefore has been, and will remain, crit-
ical for filling the seafood demand gap.
Like any food production system, increasing aqua-
culture production will come with environmental
costs. Environmental impacts, including those associ-
ated with energy use, water reliance, feed inputs, gen-
etic risks and nutrient and pollutant release, vary
widely because production systems and feed require-
ments are highly diverse, with around 460 species/
groups of algae, shellfish, and finfish raised in fresh-
water, brackish, and marine environments, using a
wide range of technologies (Troell et al. 2014; Tacon
2020). Local and regional environmental factors sig-
nificantly determine ecosystem impacts of production,
such as those related to accumulation of effluent and
sensitivity of wild species (Aguilar-Manjarrez et al.
2017). Environmental impacts depend on the species,
and increasingly, strain, farmed due to varying feed
requirements, differences in growing method, produc-
tion intensity, input sourcing, and farm management
practices (Gephart, Troell, et al. 2017; Poore and
Nemecek 2018; Bohnes et al. 2019), but within this
variability lies opportunities. Although it has ancient
roots (Beveridge and Little 2007; Harland 2019), the
rapid growth of aquaculture in the last 40 years makes
it a relatively young industry with vast potential to
innovate toward low environmental impact systems.
Seafood currently supplies nearly 20% of animal
protein and is often a rich source of vitamins, miner-
als, and omega-3 fatty acids essential to human health,
development and cognition, with at least 845 million
people estimated to be nutritionally dependent on sea-
food (B
en
e et al. 2015; Golden et al. 2016). The nutri-
tional contribution of aquaculture varies widely,
depending not only on the species produced and what
it is fed (Fry et al. 2016; Tacon et al. 2020) but also
on the environmental, social, and economic context of
production and distribution systems. Evaluating nutri-
tional contributions therefore requires a systems
approach to understand the distribution of seafood, as
well as the economic value derived from seafood
along the supply chain. Both environmental and nutri-
tional performance of farmed seafood must be consid-
ered in the context of the broader food system and
local context of both production and consumption
(Halpern et al. 2019). This approach avoids pitting
one fish against another in search of a silver bullet
and emphasizes the importance of considering aqua-
culture in the context of the diversity of foods in a
food system (Tlusty et al. 2019).
This systems approach aligns with the concept of
nutrition-sensitive food production, an emerging para-
digm developed in response to perceptions that the
global food system has been successful at increasing
productivity to meet caloric needs of a growing popu-
lation but has been less successful at supplying a
healthy and nutritious diet (e.g., Krishna Bahadur
et al. 2018). Nutrition-sensitive agriculture seeks to
maximize the contribution of agriculture to nutrition
through a strategy stressing the multiple benefits
derived from diverse foods, including improving
nutrition, valuing the social significance of food, and
supporting livelihoods (Uccello et al. 2017). The con-
cept of nutrition-sensitivity has recently been extended
to fisheries and aquaculture sub-sectors (Golden et al.
2016,2017; Thilsted et al. 2016; Fisher et al. 2017).
Nutrition-sensitive aquaculture is defined here as a
food system that (i) supports public health outcomes
through production of diverse seafood, (ii) provides
multiple, rich sources of essential, bioavailable
nutrients, and (iii) supports equitable access to nutri-
tionally adequate, safe, and culturally acceptable diets
that meet food preferences for all populations, with-
out compromising ecosystem functions, other food
systems, and livelihoods. Key to nutrition-sensitive
aquaculture is the shift from looking at aquaculture
2 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
as primarily a means to produce seafood toward a
means to create wellbeing, which necessitates
accounting for socio-economic, environmental, and
cultural dimensions.
Under what circumstances, and with what policies,
could aquaculture be “nutrition-sensitive”? This ques-
tion is addressed here by examining potential aquacul-
ture development trajectories using a scenario
approach and evaluating the constraints and opportu-
nities for nutrition-sensitive aquaculture under each
scenario. Previous analyses of the future of aquacul-
ture have used supply and demand models to project
production and consumption levels based on observed
patterns of consumption and price elasticities of
demand (e.g. Kobayashi et al. 2015; Tran et al. 2019).
Although valuable for forecasting near-term demand,
such projections are based on current diet patterns,
trade environments, and governance contexts. Their
utility can be expanded when coupled with qualitative
scenarios to understand the conditions that enable or
inhibit nutrition-sensitive aquaculture, such as the
role of public and private investments in shaping
development trajectories, the trade policy environ-
ment, technological innovation and knowledge trans-
fer, and the response of consumers to information
and marketing campaigns (Asche 2008; Thong and
Solgaard 2017; Garlock et al. 2020).
Scenarios are plausible descriptions about how the
future may develop, based on coherent and internally
consistent relationships, but are not predictions or
forecasts (Naki
cenovi
c and Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change 2000). Here, qualitative scenarios
for future aquaculture are developed through a pro-
cess of expert elicitation and focused on the medium-
term future (i.e. 2030–2050). The specific contexts
required to support nutrition-sensitive aquaculture are
examined within each scenario. Finally, while the
scenarios take a global perspective, individual coun-
tries and production systems can follow diverging
paths. To underscore the range of paths that can sim-
ultaneously exist, current aquaculture production sys-
tems exhibiting key elements of each scenario
trajectory are described. The presented scenarios can
help prompt discussions about which futures are
desirable. As the current food system experiences sub-
stantial shocks to both supply and demand, there is
potential for the sector to reorganize and head down
an alternate scenario path. As such, it is critical to
take stock of the current trajectory of aquaculture and
prioritize conditions enabling nutrition-sensitive aqua-
culture into the future.
2. Methods
Future scenarios were developed using a version of
the exploratory-strategic scenario methodology, fol-
lowing scenario development approaches used for
socio-environmental decision-making (Reilly and
Willenbockel 2010). The first step was to converge on
the focal issue: the development of aquaculture and
how different trajectories would likely affect its contri-
bution to human nutrition.
The second step was to identify forces that are
driving change in the aquaculture sector, with an
emphasis on drivers that affect its intersection with
the overall food system. Drivers are “any natural-or
human-induced factor that directly or indirectly
brings about change in [aquaculture] production sys-
tems”(Hazell and Wood 2008). This definition, ori-
ginally applied to agriculture, was extended beyond its
production sector focus to include other elements of
the food system, including distribution and consump-
tion. The perceived relative importance of the identi-
fied driving forces and uncertainty of their impacts
were ranked. Importance, in this context, relates to
any force or factor –environmental, social, economic,
cultural, or political –that could significantly alter the
trajectory of aquaculture development. The focus was
on uncertainty in the magnitude and direction of the
impact on aquaculture and the food system, not
whether the identified driver will occur or if it will
have an effect.
The two drivers identified as most important, most
uncertain, and uncorrelated to each other were used
to bound four contrasting scenarios. This was not a
predictive exercise, meaning scenarios were not
assigned probabilities. Instead, the scenarios focused
on contrasting situations that are plausible given the
identified uncertainties faced by aquaculture and food
sectors, health, human development, and the environ-
ment. Taking these four scenarios, a storyline was
developed for each using a template based on a matrix
of all drivers identified as potentially important, add-
itional to the two that formed the scenario axes.
Opportunities for nutrition-sensitive aquaculture were
evaluated within each scenario. Finally, current aqua-
culture systems were reviewed to identify examples
capturing the key elements of each scenario.
3. Scenario results
The two key drivers identified as bounding the future
of the aquaculture sector are economic globalization
(section 3.1) and economic growth trajectory (section
3.2). These drivers form two dimensions of possible
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 3
economic development pathways that are likely to
influence food sector trajectories –including aquacul-
ture sectoral policies because of their influence on
how goods and knowledge are distributed. Economic
globalization refers to the structure of the global econ-
omy, within which aquaculture production and trade
take place, and economic growth trajectory refers to
the degree to which national, regional and global gov-
ernance will influence the adjustment of the food sys-
tem to emergent concerns for environmental
sustainability and distributional equity. These can
broadly be seen as reflecting uncertainties about: (1)
whether the macro-economic architecture of global
trade will remain similar to that found currently, or
will fragment under the forces of populism and
nationalism (Rodrik 2018a), and; (2) whether human-
ity commits to the environmental and distributional
policies required to provide a good life for all within
planetary boundaries (O’Neill et al. 2018), or whether
neo-classical, growth-focused economic development
strategies prevail. This second issue has been much
debated in the last decade (Peck 2010; Reich 2016).
These uncertainties are also identified in most macro-
economic prospect and foresight documents, including
the 2018 “World Economic Situation and Prospects”
(United Nations 2018).
3.1. Geographical growth pattern: regionalized
to globalized
Globalization describes the increased connectivity and
flow of people, information, goods, and services across
space (Figure 1). The horizontal axis therefore
describes the spectrum of the degree of integration,
from a food system in which production and con-
sumption occur in the same geographical area
(regionalized) to a food system in which production
might occur in a geographically distant area from
where it is consumed (globalized). The farthest left
point on the axis would represent a system based on
household production and consumption. Further
along this axis, the regionalized systems move toward
globalization and include increasingly large geographic
areas, for example, through development of regional
trading blocs (e.g. the European Union, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the
North American Free Trade Agreement countries).
The farthest right position would represent a global
market system where food is produced primarily for
export, based on the comparative advantage of each
region or country, or where food is primarily
imported. When more foods and other products avail-
able in local markets come from non-local producers,
Figure 1. Visual representation of the two selected axes and four resulting scenarios.
4 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
markets tend to become more interconnected within
global supply chains and prices become more syn-
chronous (i.e., global market integration).
In general, globalization has increased in recent
decades due to decreasing transportation costs,
improved communication technology, and liberaliza-
tion of trade policies. Global food trade has increased
in line with this, with at least 25% of all food calories
now traded internationally (D’Odorico et al. 2014),
and seafood is among the most traded foods with 39%
of production traded by value (Asche et al. 2015).
Global trade of seafood has increased particularly rap-
idly, with near doubling in volume and value of sea-
food traded internationally from 1994 to 2012, with
the largest increases in trade flows co-occurring with
rapid expansion of aquaculture (Gephart and Pace
2015). The impacts of seafood trade on food security
and wellbeing remain a subject of debate (Kurien
2005;B
en
e et al. 2010). The argument that inter-
national trade benefits food security centers on pov-
erty alleviation from trade-induced economic growth
(B
en
e et al. 2010). Meanwhile, the position that inter-
national seafood trade hinders food security centers
on the argument that export revenues are not distrib-
uted in a way that benefits the poor (B
en
e et al.
2010). A meta-analysis of case studies on the impact
of international seafood trade on small-scale fisheries
identified three distinct syndromes, with only one
resulting in increased fisher incomes in some instan-
ces (Crona et al. 2015). While these studies focused
on capture fisheries, similarly mixed impacts are likely
for aquaculture (Golden et al. 2017). Against the dom-
inant trend of globalization, there have been some
movements toward increased protectionism and pat-
terns of de-globalization (Link 2018). Within the area
of food production, some countries have set goals or
implemented policies related to food sovereignty
(Clark 2016; Desmarais et al. 2017).
3.2. Economic growth trajectory: “endless growth”
to “doughnut economics”
The second axis describes different ways in which
economies around the world may develop (Figure 1).
One end of this continuum of possible macro-eco-
nomic pathways represents a capitalist approach
(Friedman 2009) that additionally posits that human
inventiveness and adaptability can lead to “endless
growth”(Simon and Bartlett 1985) and improved
prosperity through the “rising tide that lifts all boats”
(Kwon and Salcido 2019). The other represents an
explicit concern for planetary boundaries and
distributive justice (a “doughnut economics”
approach; Raworth 2017a,2017b). Both of these eco-
nomic growth models can improve well-being, but
their different intended pathways to social and envir-
onmental development would likely yield different
food system configurations and therefore different
aquaculture growth patterns.
On the endless growth end of the spectrum, there is
a key assumption that the global economy can continue
to grow, if governments provide the right investment
climate, through a combination of major investments
in innovation, technology, infrastructure, and human
capital. Under this approach, aquaculture growth may
be incentivized by tax breaks to large-scale aquaculture
investors, investment in skilled workforces that then
benefit private-sector financed research and develop-
ment, or removal of potential restrictions to aquacul-
ture growth, such as environmental legislation that
might limit expansion of production facilities, or labor
laws that might reduce the profitability of commercial
operations. This philosophy of economic growth posits
that market forces will achieve improved well-being
and technological innovation will provide solutions to
environmental boundaries.
On the other end of the axis, the donut economics
approach is defined by establishing a safe and just
operating space for humanity that is bounded by a
social foundation and an environmental ceiling, creat-
ing a donut-shaped space for sustainable development
(Raworth 2012). The social foundation and an envir-
onmental ceiling are interdependent, such that envir-
onmental stress can worsen poverty and inequality,
and vice versa. As a result, this approach requires a
more intentional accounting for both social and envir-
onmental outcomes of economic growth. Aquaculture
development under a donut economics approach
might be characterized by state- or societally-set
standards and criteria for sustainable production
methods and labor laws and unions to ensure gender
equality, decent working conditions, and fair wages.
The economic extremes highlight a key difference
between endless growth and donut economics
approaches: donut economics treats planetary and
social boundaries as the starting point for assessing
how economic activity should take place, rather than
treating social and environmental stresses as economic
externalities (Raworth 2017b).
3.3. Aquaculture scenarios
The two axes relating to the degree of globalization
and the economic growth philosophy create four
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 5
quadrants, each representing a distinct future scenario,
named: Aquatic Chicken, Aqua-Nationalism, Food
Sovereignty, and Blue Internationalism (Figure 1). A
qualitative narrative followed by a discussion of the
opportunity space for nutrition-sensitive aquaculture
and a current aquaculture system exemplifying the
scenario is provided for each scenario.
3.3.1. Aquatic chicken
3.3.1.1. Aquatic chicken scenario narrative. Under
the aquatic chicken scenario, the world moves toward
further economic globalization and encourages bound-
less economic growth. Through genetic selection and
modification, as well as technological innovations, the
aquaculture industry develops intensive production
systems with limited environmental regulation. The
highly intensive and controlled production systems
prioritize reducing production cost, raising concerns
regarding environmental impacts and animal welfare.
Despite this, seafood products may still be environ-
mentally efficient compared to other animal-source
foods. Production systems rely on globalized supply
chains, sourcing feed ingredients internationally, tak-
ing advantage of low labor costs for processing, and
utilizing coproducts and byproducts globally.
Through competition, only the most profitable sys-
tem-species combinations win out, resulting in mas-
sive production of only a few species, which are
highly traded and spread rapidly (akin to the domin-
ance of four species in the meat market, led by
chicken; Bennett et al. 2018). This high level of pro-
duction creates low global prices for such “aquatic
chickens,”which occupy different price categories tar-
geting different types of consumers and reach con-
sumers around the globe due to low trade barriers.
This enhances access to seafood for those in urban
areas and areas with good logistics. Self-provisioning
and local smallholder production persist as part of
integrated rural livelihoods for species not dependent
on externally sourced seed, but this is marginal com-
pared to a world where production is dominated by a
few large species.
The “aquatic chicken”supply chains are generally
vertically integrated and only a few companies control
key components of the supply chain, especially breed-
ing and feed production. This level of consolidation
has both risks and benefits. On the one hand, compa-
nies build significant knowledge with respect to pro-
duction and marketing of these species and manage
risk along the supply chain to reduce the probability
of production disruptions, including through invest-
ment in multiple producers to minimize risk from
any periodic localized disruptions. On the other hand,
inherent low species diversity makes the systems vul-
nerable to disease, which can only partly be mitigated
by improved knowledge about disease prevention
and treatment.
3.3.1.2. Aquatic chicken scenario discussion.
Although this scenario is likely to produce the largest
quantity of food at the lowest prices, the concentra-
tion of production among large producers and reli-
ance on cold storage supply chains can limit rural
access. The high nutritional quality of the aquatic
chickens could feasibly fill nutrient gaps in the mar-
kets it reaches. Therefore, maintaining or enhancing
quality of the products, for example, through nutrient
fortification (Tacon et al., 2020), will be important
from a nutrition-sensitivity perspective, but there are
currently few incentives to take nutritional quality
into account when the main objective is efficient, low
cost production. Targeted policy interventions would
therefore be necessary to redirect aquatic chicken
toward nutritionally vulnerable populations in order
to be nutrition sensitive.
Farmed salmon and tilapia have to a large extent
adopted production practices from intensive agricul-
ture to an aquatic environment, following paths simi-
lar to the aquatic chicken scenario (Asche 2008;
Kumar and Engle 2016; Asche et al. 2018). The
“growth first”approach characterizing the aquatic
chicken scenario does not consider negative environ-
mental impacts of production. The development his-
tory of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) provides a good
example of this. In the early years, local pollution and
use of antibiotics and different chemicals increased
even faster than the salmon production, not dissimilar
to what one has observed for chicken. In addition, use
of marine ingredients in salmon feeds presents a
unique environmental challenge. With increased
knowledge and governance systems providing incen-
tives, these challenges can be addressed such as by
using vaccines instead of antibiotics (Asche 2008) and
alternative terrestrial (e.g. soy for protein) or high
technology-based (e.g. microalgae and genetically
modified rapeseed for omega-3 fatty acids) feeds
ingredients (Klinger and Naylor 2012; Cottrell et al.
2020). While there are still environmental challenges
associated with salmon production that vary with the
production practices in different countries, the total
environmental impact is now less than many alterna-
tives (Froehlich, Runge, et al. 2018).
Salmon is rapidly moving to become an industry
with multi-national companies in key roles. For
6 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
example, there are only two or three feed suppliers
present in most salmon producing countries and two
leading breeding companies. The development of the
salmon industry has been supported by the university
and research and development infrastructure in pro-
ducer countries, which facilitated knowledge transfer
from agriculture. This drove significant reductions in
production costs, leading to lower prices and moving
salmon from a luxury to an affordable product in
wealthier countries. The export patterns reflect a strat-
egy of targeting wealthy consumers, with the greatest
share heading to the largest economies, while very
small quantities enter poorer and smaller countries.
This highlights that while salmon may be nutritionally
useful in the countries where it is consumed, it is not
to any extent targeting the neediest.
While salmon is currently the aquatic species that
most closely follows chicken style production and
marketing strategies, the special circumstances that
made it a success may also prevent it from becoming
a globally produced aquatic chicken. Significant pro-
duction is restricted to only a handful of countries,
with two making up almost 85% of total production,
and its geography is limited by sea cage production
that requires specific oceanographic conditions and
temperature range. This may be overcome in the
future by efforts to develop land-based and offshore
systems (Bjørndal and Tusvik 2019). If successful, this
will allow production in many more countries and
effectively remove the largest production constraints.
In the long run, it is still a question if it can be price
and cost competitive relative to faster growing sub-
tropical species, such as tilapia.
The commoditization and global trade in tilapias
took off around the millennium with a rapid rise in
exports of processed individually quick-frozen tilapia
from China to North America (Zhang et al. 2017).
The ground for this growth was laid two decades pre-
viously through the distribution and farming of Nile
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) across five continents
(Kumar and Engle 2016). US-based pioneers had
developed a “white tablecloth”restaurant focus for
fresh tilapias produced in Latin America which had
built popularity through the absence of a strong fishy
flavor, a blank canvas for chefs to add flavor, and
value for price in a fairly limited seafood menu of the
United States. Technical advances, control of breeding
and improved strains had also been developing to
improve productivity and remove barriers, such as
inconsistent size and “off-flavors”that had previously
plagued the sector. The market developed mainly
around individually quick-frozen fillets, often with
value added by diversification by US based processors.
Yet, even though tilapia has now entered almost every
retail and food service niche in North America,
including fast food, demand for tilapia has recently
declined in the United States (FAO 2019), in contrast
to the steady growth evident on a global basis
(Tveterås et al. 2019).
Large integrated companies in China are now
developing value-added products for the domestic
market and are increasingly turning to new markets,
such as Sub-Saharan Africa, to sell rapidly increasing
quantities of frozen whole tilapia (Mapfumo 2015). As
a result, nascent large-scale intensive production in
countries like Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia, which
largely targeted better-off urban consumers, cannot
compete on price with Chinese imported tilapia, thus
eroding domestic margins and market shares. The
influx of cheaper substitutes has made tilapia more
affordable for poorer consumers and arguably, pro-
vided strong incentives for local producers to become
more efficient. But local producers are hampered by
slower growing strains, expensive feeds, limited avail-
ability of quality fingerlings, lack of trained employees,
and an undeveloped service sector. Tilapia production
growth in other countries, such as Egypt and
Bangladesh, is spurred by knowledge and technology
transfer; import of feed ingredients and production
equipment has also been critical in most contexts sup-
ported by increasing globalization.
3.3.2. Aqua-nationalism
3.3.2.1. Aqua-nationalism scenario narrative. In this
scenario, countries throughout the world turn inward
for economic growth and focus on supporting
national industries to meet seafood demand. While
demand within countries continues to fuel production
for domestic markets, limited technology transfer,
sparse development, underdeveloped regulatory sys-
tems and import barriers for feeds result in less effi-
cient production at the country level and higher
prices. Such increases in prices reduce access to sea-
food by the poor, and lower total global aquaculture
production. Inequality in seafood supply rises: the
supply to current net importers declines sharply and
while domestic production gradually expands, it is
unable to close the demand gap and causes prices to
rise. Reduced access to imported feed ingredients
increases production costs and further drives up pri-
ces. Growth of farmed seafood supply in “late
adopting”countries where aquaculture development is
currently in the nascent stages, is delayed, interrupted,
or reversed.
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 7
Overall, diversity of seafood available in each coun-
try generally declines as production diversity is con-
strained by local environmental conditions and
limited technology transfer among countries. In low-
and middle-income countries, reduced external pres-
sure for improvements in environmental and food
safety standards to comply with demand from export
markets result in fewer regulatory spillovers to domes-
tic-oriented production and larger negative environ-
mental and public health externalities. To meet
domestic demand and bring down rising costs, coun-
tries put production growth first and lift environmen-
tal regulations along the supply chain, allowing
industry to exceed local carrying capacity and push up
against environmental boundaries. Collectively, the
world then pushes up against or exceeds planetary
boundaries. Although small initiatives promoting
locally produced, environmentally conscious seafood
arise in some locations (e.g. “Slow Fish,”inspired by
Slow Food), these systems are unsupported by eco-
nomic policies and remain too niche to achieve any
significant supply.
In some places, rolling back environmental and
animal health regulation results in disease outbreaks
and biodiversity loss due to poor siting of farms in
ecologically sensitive habitats. This increases risk of
periodic seafood supply reductions and increased price
volatility. In instances of disruptions from localized
extreme events, regions are unable to source from for-
eign producers to fill production gaps without open
trade policies. In other cases, protectionist trade poli-
cies limit some supply shocks and the spread of trans-
boundary diseases by preventing the import of
organisms that serve as vectors for transmission.
Overall, fluctuating supply and lack of governmental
intervention to influence food safety and nutritional
quality, together with reduced species diversity avail-
able on domestic markets and inadequate consumer
awareness and education, mean that farmed fish play
a limited role in contributing to nutrition and public
health in many countries.
3.3.2.2. Aqua-Nationalism scenario discussion.
Under this scenario, countries with mature aquacul-
ture sectors that already supply a diversity of produc-
tion technologies, species, and product types will
continue to meet some nutritional needs, but for a
narrower range of consumers and at increased cost,
and to a more limited extent, than at present, while
the development of nutrition-sensitive aquaculture in
countries with emergent aquaculture sectors will stall.
Availability of feed ingredients will be a major
challenge for some countries, given current levels of
international trade for soy, fishmeal, fish oil, and
other feed ingredients. In order to overcome these
challenges, national governments will need to invest
more heavily in research, development, training,
extension, financial support to producers, and busi-
nesses upstream and downstream of the farm in order
to offset reduced innovation that could otherwise be
obtained by importing equipment, inputs, and skilled
personnel, or through foreign direct investment.
Subsidies may be required to encourage local produc-
tion of feed ingredients or to offset the cost of hikes
in feed prices due to restrictions on imports if pro-
duction of species dependent on formulated feeds is
to remain economically viable. Public information and
social marketing campaigns will be needed to inform
consumers of the benefits of consuming certain fish
species, and incentives may be necessary to encourage
production of species deemed particularly desirable
from a nutrition point of view.
Myanmar provides a good example of what an
aqua-nationalism scenario looks like. Prior to the
onset of political and economic reforms in 2011, the
“closed”nature of the economy discouraged inward
investment, while economic sanctions severely
restricted access to export markets. Government pol-
icy during the 1990s and 2000s encouraged industrial-
scale aquaculture by allocating land concessions for
development by Myanmar companies. Expansion of
aquaculture occurred without concern of social or
environmental impacts and resulted in displacement
of rural households from their land and conversion of
large areas of biodiversity rich wetland habitat to fish-
ponds (Mark and Belton 2020). These farms produce
a very limited diversity of fish species. A single carp
species –rohu (Labeo rohita)–accounts for around
70% of total production (Tezzo et al. 2018). Most
farms use unsophisticated production technologies
that generate low yields. Until recently, a single com-
pany maintained a virtual monopoly in domestic
aqua-feed production, resulting in high feed prices
and low rates of feed use. The high price of feeds con-
tributed to low productivity and limited diversity of
species farmed. Domestically sourced feed ingredients
are insufficient to meet the needs of the industry, also
contributing to high feed prices (Belton, Hein,
et al. 2018).
An export-oriented shrimp farming sector began to
develop in the 1990s but collapsed in the 2000s in the
wake of sanctions. The shrimp sector was also weak-
ened by disease outbreaks, partly attributable to
poorly sited ponds lacking biosecurity, and
8 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
dependence on a declining supply of wild shrimp
post-larvae, exacerbated by a ban on imports of
shrimp post-larvae from neighboring Bangladesh, and
a lack of investment and knowhow in the domestic
shrimp hatchery sector (World Bank 2019). Myanmar
is able to produce a substantial quantity of farmed
fish for the domestic market, but the predominant
focus on production of large-sized rohu in large,
semi-intensively managed farms means that aquacul-
ture serves a more limited range of consumers and
producers than it could if the sector were organized
around a diverse set of farming systems, farm sizes,
and species (Belton, Hein, et al. 2018). As a result of
this history of de facto “aqua-nationalism,”farmed
fish is more expensive and less accessible to poor con-
sumers than it might otherwise be, and the diversity
of nutrients is limited. Total seafood production and
consumption per capita fall well below their potential.
Recent efforts by development institutions to promote
a more diverse and nutrition-sensitive aquaculture
sector in Myanmar have focused on working with
smaller farms to raise productivity, encouraging pro-
duction of small micronutrient-rich indigenous fish
species as part of polycultures with carp species, and
educating rural households about the benefits of con-
suming these species. To date, these efforts have been
implemented at a limited scale through develop-
ment projects.
3.3.3. Food sovereignty
3.3.3.1. Food sovereignty scenario narrative.
Countries throughout the world adopt sustainable
local food production approaches focused on small-
holder production. While some traditional production
systems are highly productive, in general, global aqua-
culture production grows at a relatively slow rate –if
at all –and total production is relatively low. Without
efficiency and scale in production, there are fewer
investments in production and distribution technol-
ogy. While low production, in combination with high
trade barriers, results in higher prices, the food pro-
duction systems that arise in each country tend to be
in line with local cultural preferences and environ-
mental contexts, resulting in moderate species diver-
sity at local levels and high species diversity globally.
Throughout rural areas, fairly high seafood access
exists for the large number of small-scale producers
and their communities, but higher prices for seafood
sold in urban markets reduce access for the urban
poor. Since countries pursue a sustainable develop-
ment path, production accounts for environmental
limits, thus reducing risk of environmental
disruptions, but when producers do experience losses,
regions cannot fill the gap from foreign suppliers due
to trade barriers. For those able to access farmed sea-
food, a variety of nutritious and culturally preferred
species are available, albeit at a price. As a result, the
sector contributes to nutritional diversity and quality
in diets, and seafood is included in national dietary
guidelines and is available to people at critical life
stages, with the help of state subsidies or incentives,
to state-run schools, hospitals, and elder care facilities.
Regulations on food quality and incentives to main-
tain high nutrient content ensure that nutritional
quality of farmed fish equals or exceeds that of wild-
caught fish.
3.3.3.2. Food sovereignty scenario discussion. Under
this scenario, countries that have retained a cultural
history of developing small-scale aquaculture will see
an increase in these production systems, supported by
government-backed schemes and extension services.
Within low- and middle-income countries and in
rural areas, there will be a growth in widely distrib-
uted household pond culture systems that support a
diversity of species. These systems will likely comple-
ment existing small-scale capture fisheries. When pro-
duction is at the household scale, women are more
likely to play a key role in this sector, increasing the
likelihood that nutritional benefits flow directly to the
most vulnerable. Efforts to coordinate cooperatives
and support larger scale aquaculture production will
be supported through government ownership or loans,
but with limited success, as operational costs and pri-
ces remain high, limiting access to cheap and nutri-
tious fish for the most vulnerable in urban settings.
High-income countries with a history of aquacul-
ture development will continue production, though
likely scaled back, due to lack of supply of fingerlings
and export markets. Within urban settings, aquaponic
and recirculating aquaculture systems are likely to be
promoted along with broader urban gardening initia-
tives, and locally produced slow food movements that
reconnect consumers to food cultures. As a result, fish
prices will increase, and fish consumption will decline.
In these settings, aquaculture is likely to lead to an
increase in the diversity of species produced, and ben-
efits of production are likely to be felt by the wealthy.
This effect may be counteracted by governments
developing redistributive policies and subsidies to sup-
port the production and supply of seafood at reduced
prices for targeted socio-economic groups.
A current example analogous to the former situ-
ation is found in South and Southeast Asia, where
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 9
millions of rural households maintain small ponds in
homesteads and rice fields. These are often stocked
with hatchery-produced seed of species such as Indian
and Chinese major carps, and tilapia and also tend to
attract wild self-recruiting fish species from the sur-
rounding environment (Edwards et al. 2002). Such
ponds are usually managed extensively or semi-inten-
sively, receiving relatively low levels of feeds and
inputs such as rice bran, oil cake, and fertilizers.
Ponds managed in this way produce correspondingly
low yields of fish and generate limited negative envir-
onmental externalities, though there is some evidence
that intensification is taking place in Bangladesh
through greater use of pelleted feeds (Jahan et al.
2015; Hernandez et al. 2018). Depending on house-
hold preferences, fish produced in this way may be
eaten by household members or sold. Most ponds
generate a small surplus of fish that is sold in markets
local to the area where the farm is located, as well as
contributing to home consumption needs (Belton
2013). The location of such ponds close to home com-
pounds means that they are often managed by
women, even in South Asia where cultural norms that
restrict the mobility of women sometimes limit their
participation in other forms of aquaculture. NGO-led
extension projects in Bangladesh and India have suc-
cessfully introduced micronutrient rich small indigen-
ous species such as mola into carp-based homestead
pond polycultures (Thilsted et al. 2016). Including
small indigenous species in polycultures has been
demonstrated to increase intakes of micronutrient-
rich small fish by women and children, (Castine et al.
2017), and to cost-effectively reduce the burden of
micronutrient malnutrition (Fiedler et al. 2016).
Unfortunately, these ways of farming no longer con-
tribute a large share of total fish production. Intensive
and increasingly specialized small and medium scale
commercial farms provide the majority of farmed sea-
food eaten throughout Asia, especially for urban areas
(Belton, Bush, and Little 2018). This means that
return to a heavy dependence on more traditional
forms of small-scale aquaculture would entail reduced
supplies of seafood, and higher consumer prices.
3.3.4. Blue internationalism
3.3.4.1. Blue internationalism scenario narrative.
The world fully embraces the application of sustain-
able development principles, taking advantage of the
benefits of globalized food systems while strengthen-
ing environmental governance to ensure the world
does not exceed planetary boundaries. Global compe-
tition and high levels of technology transfer lead to
relatively high global inland and marine seafood pro-
duction. Favoring production of seafood in line with
local environmental contexts, this world leads to mod-
erate global species diversity, with the local species
diversity depending on the specific approach in a
given country. High global seafood production and
low trade barriers enable low seafood prices, improv-
ing seafood access in urban areas and areas with
transportation infrastructure connections and access
to electricity for refrigeration.
By accounting for environmental boundaries and
diversifying production systems, this world reduces
risks of environmental and disease disruptions to pro-
duction. When disruptions do occur, trade openness
allows regions to source from other regions to meet
seafood demands and efficient and cooperative global
surveillance systems enable disease outbreaks to be
quickly contained before they erupt into pandemics
threatening the sector. The Voluntary Guidelines to
Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to
Adequate Food in the Context of National Food
Security are adopted by most States and ensure that
nutrition information on farmed fish is available and
State policies align with the Human Right to Food
(FAO 2005). Regulations and fiscal incentives ensure
that powerful food sector actors align their produc-
tion, processing and marketing with dietary guide-
lines; they develop aquatic species strains with
different nutrient “signatures”such that they can
reach all sectors of the market with healthy food at
affordable prices.
3.3.4.2. Blue internationalism scenario discussion. A
key assumption that must be realized for nutrition-
sensitive aquaculture to be delivered in this scenario is
that businesses are incentivized and able to produce a
diversity of nutritious products that are available at a
range of price points, including relatively inexpensive
products that are accessible nutritionally vulnerable
populations. The aquaculture sector is primarily com-
posed of businesses that must be profitable to sustain
long-term production. As such, governments must be
able to adequately subsidize, regulate, or otherwise
incentivize producers so that they can profitability
supply seafood at low price points. Further, this scen-
ario assumes governments or markets can incentivize
species diversity, where producers forgo the near-term
benefits of consolidation for longer-term benefits of
resilience (from market, environmental, disease or
other shocks). Both interventions require political will
and resources that may be constrained due to scarcity
or high opportunity costs.
10 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
The aquaculture sector in the Netherlands exhibits
many of the characteristics associated with Blue
Internationalism, despite its relatively low total pro-
duction. Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) make up the
majority of production (86% by tonnage in 2017), but
other bivalves and finfish are produced, including
north African catfish (Clarias gariepinus, 5%), cupped
oysters (Crassostrea gigas, 5%), European eel (Anguilla
anguilla, 3%), and several other species (1%; FAO
2016). Production systems in the Netherlands range
from extensive, capture-based production of blue
mussels to highly intensive recirculating systems for
yellowtail (Seriola lalandi). In capture-based blue mus-
sel systems, farmers dredge natural mussel beds or use
suspended seed collectors to capture wild juveniles
and then transfer them to protected plots for grow-
out (Bostock et al. 2016). Farmed blue mussel produc-
tion in the Netherlands has decreased by about 50%
since highs in the late 1990s due to contraction of
permitted sea-bottom grow-out area as a result of
competition from other users, including environmen-
tal conservation, and periodic recruitment decreases.
Collection of wild seed is regulated (Wijsman et al.
2019). Recirculating systems for yellowtail and other
finfish utilize hatchery produced fingerlings, manufac-
tured feeds, on-land tanks, and high stocking densities
(Sicuro and Luzzana 2016). The Dutch aquaculture
sector is composed mostly of small companies, but
the sector is supported by inputs supplied by regional
and international supply-chain companies.
Species are produced at a range of price points,
based on first-sale value, including $1.4/kg for blue
mussels (Mytilus edulis), $1.7/kg for cupped oysters,
$2.3/kg for North African catfish (Clarias gariepinus),
$8.7/kg for European eel (Anguilla anguilla), $10.1/kg
for yellowtail, and even more for sturgeon (Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii) caviar. Further, production is largely
consumed in the region. Blue mussels are consumed
fresh in the Netherlands and exported to nearby
France and Belgium. In general, most Dutch seafood
products are consumed in the European Union
(USDA 2019). The aquaculture sector in the
Netherlands has contracted in recent years, largely
due to high input costs (e.g., labor) and falling prices
due to competition and production from abroad.
Despite this, seafood production and imports target
multiple market segments and price points and mak-
ing seafood readily available in Dutch markets.
The first and second largest aquaculture producers,
China and Indonesia, both demonstrate movement
toward attributes of the blue internationalism scen-
ario. China participates in a globalized food system
(Cao et al. 2015) and there are early indications that it
is attempting to realign parts of its aquaculture sector
within environmental limits (e.g. Godfrey 2019;
Szuwalski et al. 2020). While the long-term compre-
hensiveness, precision, and effectiveness of these
efforts are uncertain, competing economic sectors and
changing social forces may drive improved regulation
of the sector. Further, China produces for a range of
market segments from high-value marine finfish to
lower value marine plants and the sectors utilize high
species diversity (Gui et al. 2018). Aquaculture in
Indonesia is similarly diverse and the Indonesian sea-
food sector is highly connected to global food systems
(Gephart and Pace 2015). Current practices and
growth goals for the sector often do not account for
environmental boundaries (Henriksson et al. 2019),
but the government has made commitments to
improving both environmental performance and
nutritional sensitivity of the sector.
4. Discussion
As a young and rapidly expanding industry, the future
of aquaculture and its role in nutrition remains highly
uncertain. The factors bounding plausible futures
identified through a structured scenario development
process center on major macroeconomic drivers: glo-
balization and the prevalent economic growth philoso-
phy. These factors generate four contrasting scenarios
of a boundless growth, globalized world (Aquatic
Chicken), a growth first, nationalistic approach
(Aqua-Nationalism), a sustainable growth, localized
approach (Food Sovereignty), and a sustainable
growth, globalized world (Blue Internationalism).
Despite the deep differences among the scenarios,
there are elements of each of these scenarios in cur-
rent production systems from around the world.
Across the four scenarios, there is room for nutri-
tion-sensitive aquaculture in each, but nutrition-sensi-
tivity is not a given under any scenario. As discussed
above, some scenarios are more strongly associated
with the enabling conditions for nutrition-sensitive
aquaculture (adoption of pro-sustainability policies
that emphasize achievement of the sustainable devel-
opment goals and equity of access to healthy, nutri-
tious food), while others (emphasis on
macroeconomic growth with little high-level attention
or effective commitment to environmental sustainabil-
ity and health equity) would likely require targeted
policies to promote nutrition-sensitive aquaculture.
These policies could include (i) initiatives that directly
target behavior change and communication and other
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 11
aspects of nutrition promotion (Ruel et al. 2018); and
(ii) conditional cash transfer programs and support
for family/homestead food production (e.g., Bolsa
Fam
ılia and Programa de Aquisic¸~
ao de Alimentos in
Brazil, Rocha 2009). These types of initiatives have
been demonstrated to improve nutrition-sensitive
food production systems and would likely lead to
improved nutritional outcomes.
International trade and its interaction with sustain-
able development and equitable distribution of sea-
food is central to the scenarios. International trade
agreements and certification programs both shape the
impacts of globalization. International trade agree-
ments began with an emphasis on trade liberalization
(opening markets by reducing tariff and non-tariff
barriers) and non-discrimination (equalizing treatment
of goods and services) under the World Trade
Organization, but have expanded to include bi- and
multi-lateral agreements that include provisions about
domestic policy, health and safety rules, labor stand-
ards, and environmental practices (Rodrik 2018b; Friel
et al. 2020). Notably though, international trade agree-
ments to liberalize food trade are legally binding,
while international agreements or policy recommenda-
tions targeted at addressing malnutrition are not
(Friel et al. 2020). Some Low and Middle Income
Countries have challenged the dominant free trade
approach to addressing malnutrition, pushing for
exemptions from trade liberalization in order to pur-
sue greater food sovereignty (Friel et al. 2020).
Certification schemes, on the other hand, signal pro-
duction standards to consumers, often related to
human rights and environmental health (Derkx and
Glasbergen 2014). These arrangements are initiated
through a collaborative process between businesses
and NGOs, sometimes with the involvement of gov-
ernments, but generally without the sanctioning power
of governments (Glasbergen 2013). Certification
schemes have become increasingly important for
aquaculture and generally focus on environmental and
governance, while rarely covering aspects such as
wealth distribution, equity, or employee interests and
wellbeing (Osmundsen et al. 2020).
The primary drivers of future aquaculture scenarios
in the medium term identified here deal with macro-
economic factors that are uncertain in their evolution
but highly influential. These drivers likely interact
with other prominent drivers of aquaculture produc-
tion, such as climate change. Unlike globalization or
sustainability policy, the mid-term direction related to
climate change is fairly certain. Nevertheless, the scen-
arios which embrace a donut economics approach to
economic development (Blue Internationalism and
Food Sovereignty) bound the safe operating space for
growth with a social floor and an environmental ceil-
ing. As a result, these scenarios prioritize carbon
emissions reductions to limit progression of global cli-
mate change, which would shift opportunities and
risks for aquaculture within these scenarios.
Climate change is already reshaping our food sys-
tems by redistributing crop and fishery potential
(Challinor et al. 2014; Lam et al. 2016; Myers et al.
2017; FAO 2018b; Free et al. 2019) and through
extreme event disturbances (Gephart, Duetsch, et al.
2017; Biela et al. 2019; Cottrell et al. 2019).
Comparatively, climate change impacts on aquaculture
are less understood than consequences for agriculture
and wild capture fisheries (Froehlich, Gentry, and
Halpern 2018). Some studies and governing bodies,
past and present, see aquaculture as part of the solu-
tion to food and nutrition security and livelihood
woes of climate change, particularly for declining fish-
eries (e.g. Troadec 2000). Yet, emerging research is
starting to show just how vulnerable aquaculture may
be to changing climate conditions. At the global scale,
impacts are likely to be heterogenous across the land-
and seascape, but average warming temperatures and
extremes (i.e., heat waves) could potentially lower
overall production of finfish and bivalves, which may
be countered, to some extent, by genetic and species
selection and ability to relocate (Klinger et al. 2017;
Barange et al. 2018; Froehlich, Gentry, and Halpern
2018). Species, however, have physiological limits
(Reid et al. 2015) and it is a multi-stressor world
where phenotypic tradeoffs likely exist (Froehlich
et al. 2016). Further, some species/groups may be
more susceptible to the suite of co-occurring stressors
(e.g., ocean acidification, hypoxia) anticipated to wor-
sen in the coming decades (Barange et al. 2018;
Froehlich, Gentry, and Halpern 2018). At the local
scale, extreme weather events of droughts and floods
are increasingly recognized as current and future chal-
lenges to aquatic farming, including in Malawi
(Limuwa et al. 2018) and Thailand (Lebel et al. 2015).
Ultimately, climate change will influence the scale,
type, and quality of aquaculture production heteroge-
neously around the world. How such impacts will
affect goals for addressing nutrition-sensitive aquacul-
ture is unknown but is no doubt critical for future
research to classify and understand the role of aqua-
culture in food and nutrition security.
In the shorter term, shocks and crises can prompt
reorganization of complex systems. This could push
aquaculture onto alternate scenario trajectories. For
12 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
example, the 2008 grain crisis, wherein high grain pri-
ces driven by a combination of regional droughts, bio-
fuel demand, high oil prices, and the depreciation of
the US dollar triggered a series of export bans
(Headey 2011). The vast consequences of the crisis,
which drove 130 million people into poverty and 75
million people into malnourishment, prompted gov-
ernments to reconsider reliance on foreign foods
(Headey 2011; Friel et al. 2020). This crisis prompted
countries throughout Asia and Africa to turn toward
greater food sovereignty, creating or expanding public
staple crop stocks (Friel et al. 2020). Other recent sud-
den policy changes hint at a turn inward. For
example, the United States has recently made reducing
the seafood trade deficit a policy priority, pushing for
changes to aquaculture, capture fisheries, and trade
policies (Gephart et al. 2019). Such moves cast doubt
in the reliability of foreign trade partners and can
prompt further emphasis on domestic foods.
The realization of systemic risks stemming from
globalization can also push countries onto alternate
trajectories. As the global COVID-19 pandemic is still
unfolding, the full scope of damage to food systems in
the longer term is unknown. Yet, it is already clear
that portions of the aquaculture industry are suffering
major setbacks, as some exports are being halted,
workers are being laid off, food service segment
demand has dramatically decreased, production units
are incurring large losses (FAO 2020) and some coun-
tries are reconsidering their reliance on foreign sea-
food. Such setbacks can be particularly long-lasting
for a budding sector, with many young farms that
potentially lack the capital to weather the storm and
the political clout to secure sufficient recovery aid.
While it is unclear whether any of these events repre-
sents a momentary response or a lasting change, it is
insightful to consider the presented scenarios and
what the future of aquaculture may look like if
nations refocus inward for food and nutrition security
or if the crisis drives further consolidation of
the sector.
5. Conclusion
As nations, investors, and development organizations
look toward aquaculture to meet growing seafood
demand, the macro policies, especially the degree of
globalization and the economic growth strategy, will
shape the form of aquaculture that takes hold. While
each scenario presented here holds the potential for
contributing to nutrition-sensitive aquaculture, each
requires some degree of public policy commitment. It
appears more likely that such commitments will be
made and maintained into the future if countries ori-
ent their policies toward sustainability than if they
prioritize growth, though growth in production could
lower prices and make fish more available to all. It is
also more likely that such policies will be globally
harmonized in a world in which liberal international-
ism prevails over nationalist individualism. Given that
countries are at different levels of development with
respect to aquaculture, food sovereignty policies may
work in places with capabilities and resources to grow
their aquaculture sectors –but an overly rapid retreat
from global markets may leave states with nascent or
unrealized aquaculture potential behind, to the nutri-
tional detriment of their citizens. As aquaculture pro-
duction continues to grow, there is an opportunity to
use policies, market instruments, and consumer edu-
cation to guide development toward more nutrition-
sensitive and healthy environmental futures. As the
world now appears to sit at a crossroads for the future
of aquaculture and its role in contributing to global
food and nutrition security, these scenarios can
prompt discussion among researchers, policymakers,
and advocacy groups about desirable futures for nutri-
tion-sensitive aquaculture to help chart a course for
how to get there.
Support was provided by the US National Socio-
Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding
received from the National Science Foundation [Grant no.
DBI-1052875] and the Wellcome Trust Our Planet, Our
Health program [Grant no. 106864MA]. EA received sup-
port from OAA Sea Grant National Aquaculture Initiative
grant [Grant no. R/SFA/N-8]. The research presented is a
contribution to the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on
Fish Agri-food Systems (FISH), led by WorldFish and the
GAIN (Green Aquaculture Intensification in Europe) pro-
ject who received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under
grant agreement No. 773330.
ORCID
Jessica A. Gephart http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6836-9291
Frank Asche http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1540-9728
Cecile Brugere http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-1044
References
Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Soto D, Brummett R. 2017.
Aquaculture zoning, site selection and area management
under the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United
Nations/World Bank Group.
Asche F. 2008. Farming the Sea. Mar Resour Econ. 23(4):
527–547. doi:10.1086/mre.23.4.42629678
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 13
Asche F, Bellemare MF, Roheim C, Smith MD, Tveteras S.
2015. Fair enough? Food security and the international
trade of seafood. World Dev. 67:151–160. doi:10.1016/j.
worlddev.2014.10.013
Asche F, Cojocaru AL, Roth B. 2018. The development of
large scale aquaculture production: a comparison of the
supply chains for chicken and salmon. Aquaculture. 493:
446–455. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.10.031
Barange M, Bahri T, Beveridge MCM, Cochrane KL, Funge-
Smith S, Poulain F. 2018. Impacts of climate change on
fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of current knowledge,
adaptation and mitigation options. FAO.
Belton B. 2013. Small-scale aquaculture, development and
poverty: a reassessment. In: Bondad-Reantaso MG,
Subasinghe RP, editors. Enhancing the contribution of
smallscale aquaculture to food security, poverty allevi-
ation and socio-economic development. Rome: FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings, FAO. p. 225.
Belton B, Bush SR, Little DC. 2018. Not just for the weal-
thy: rethinking farmed fish consumption in the Global
South. Glob Food Secur. 16:85–92. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.
10.005
Belton B, Hein A, Htoo K, Kham LS, Phyoe AS, Reardon T.
2018. The emerging quiet revolution in Myanmar’s aqua-
culture value chain. Aquaculture. 493:384–394. doi:10.
1016/j.aquaculture.2017.06.028
B
en
e C, Barange M, Subasinghe R, Pinstrup-Andersen P,
Merino G, Hemre G-I, Williams M. 2015. Feeding 9 bil-
lion by 2050 –Putting fish back on the menu. Food Sec.
7(2):261–274. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z
B
en
e C, Lawton R, Allison EH. 2010. Trade matters in the
fight against poverty”: narratives, perceptions, and (lack
of) evidence in the case of fish trade in Africa. World
Dev. 38(7):933–954. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.12.010
Bennett CE, Thomas R, Williams M, Zalasiewicz J,
Edgeworth M, Miller H, Coles B, Foster A, Burton EJ,
Marume U. 2018. The broiler chicken as a signal of a
human reconfigured biosphere. R Soc Open Sci. 5(12):
180325. doi:10.1098/rsos.180325
Beveridge MCM, Little DC. 2007. The history of aquacul-
ture in traditional societies. In: Ecological aquaculture.
Wiley. pp. 1–29. 10.1002/9780470995051.ch1.
Biela VR. V, Arimitsu ML, Piatt JF, Heflin B, Schoen SK,
Trowbridge JL, Clawson CM. 2019. Extreme reduction in
nutritional value of a key forage fish during the Pacific
marine heatwave of 2014-2016. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 613:
171–182. doi:10.3354/meps12891
Bjørndal T, Tusvik A. 2019. Economic analysis of land
based farming of salmon. Aquac Econ Manag. 23(4):
449–475. doi:10.1080/13657305.2019.1654558
Bohnes FA, Hauschild MZ, Schlundt J, Laurent A. 2019.
Life cycle assessments of aquaculture systems: a critical
review of reported findings with recommendations for
policy and system development. Rev Aquacult. 11(4):
1061–79. doi:10.1111/raq.12280
Cao L, Naylor R, Henriksson P, Leadbitter D, Metian M,
Troell M, Zhang W. 2015. Global food supply. China’s
aquaculture and the world’s wild fisheries. Science.
347(6218):133–135. doi:10.1126/science.1260149
Castine SA, Bogard JR, Barman BK, Karim M, Mokarrom
Hossain M, Kunda M, Mahfuzul Haque ABM, Phillips
MJ, Thilsted SH. 2017. Homestead pond polyculture can
improve access to nutritious small fish. Food Sec. 9(4):
785–801. doi:10.1007/s12571-017-0699-6
Challinor AJ, Watson J, Lobell DB, Howden SM, Smith DR,
Chhetri N. 2014. A meta-analysis of crop yield under cli-
mate change and adaptation. Nat Clim Change. 4(4):
287–291. doi:10.1038/nclimate2153
Clark P. 2016. Can the state foster food sovereignty?
Insights from the case of Ecuador. J Agrar Change. 16(2):
183–205. doi:10.1111/joac.12094
Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S. 2019. The future of food from
the sea. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute.
Cottrell RS, Blanchard JL, Halpern BS, Metian M, Froehlich
HE. 2020. Global adoption of novel aquaculture feeds
could substantially reduce forage fish demand by 2030.
Nat Food. 1(5):301–308. doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0078-x
Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Halpern BS, Remenyi TA, Corney SP,
Fleming A, Fulton EA, Hornborg S, Johne A, Watson
RA, et al. 2019. Food production shocks across land and
sea. Nat Sustain. 2(2):130–137. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-
0210-1
Crona BI, Van Holt T, Petersson M, Daw TM, Buchary E.
2015. Using social–ecological syndromes to understand
impacts of international seafood trade on small-scale fish-
eries. Glob Environ Change. 35:162–175. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2015.07.006
D’Odorico P, Carr JA, Laio F, Ridolfi L, Vandoni S. 2014.
Feeding humanity through global food trade. Earths
Future. 2(9):458–469. doi:10.1002/2014EF000250
Derkx B, Glasbergen P. 2014. Elaborating global private
meta-governance: an inventory in the realm of voluntary
sustainability standards. Glob Environ Change. 27:41–50.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.016
Desmarais AA, Claeys P, Trauger A. 2017. Public policies
for food sovereignty: social movements and the state.
Routledge.
Edwards P, Little D, Demaine H, editors. 2002. Rural aqua-
culture. Wallingford, Oxon; New York: Cabi.
Edwards P, Zhang W, Belton B, Little DC. 2019.
Misunderstandings, myths and mantras in aquaculture:
its contribution to world food supplies has been system-
atically over reported. Mar Policy. 106:103547. doi:10.
1016/j.marpol.2019.103547
Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. 2016. FishStatJ
–Software for fishery and aquaculture statistical time ser-
ies. FAO.
FAO. 2018a. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture
2018-Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome,
Italy: FAO. Licence CC-NC-SA 30 IGO.
FAO. 2018b. Impacts of climate change on fisheries and
aquaculture: Synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation
and mitigation options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. 2019. Lower tilapia sales to the United States of
America expected for 2019. FAO. [accessed 2020 Dec
Apr 27]. http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/market-
reports/resource-detail/en/c/1189929/.
FAO. 2020. How is COVID-19 affecting the fisheries and
aquaculture food systems. FAO. 10.4060/ca8637en.
Fiedler JL, Lividini K, Drummond E, Thilsted SH. 2016.
Strengthening the contribution of aquaculture to food
and nutrition security: the potential of a vitamin A-rich,
14 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
small fish in Bangladesh. Aquaculture. 452:291–303. doi:
10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.11.004
Fisher B, Naidoo R, Guernier J, Johnson K, Mullins D,
Robinson D, Allison EH. 2017. Integrating fisheries and
agricultural programs for food security. Agric Food
Secur. 6:1. 10.1186/s40066-016-0078-0.
Free CM, Thorson JT, Pinsky ML, Oken KL, Wiedenmann
J, Jensen OP. 2019. Impacts of historical warming on
marine fisheries production. Science. 363(6430):979–983.
doi:10.1126/science.aau1758
Friedman M. 2009. Capitalism and freedom: fortieth anni-
versary edition. University of Chicago Press.
Friel S, Schram A, Townsend B. 2020. The nexus between
international trade, food systems, malnutrition and cli-
mate change. Nat Food. 1(1):51–58. doi:10.1038/s43016-
019-0014-0
Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Halpern BS. 2016. Synthesis and
comparative analysis of physiological tolerance and life-
history growth traits of marine aquaculture species.
Aquaculture. 460:75–82. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.
04.018
Froehlich HE, Gentry RR, Halpern BS. 2018. Global change
in marine aquaculture production potential under climate
change. Nat Ecol Evol. 2(11):1745–50. doi:10.1038/
s41559-018-0669-1
Froehlich HE, Runge CA, Gentry RR, Gaines SD, Halpern
BS. 2018. Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an
aquaculture-dominant world. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
115(20):5295–5300. doi:10.1073/pnas.1801692115
Fry JP, Love DC, MacDonald GK, West PC, Engstrom PM,
Nachman KE, Lawrence RS. 2016. Environmental health
impacts of feeding crops to farmed fish. Environ Int. 91:
201–214. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.022
Garlock T, Asche F, Anderson J, Bjørndal T, Kumar G,
Lorenzen K, Ropicki A, Smith MD, Tveterås R. 2020. A
global blue revolution: aquaculture growth across regions,
species, and countries. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 28(1):
107–116. doi:10.1080/23308249.2019.1678111
Gephart JA, Deutsch L, Pace ML, Troell M, Seekell DA.
2017. Shocks to fish production: identification, trends,
and consequences. Glob Environ Change. 42:24–32. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.003
Gephart JA, Froehlich HE, Branch TA. 2019. Opinion: to
create sustainable seafood industries, the United States
needs a better accounting of imports and exports. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA. 116(19):9142–9146. doi:10.1073/pnas.
1905650116
Gephart JA, Pace ML. 2015. Structure and evolution of the
global seafood trade network. Environ Res Lett. 10(12):
125014. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125014
Gephart JA, Troell M, Henriksson PJG, Beveridge MCM,
Verdegem M, Metian M, Mateos LD, Deutsch L. 2017.
The ‘seafood gap’in the food-water nexus literature—
issues surrounding freshwater use in seafood production
chains. Adv Water Resour. 110:505–514. doi:10.1016/j.
advwatres.2017.03.025
Glasbergen P. 2013. Legitimation of certifying partnerships
in the global market place. Env Pol Gov. 23(6):354–367.
doi:10.1002/eet.1625
Godfrey M. 2019. Massive shift underway in China’s aqua-
culture, fisheries sectors. SeaFoodSource. [accessed 2020
Apr 27]. https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-
trade/massive-shift-underway-in-china-s-aquaculture-fish-
eries-sectors.
Golden CD, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, Dey MM, Halpern
BS, McCauley DJ, Smith M, Vaitla B, Zeller D, Myers SS.
2016. Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health.
Nature. 534(7607):317–320. doi:10.1038/534317a
Golden CD, Seto KL, Dey MM, Chen OL, Gephart JA,
Myers SS, Smith M, Vaitla B, Allison EH. 2017. Does
aquaculture support the needs of nutritionally vulnerable
nations? Front Mar Sci. 4:1–7. doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.
00159
Gui J-F, Tang Q, Li Z, Liu J, Silva SSD. 2018. Aquaculture
in China: success stories and modern trends. Wiley.
Hallstr€
om E, Bergman K, Mifflin K, Parker R, Tyedmers P,
Troell M, Ziegler F. 2019. Combined climate and nutri-
tional performance of seafoods. J Clean Prod. 230:
402–411. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229
Halpern BS, Cottrell RS, Blanchard JL, Bouwman L,
Froehlich HE, Gephart JA, Sand Jacobsen N, Kuempel
CD, McIntyre PB, Metian M, et al. 2019. Opinion: put-
ting all foods on the same table: achieving sustainable
food systems requires full accounting. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 116(37):18152–18156. doi:10.1073/pnas.1913308116
Harland J. 2019. The origins of aquaculture. Nat Ecol Evol.
3(10):1378–1379. doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0966-3
Hazell P, Wood S. 2008. Drivers of change in global agricul-
ture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 363(1491):
495–515. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2166
Headey D. 2011. Rethinking the global food crisis: the role
of trade shocks. Food Policy. 36(2):136–146. doi:10.1016/
j.foodpol.2010.10.003
Henriksson PJG, Banks LK, Suri SK, Pratiwi TY, Fatan NA,
Troell M. 2019. Indonesian aquaculture futures—identify-
ing interventions for reducing environmental impacts.
Environ Res Lett. 14(12):124062. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/
ab4b79
Hernandez R, Belton B, Reardon T, Hu C, Zhang X,
Ahmed A. 2018. The “quiet revolution”in the aquacul-
ture value chain in Bangladesh. Aquaculture. 493:
456–468. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.06.006
Hilborn R, Banobi J, Hall SJ, Pucylowski T, Walsworth TE.
2018. The environmental cost of animal source foods.
Front Ecol Environ. 16(6):329–335. doi:10.1002/fee.1822
Jahan K, Belton B, Ali H, Dhar GC, Ara I. 2015.
Aquaculture technologies in Bangladesh: an assessment of
technical and economic performance and producer
behavior (Program Report No. 2015–52). Penang,
Malaysia: WorldFish.
Klinger D, Naylor R. 2012. Searching for solutions in aqua-
culture: charting a sustainable course. Annu Rev Environ
Resour. 37(1):247–276. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-
021111-161531
Klinger DH, Levin SA, Watson JR. 2017. The growth of fin-
fish in global open-ocean aquaculture under climate
change. Proc R Soc B. 284(1864):20170834. doi:10.1098/
rspb.2017.0834
Kobayashi M, Msangi S, Batka M, Vannuccini S, Dey MM,
Anderson JL. 2015. Fish to 2030: the role and opportun-
ity for aquaculture. Aquac Econ Manag.19(3):282–300.
doi:10.1080/13657305.2015.994240
Krishna Bahadur K, Dias GM, Veeramani A, Swanton CJ,
Fraser D, Steinke D, Lee E, Wittman H, Farber JM,
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 15
Dunfield K, et al. 2018. When too much isn’t enough:
does current food production meet global nutritional
needs? PLoS One. 13(10):e0205683. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0205683
Kumar G, Engle CR. 2016. Technological advances that led
to growth of shrimp, salmon, and tilapia farming. Rev
Fish Sci Aquac. 24(2):136–152. doi:10.1080/23308249.
2015.1112357
Kurien J. 2005. Responsible fish trade and food security.
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Kwon R, Salcido B. 2019. Does a rising tide lift all boats?
Liberalization and real incomes in advanced industrial
societies. Soc Sci Res. 79:127–140. doi:10.1016/j.ssre-
search.2019.01.006
Lam VWY, Cheung WWL, Reygondeau G, Sumaila UR.
2016. Projected change in global fisheries revenues under
climate change. Sci Rep. 6:32607–32608. doi:10.1038/
srep32607
Lebel P, Whangchai N, Chitmanat C, Promya J, Lebel L.
2015. Perceptions of climate-related risks and awareness
of climate change of fish cage farmers in northern
Thailand. Risk Manag. 17(1):1–22. doi:10.1057/rm.2015.4
Limuwa MM, Singini W, Storebakken T. 2018. Is fish farm-
ing an illusion for Lake Malawi riparian communities
under environmental changes?. Sustainability. 10(5):1453.
doi:10.3390/su10051453
Link S. 2018. How might 21st-century de-globalization
unfold? Some historical reflections. New Glob Stud.
12(3):343–65. doi:10.1515/ngs-2018-0024
Lynch AJ, Cooke SJ, Deines AM, Bower SD, Bunnell DB,
Cowx IG, Nguyen VM, Nohner J, Phouthavong K, Riley
B, et al. 2016. The social, economic, and environmental
importance of inland fish and fisheries. Environ Rev.
24(2):115–121. doi:10.1139/er-2015-0064
Mapfumo B. 2015. Tilapia markets in Sub-Saharan Africa.
FAO GLOBEFISH –Information and Analysis on World
Fish Trade. [accessed 2020 Apr 27]. http://www.fao.org/
in-action/globefish/fishery-information/resource-detail/en/
c/338148/.
Mark S, Belton B. 2020. Breaking with the past? The politics
of land restitution and the limits to restitutive justice in
Myanmar. Land Use Policy. 94:104503. doi:10.1016/j.
landusepol.2020.104503
Myers SS, Smith MR, Guth S, Golden CD, Vaitla B, Mueller
ND, Dangour AD, Huybers P. 2017. Climate change and
global food systems: potential impacts on food security
and undernutrition. Annu Rev Public Health. 38:259–77.
doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044356
Naki
cenovi
c N, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, editors. 2000. Special report on emissions scen-
arios: a special report of Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Neill DW, Fanning AL, Lamb WF, Steinberger JK. 2018.
A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat
Sustain. 1(2):88–95. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4
Osmundsen TC, Amundsen VS, Alexander KA, Asche F,
Bailey J, Finstad B, Olsen MS, Hern
andez K, Salgado H.
2020. The operationalisation of sustainability: sustainable
aquaculture production as defined by certification
schemes. Glob Environ Change. 60:102025. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2019.102025
Pauly D, Zeller D. 2016. Catch reconstructions reveal that
global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported
and declining. Nat Commun. 7:10244–10249. doi:10.
1038/ncomms10244
Peck J. 2010. Constructions of neoliberal reason. Oxford
University Press.
Poore J, Nemecek T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental
impacts through producers and consumers. Science.
360(6392):987–992. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216
Raworth K. 2012. A safe and just space for humanity: can
we live within the doughnut. Oxfam Policy Pract Clim
Change Resil. 8:1–26.
Raworth K. 2017a. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene:
humanity’s compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet
Health. 1(2):e48–9. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1
Raworth K. 2017b. Doughnut economics: seven ways to
think like a 21st century economist. Vermont: Chelsea
Green Publishing.
Reich RB. 2016. Saving capitalism: for the many, not the
few. Alfred A. Knopf.
Reid GK, Filgueira R, Garber A. 2015. Revisiting tempera-
ture effects on aquaculture in light of pending climate
change. Paper presented at: Aquaculture Canada 2014
Proceedings of Contributed Papers; St. Andrews.
Reilly M, Willenbockel D. 2010. Managing uncertainty: a
review of food system scenario analysis and modelling.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365(1554):
3049–3063. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0141
Rocha C. 2009. Developments in national policies for food
and nutrition security in Brazil. Dev Policy Rev. 27(1):
51–66. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00435.x
Rodrik D. 2018a. Populism and the economics of globaliza-
tion. J Int Bus Policy. 1(1–2):12–33. doi:10.1057/s42214-
018-0001-4
Rodrik D. 2018b. What do trade agreements really do?. J
Econ Perspect. 32(2):73–90. doi:10.1257/jep.32.2.73
Ruel MT, Quisumbing AR, Balagamwala M. 2018.
Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: what have we learned so
far? Glob Food Secur. 17:128–153. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.
01.002
Sicuro B, Luzzana U. 2016. The state of Seriola spp. other
than yellowtail (S. quinqueradiata) farming in the world.
Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 24(4):314–325. doi:10.1080/23308249.
2016.1187583
Simon JL, Bartlett AA. 1985. The ultimate resource. Am J
Phys. 53(3):282–286. doi:10.1119/1.14144
Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K,
Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, de Vries W, Vermeulen SJ,
Herrero M, Carlson KM, et al. 2018. Options for keeping
the food system within environmental limits. Nature.
562(7728):519–525. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
Szuwalski C, Jin X, Shan X, Clavelle T. 2020. Marine sea-
food production via intense exploitation and cultivation
in China: costs, benefits, and risks. PLoS One. 15(1):
e0227106. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227106
Tacon AGJ. 2020. Trends in global aquaculture and aqua-
feed production: 2000–2017. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 28(1):
43–56. doi:10.1080/23308249.2019.1649634
Tacon AGJ, Lemos D, Metian M. 2020. Fish for health:
improved nutritional quality of cultured fish for human
consumption. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 1–10. 10.1080/
23308249.2020.1762163.
16 J. A. GEPHART ET AL.
Tezzo X, Belton B, Johnstone G, Callow M. 2018.
Myanmar’s fisheries in transition: current status and
opportunities for policy reform. Mar Policy. 97:91–100.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.031
Thilsted SH, Thorne-Lyman A, Webb P, Bogard JR,
Subasinghe R, Phillips MJ, Allison EH. 2016. Sustaining
healthy diets: the role of capture fisheries and aquaculture
for improving nutrition in the post-2015 era. Food
Policy. 61:126–131. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.005
Thong NT, Solgaard HS. 2017. Consumer’s food motives
and seafood consumption. Food Qual Prefer. 56:181–188.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.008
Tilman D, Clark M. 2014. Global diets link environmental
sustainability and human health. Nature. 515(7528):
518–522. doi:10.1038/nature13959
Tlusty MF, Tyedmers P, Bailey M, Ziegler F, Henriksson
PJG, B
en
e C, Bush S, Newton R, Asche F, Little DC,
et al. 2019. Reframing the sustainable seafood narrative.
Glob Environ Change. 59:101991. doi:10.1016/j.gloenv-
cha.2019.101991
Tran N, Chu L, Chan CY, Genschick S, Phillips MJ, Kefi
AS. 2019. Fish supply and demand for food security in
Sub-Saharan Africa: an analysis of the Zambian fish sec-
tor. Mar Policy. 99:343–350. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.
009
Troadec J-P. 2000. Adaptation opportunities to climate vari-
ability and change in the exploitation and utilisation of
marine living resources. Environ Monit Assess. 61(1):
101–112. . [Mismatch] doi:10.1023/A:1006322303247
Troell M, Naylor RL, Metian M, Beveridge M, Tyedmers
PH, Folke C, Arrow KJ, Barrett S, Cr
epin A-S, Ehrlich
PR, et al. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the
global food system? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 111(37):
13257–13263. doi:10.1073/pnas.1404067111
Tveterås S, Asche F, Bellemare MF, Smith MD, Guttormsen
AG, Lem A, Lien K, Vannuccini S. 2012. Fish is food –
the FAO’s fish price index. PLoS One. 7(5):e36731. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0036731
Tveterås S, Nystol R, Jory D. 2019. Finfish production out-
look. Paper presented at: GOAL Meeting; Chennai, India.
Uccello E, Kauffmann D, Calo M, Streissel M. 2017.
Nutrition-sensitive agriculture and food systems in
practice. FAO.
United Nations, editor. 2018. World economic situation and
prospects: 2018. New York: United Nations.
USDA. 2019. The 2019 Dutch Seafood Industry Report (No.
NL9013). USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
Wijsman JWM, Troost K, Fang J, Roncarati A. 2019. Global
production of marine bivalves. Trends and challenges. In:
Smaal AC, Ferreira JG, Grant J, Petersen JK, Strand Ø,
editors. Goods and services of marine bivalves. Cham:
Springer International Publishing. pp. 7–26. doi:10.1007/
978-3-319-96776-9_2.
Willett W, Rockstr€
om J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T,
Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, Wood
A, et al. 2019. Food in the anthropocene: the
EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustain-
able food systems. Lancet. 393(10170):447–492. doi:10.
1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
World Bank. 2019. Myanmar country environmental ana-
lysis, country environmental analysis. World Bank. doi:
10.1596/31890.
World Health Organization. 2018. A healthy diet sustainably
produced: information sheet (No. WHO/NMH/NHD/
18.12). WHO.
Zhang W, Murray FJ, Liu L, Little DC. 2017. A comparative
analysis of four internationally traded farmed seafood
commodities in China: domestic and international mar-
kets as key drivers. Rev Aquacult. 9(2):157–178. doi:10.
1111/raq.12110
REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE 17
