3.3.1.1. Aquatic chicken scenario narrative

Under the aquatic chicken scenario, the world moves toward further economic globalization and encourages boundless 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 environmentally efficient compared to other animal-source foods. Production systems rely on globalized supply chains, sourcing feed ingredients internationally, taking advantage of low labor costs for processing, and utilizing coproducts and byproducts globally.

Through competition, only the most profitable system-species combinations win out, resulting in massive production of only a few species, which are highly traded and spread rapidly (akin to the dominance of four species in the meat market, led by chicken; Bennett et al. 2018). This high level of production creates low global prices for such “aquatic chickens,” which occupy different price categories targeting different types of consumers and reach consumers 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 compared 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 breeding and feed production. This level of consolidation has both risks and benefits. On the one hand, companies build significant knowledge with respect to production and marketing of these species and manage risk along the supply chain to reduce the probability of production disruptions, including through investment in multiple producers to minimize risk from any periodic localized disruptions. On the other hand, inherent low species diversity makes the systems vulnerable 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 concentration of production among large producers and reliance on cold storage supply chains can limit rural access. The high nutritional quality of the aquatic chickens could feasibly fill nutrient gaps in the markets 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 agriculture to an aquatic environment, following paths similar 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 environmental impacts of production. The development history 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 incentives, 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 alternatives (Froehlich, Runge, et al. 2018).

Salmon is rapidly moving to become an industry with multi-national companies in key roles. For 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 producer 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 strategy 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 production 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 previously 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, provided strong incentives for local producers to become more efficient. But local producers are hampered by slower growing strains, expensive feeds, limited availability 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 supported by increasing globalization.

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 systems and import barriers for feeds result in less efficient production at the country level and higher prices. Such increases in prices reduce access to seafood 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 prices. Growth of farmed seafood supply in “late adopting” countries where aquaculture development is currently in the nascent stages, is delayed, interrupted, or reversed.

Overall, diversity of seafood available in each country generally declines as production diversity is constrained by local environmental conditions and limited technology transfer among countries. In low- and middle-income countries, reduced external pressure for improvements in environmental and food safety standards to comply with demand from export markets result in fewer regulatory spillovers to domestic-oriented production and larger negative environmental and public health externalities. To meet domestic demand and bring down rising costs, countries put production growth first and lift environmental 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 economic 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 foreign producers to fill production gaps without open trade policies. In other cases, protectionist trade policies limit some supply shocks and the spread of transboundary 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 available 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 aquaculture sectors that already supply a diversity of production 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 businesses 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 production of feed ingredients or to offset the cost of hikes in feed prices due to restrictions on imports if production 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 policy 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 fishponds (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 company 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 contributed 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 weakened by disease outbreaks, partly attributable to poorly sited ponds lacking biosecurity, and 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 aquaculture 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 consumers 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 production of small micronutrient-rich indigenous fish species as part of polycultures with carp species, and educating rural households about the benefits of consuming these species. To date, these efforts have been implemented at a limited scale through development projects.

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 aquaculture 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 technology. While low production, in combination with high trade barriers, results in higher prices, the food production systems that arise in each country tend to be in line with local cultural preferences and environmental contexts, resulting in moderate species diversity 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 development 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 seafood, 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 maintain 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 distributed household pond culture systems that support a diversity of species. These systems will likely complement existing small-scale capture fisheries. When production 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 prices remain high, limiting access to cheap and nutritious fish for the most vulnerable in urban settings.

High-income countries with a history of aquaculture 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 initiatives, 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 benefits of production are likely to be felt by the wealthy. This effect may be counteracted by governments developing redistributive policies and subsidies to support the production and supply of seafood at reduced prices for targeted socio-economic groups.

A current example analogous to the former situation is found in South and Southeast Asia, where 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 surrounding environment (Edwards et al. 2002). Such ponds are usually managed extensively or semi-intensively, 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 environmental 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 household 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 compounds 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 successfully introduced micronutrient rich small indigenous 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 contribute a large share of total fish production. Intensive and increasingly specialized small and medium scale commercial farms provide the majority of farmed seafood 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.

3.3.4.1. Blue internationalism scenario narrative

The world fully embraces the application of sustainable development principles, taking advantage of the benefits of globalized food systems while strengthening environmental governance to ensure the world does not exceed planetary boundaries. Global competition and high levels of technology transfer lead to relatively high global inland and marine seafood production. Favoring production of seafood in line with local environmental contexts, this world leads to moderate 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, improving 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 production. 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 production, processing and marketing with dietary guidelines; 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 composed 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 scenario 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.

The aquaculture sector in the Netherlands exhibits many of the characteristics associated with Blue Internationalism, despite its relatively low total production. 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 mussel 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 production 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 environmental 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, manufactured 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 making 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 scenario. 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 comprehensiveness, 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 seafood 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.