Medium- and large-scale aquaculture

Lynne Falconer (coordinating author), Karen Alexander, Hans Bjelland, Ling Cao, Ramón Filgueira, Enrique Marschoff (co-lead member), Tonje Osmundsen, Nikos Papandroulakis, Renato Quinones (lead member), Pablo Sanchez-Jerez and Doris Soto.

Key points

• Digitalization and emerging technologies are playing increasingly important roles in many different parts of aquaculture production.
• Social acceptability issues are emerging in species that were previously accepted, such as molluscs.
• Future development requires meaningful engagement with local communities when planning and managing aquaculture.
• Across all topics there is a need for more detailed and disaggregated data to allow more informed assessments at the local, national and international levels.
• Climate change will bring new challenges throughout the aquaculture value chain, and increased attention needs to be given to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, aquaculture production has increased at a rapid pace, and the sector has become more integrated within the global food system Ref 105. During this time, there have been many changes in farming methods as well as major developments throughout aquaculture value chains, with aquaculture products now among the most globalized food items Ref 2. Marine aquaculture is a major component of the global aquaculture sector (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2024b) and an important contributor to food and nutrition security, supplying essential fatty acids, vital nutrients and desirable foods, often with lower environmental impacts than other forms of animal protein production Ref 140. In 2023, the General Assembly adopted resolution 78/69 entitled "Oceans and the law of the sea", in which it noted the need for actions to support sustainable fisheries and sustainable aquaculture for sufficient, safe and nutritious food, recognizing the central role of healthy oceans in resilient food systems and for achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations General Assembly, 2023). As part of the ocean and climate change dialogue under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it is recommended that national climate policies be linked with blue food production Ref 29. This emphasis underscores the importance of sustainable marine aquaculture in global food production both now and in the future.

Previous World Ocean Assessments had a single chapter dedicated to aquaculture but in the present Assessment aquaculture has been divided into a subchapter on small-scale aquaculture (subect. 5A, subchap. 1D) and the present subchapter on medium- and large-scale aquaculture. There are no formal definitions for distinguishing between small-, medium -and large-scale aquaculture: "scale" can refer to a range of production, technological, economic, social and environmental considerations and contexts Ref 76. In the present Assessment, medium- and large-scale aquaculture refer to commercially oriented production for domestic or export markets, conducted by companies ranging from medium-scale enterprises to large-scale multinational companies. The focus is primarily on sea-based production, such as fish cages or longlines for seaweed and shellfish, as it is directly linked to the ocean, although land-based systems that interact with the marine environment (e.g. seawater use or effluent discharge), including coastal ponds and recirculating aquaculture systems, are also included where relevant. Although sea-based production still relies on more traditional technology, there are other emerging technologies Ref 49, including closed and semi-closed containment Ref 108, submerged production Ref 130 and aquaculture vessels Ref 84.

There are gaps and discrepancies in how aquaculture data are collected and reported Ref 71. Data sets rarely distinguish between small-, medium- and large-scale aquaculture, and marine production is not easily disaggregated from general aquaculture statistics that also include freshwater and brackish water data. Nevertheless, data from FAO provide an overview of the aquaculture sector Ref 43. According to records classed as marine environment records in the "Global aquaculture production 1950 - 2022" data set in the FAO fishery and aquaculture data platform, marine aquaculture production increased from 55.7 million tons to 60.2 million tons between 2018 and 2022, and the overall value rose from $76 billion to $89.2 billion Ref 43. There is no noticeable impact on total production from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic Ref 43, but on a finer scale, the actual consequences of the pandemic were more complex, with challenges for some companies but opportunities for others Ref 107.

The aim of the present subchapter is to provide an overview of the current status of medium- and large- scale marine aquaculture and put forward a vision for the future. The first three parts of the subchapter (on pressures and impacts, socioeconomic aspects, and governance) are focused on the assessment period for the third World Ocean Assessment, covering the years 2018 to 2023. The final part (on sustainability pathways) considers what future decades up to 2050 could look like under a business-as-usual scenario and identifies potential actions for a more sustainable future.

2. Pressures and impacts

Most medium- and large-scale aquaculture takes place within a few km of the coastline Ref 113 Ref 92 Ref 83 Ref 62, but new technologies, industry expansion and intensification are changing how aquaculture utilizes ocean space Ref 14 Ref 19, and changes are not homogenous around the world. In China, according to estimates, the area used for marine aquaculture in 2020 was almost three times greater than in 2010 Ref 83. In the Mediterranean, however, over a similar period, the total number of cages increased only very slightly, but the number of small cages decreased, and there was an increase in the number of medium and large cages Ref 113. In many areas, coastal space is becoming increasingly scarce Ref 123 and conflict with other marine users has been highlighted as a constraint to further the development and expansion of marine aquaculture (Galparsoro and others, 2020). Marine spatial planning and zoning are frequently promoted to manage conflict over space and resources, but the lack of data, insufficient tools and poor governance are barriers in some locations.

Climate change also brings challenges for aquaculture production and the wider supply chain Ref 135 Ref 54 Ref 40 Ref 73. Over the assessment period, there are examples of studies describing climate-related events affecting marine aquaculture, including marine heatwaves in the Mediterranean Ref 9, harmful algal blooms in Chile Ref 133, storms in Viet Nam Ref 116 and typhoons in China Ref 80 Ref 153. Since the frequency and intensity of climate stressors are projected to increase over the next decades (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2023), there will be implications for future planning of the sector. There is increasing emphasis on the need for aquaculture companies to monitor their own contributions to climate change and implement mitigation measures throughout the entire value chain to reduce emissions Ref 68. Studies have shown that feed production Ref 89 and transport to market Ref 155 are among the highest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Knowing where emissions occur along the value chain will allow the sector to act. Ziegler and others (2024), for example, estimated a 10% reduction in farmgate emissions for 1kg of Norwegian salmon between 2017 and 2021 due to changes in feed ingredients.

Since the publication of the second World Ocean Assessment, increased attention has been given to low- trophic marine species, including large-scale farming of molluscs and seaweed. Low-trophic farming is one of the oldest types of aquaculture and is a large contributor to total production Ref 43, but the renewed focus promotes further expansion to meet demands for sustainable food production Ref 77. However, it is also recognized that there are many challenges that need to be addressed if large-scale low-trophic aquaculture is to significantly increase, especially as some parts of the world have been experiencing stagnation or declines in the production of low-trophic species Ref 11 Ref 17. One of the main barriers in many areas is the availability of farming locations that can provide sufficient resources to sustain large-scale production over many years. In the case of mussels, challenges with wild seed supply have been reported in Spain Ref 112, New Zealand Ref 131 and Chile Ref 99. At present, mussel hatcheries are unable to meet the demands of the sector as they are too small-scale, not cost-effective or not permitted by the authorities Ref 11 Ref 134. Trials are under way to improve the efficiency of collectors Ref 146 and increase seed retention using management techniques Ref 120. In Chile, mussel collectors seem to be extremely efficient, although there are concerns about the potential impact of overfishing of larvae Ref 99.

For fed aquaculture (e.g. fishes and shrimps), concerns remain over the use of marine ingredients (fishmeal and fish oil), the overexploitation of wild stocks Ref 27 and feed-food competition Ref 147 (see subect. 5A, subchap. 1A). Over the past three decades, there has been a significant reduction in the proportion of marine ingredients in aquaculture feeds, particularly salmon feed Ref 1. Since the publication of the second World Ocean Assessment, despite considerable research and development efforts, there have been no major breakthroughs. Research is focusing on alternative ingredients such as insect meal, single cell proteins and microalgae Ref 27 Ref 59 but in 2020 only 0.4% of salmon feed ingredients were from such sources Ref 1. The use of alternative ingredients is very likely to increase in future years for salmon and other species Ref 4 Ref 27, but there are many factors that will affect the rate at which it will happen, and this field of research is very dynamic since feed is a major expense during the farming cycle Ref 66.

Over the assessment period, the use of digitalization and precision fish farming techniques increased Ref 52 in order to optimize feeding practices Ref 57, helping to reduce environmental impacts Ref 101. For traditional cages, the collection of waste remains challenging and is rare in commercial settings due to the volume of waste and the depths involved. Waste collection is likely to be more feasible in semi-closed or closed containment systems Ref 128 Ref 49, as well as in recirculating aquaculture systems Ref 122, although most of these systems are still in their infancy and not a significant part of commercial-scale production. Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, in which non-fed species such as bivalves and seaweed utilize the waste from fed species like finfish, has also been identified as a potential route to increase production and reduce environmental impacts, but there are limited examples of commercial-scale integrated multi-trophic aquaculture farms due to planning, regulatory and operational barriers Ref 136 Ref 129. However, there is potential for a more regional approach to integrated multi-trophic aquaculture and for landscape-scale or water body-scale integration Ref 125, as seen in Chile, where large-scale salmon farming occurs in the same areas in which intensive mussel farming takes place Ref 23.

During the assessment period, considerable attention has been given to antimicrobials and to the potential for antimicrobial resistance due to its implications for human health Ref 119 Ref 127 Ref 39. In 2015, States Members of the United Nations committed to producing national action plans for antimicrobial resistance and, by 2020, many of the major aquaculture-producing States had included aquaculture within such plans Ref 24. Significant efforts over the past decade have been focused on reducing antimicrobial dependency in aquaculture Ref 16. Alternative prevention and therapeutic strategies have been developed, including vaccination Ref 12, functional feeds and phage therapy, a natural, targeted biocontrol method using species-specific bacteriophages (viruses of bacteria) to treat bacterial infections, offering an alternative to antibiotics Ref 69. However, these methods face challenges in large-scale adoption due to high development costs and strict regulatory requirements. Therefore, although some countries are seeing a decline in antimicrobial use, usage is increasing in others Ref 85. Further work is needed to achieve the recommendations and standards set by international organizations and certification schemes Ref 86, and a critical issue is the need for more reliable data, particularly in the shrimp sector Ref 138.

Escapes from farms are a concern, as they represent an economic loss to producers and can also have adverse ecological impacts, such as interbreeding with wild populations and spreading disease to wild populations Ref 126 Ref 10. It is difficult to determine the status of aquaculture escapes since many countries do not have formal reporting requirements, and surveillance schemes are often inadequate or absent (Soto and others, 2023; Toledo-Guedes and others, 2024). In the Mediterranean, escapes of Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) have been significantly correlated with seabream landings from fishing vessels, suggesting that escapes contribute to this type of fishery Ref 142. In some locations, there have been reductions in the number of escapes. For example over the past two decades there has been a significant effort in Norway to reduce escapes through strict regulations and technical standards Ref 3, and recent estimates suggest that about 0.04% of Norwegian farmed salmon are registered as escapes Ref 50. In Norway, there have also been considerable efforts to develop and use triploid salmon that are sterile and unable to reproduce, but there are challenges in their use Ref 35 and in 2023, due to welfare concerns, the Government of Norway announced that it would not allow the use of triploid salmon in food fish production. Escape concerns are often greater where non-native species are used Ref 132, as escaped species can become invasive, outcompeting local species and affecting ecosystem structure and functioning. A recent worldwide assessment revealed that approximately 26% of marine fish production involves species that are not native to their marine ecoregion Ref 10.

3. Socioeconomic aspects

Compared with the years covered by the first and second World Ocean Assessments, the period from 2018 to 2023 saw a lot more attention paid to aquaculture in the media Ref 28 Ref 87 Ref 137. Negative media articles were focused on salmon production and its environmental effects more than on any other species. In some cases, previous high- profile events, such as environmental problems in Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania, Australia, leading to an increased public focus on environmental sustainability and governance, caused this uptick Ref 28. Mainstream media tended to be more negative in developed countries than in developing countries (Budhathoki and others, 2024). Local settings influence the portrayal, limiting the ability to make generalizations; for example, in New Zealand, it has been suggested that the tendency towards negative media portrayals occurs as the industry reaches maturity Ref 28, whereas in Atlantic Canada social acceptability increased with the age of the industry Ref 75.

Strongly linked to changing public perceptions of aquaculture, in the period 2018-2023 (and starting in the years just preceding), the concept of a social licence to operate became firmly embedded in societal discussions on commercial aquaculture, as well as being evident in government policy and industry strategy Ref 5. Efforts to explore the use of social licences to operate for aquaculture products has primarily been focused on salmon Ref 36 Ref 109 and seaweed Ref 121. A key finding across these studies is that social licences to operate are local in nature, and the need for efforts to secure and maintain such licences should be adapted to the local context.

The importance of understanding the broader social impacts of aquaculture is also coming to the fore and includes aspects such as the consideration of livelihoods and human development, human rights, social and cultural needs, flow-on economic benefits and improved infrastructure, among other issues Ref 6. However, data are lacking in relation to many of these aspects Ref 76 Ref 94, making it difficult to assess what has changed in the 2018-2023 period. What is known is that social and human concerns are insufficiently addressed in the aquaculture sector Ref 18. An example is the increasing awareness of the need to address gender equality in the aquaculture sector (see also subsect. 5B, chap. 6), aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals Ref 143, but assessment of gender-related issues in the aquaculture sector is difficult due to the lack of gender-disaggregated data Ref 79 Ref 61 Ref 18 Ref 143. Nevertheless, research has shown that female practitioners in the aquaculture industry chain face issues related to worker safety and unequal pay, as well as constraining gender norms and discrimination Ref 117.

Data suggest that aquaculture employment may have decreased slightly globally during the period under review, although the picture on a regional basis shows significant increases in Latin America and the Caribbean and a decrease in Asia Ref 43. In Europe, Northern America and Oceania, which are primarily focused on large-scale commercial aquaculture, employment figures have remained stable. The traditional skills required for employment in the sector are not easily transferable as new technologies such as sensors, big data, machine learning and artificial intelligence have become more prominent Ref 91. It is not clear if this digital capability training was under way between 2018 and 2023, although during this period the European Union launched the "Blue careers for a sustainable blue economy" programme aimed at developing the next generation of blue skills for sustainable maritime careers Ref 38.

The social considerations associated with aquaculture also extend to working conditions. Globally, several occupational health and safety problems are prevalent among aquaculture workers, including ergonomic hazards, musculoskeletal complaints, diseases and injuries Ref 53 Ref 70 Ref 97 Ref 100 Ref 102 Ref 106 Ref 149. Norwegian studies of salmon farming have found that employees worry about strain and injuries and that organizational challenges related to goal conflicts, work pressure and employee participation can be found Ref 74 Ref 139. As the mitigation of these risks has received little attention globally, researchers have called for a global commitment for occupational health and safety in aquaculture Ref 25. Working conditions for aquaculture workers were also a topic at the sixth International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference, held in January 2024, which was aimed at helping to advance safety and health research and increase awareness of safety and health issues in fishing, aquaculture and seafood processing Ref 81. Sadly, human rights abuses can be found everywhere, but during the period 2018-2023 issues faced in the aquaculture sector increasingly became an issue, with certification schemes particularly being challenged by third-sector organizations such as charities and non-profit organizations Ref 64. Making the headlines, a 2024 report, based on data collection commencing in 2021, detailed pervasive systematic abuse throughout the Indian supply chain, including the exploitation of vulnerable workers, forced labour and dangerous conditions Ref 30.

Over the assessment period, increased attention was given to sustainable food production and the societal benefits of different food types. With increasingly stringent constraints on terrestrial land use driven by climate change and biodiversity conservation, a well-managed ocean is poised to become a primary source of food to meet humanity's growing demand, and marine aquaculture will account for most of this growth Ref 31. Seafood provides the most dominant source of omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and holds significant potential to reduce micronutrient deficiencies (Golden and others, 2021). In addition, many forms of marine aquaculture have a smaller environmental footprint than industrial meat production, especially red meat, which has significantly higher resource demands Ref 58. There are also calls to recognize the range of purposes that aquaculture can have beyond food production Ref 98. For example, the rise of stock enhancement aquaculture has aided in the recovery of some wild fish populations, as evidenced by the initial success of large yellow croaker population recovery in Chinese coastal waters Ref 154. Furthermore, ocean-reliant communities worldwide are facing increasing pressures to shift their livelihoods, and marine aquaculture provides a reliable alternative livelihood source Ref 56. Low-barrier entry aquaculture practices enable persons in marginalized situations, often women, who previously lacked access to means of production, to directly participate in production, thereby improving gender equality Ref 90 Ref 152.

4. Governance

Aquaculture governance is paramount to securing sustainable production and industry, but has been implemented in different ways across the globe Ref 104, with public regulation ranging from being starkly absent to highly present. Public governance of aquaculture requires scientifically founded regulation that is adaptable and flexible in relation to the type of aquaculture present and its development, capable of nurturing the abilities of the private sector, public regulators and non- governmental organizations (NGOs) alike, and in a manner that supports control, transparency and accountability Ref 2. FAO guidelines for assessing legal frameworks for aquaculture support such an approach while identifying the necessary regulatory mechanisms for advancing sustainable aquaculture Ref 63. Between 2016 and 2018, Galparsoro and others (2020) conducted a large-scale global stakeholder consultation to identify the major obstacles preventing the development and expansion of marine aquaculture, and found that almost 40% of the responses were related to administrative challenges, including licensing and regulation. A literature review also found that complicated and fragmented approaches to planning and licensing were frequently highlighted as barriers for marine aquaculture expansion Ref 42. Studies have also emphasized that many existing regulatory frameworks may not be suitable for new technologies, alternative locations or innovative production methods, including farming in more exposed or offshore waters Ref 34 Ref 148 Ref 78.

Since the publication of the second World Ocean Assessment, there have been examples of proactive governance initiatives to encourage responsible aquaculture development at the national and international levels. A notable international development was the adoption of the Guidelines for Sustainable Aquaculture in 2024 Ref 46, a framework aimed at helping States Members of the United Nations and stakeholders to develop and intensify aquaculture sustainably. The guidelines were prepared by FAO and are aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the relevant Sustainable Development Goals Ref 145, as well as other key policies and agreements. At a more regional scale, the FAO General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) has taken significant steps to support the Mediterranean and Black Sea aquaculture sector. The Commission's 2030 Strategy Ref 45, which is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, envisions a sustainable, resilient and fully realized sector. As Mediterranean aquaculture-producing countries generally adhere to a vertically integrated system of legal requirements established at the national, European Union, subregional and Mediterranean levels Ref 113, the Commission plays a crucial role in guiding this sector. Effective governance is encouraged through enhanced collaboration with the Commission's contracting parties and cooperating non-contracting parties Ref 46 alongside stakeholders, to create supportive legal and administrative frameworks. Ensuring sustainability also depends on effective spatial planning, embracing digitalization - namely the integration of digital technologies, data analytics and automation (Internet of Things, sensors, artificial intelligence, remote monitoring systems and big data analytics) - to support data-driven decisions, and promoting diversification towards a lower environmental impact. Knowledge-sharing is facilitated through dedicated demonstration centres, and the creation of technical advisory groups under different thematics, such as animal health and welfare or innovation and technology, are enabling the involvement of experts and the dissemination of actions.

During the assessment period, there were several notable actions within the salmon farming sector that could affect where and how salmon are produced, including changes in tax regimes Ref 96 and regulatory restrictions in some locations Ref 88. Such interventions have been driven by a complex interplay of rights holders and stakeholders in the management of aquaculture and balancing environmental concerns and socioeconomic impacts. Since these are recent developments, the consequences are inconclusive at present.

Alongside national regulation, private certification schemes have emerged as a response to the perceived inefficiency of public regulation, mainly for securing transparency in and access to a global market. Certification schemes act as a mechanism to increase transparency and accountability across different producers. Recent years have seen the number of schemes increase in parallel with an expansion of potential applications and increased uptake. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council is an example of a certification scheme. Globally the number of farms certified by the Council almost tripled during the reporting period, from 800 in 2018 to 2,085 in 2023, and there is reason to believe that other schemes have also increased in use. However, data on the proliferation of most schemes are not made public, and comparisons are difficult across schemes as the entity certified ranges from production sites to entire companies. Schemes may serve as decision-making information to investors, politicians and public authorities, as risk-reducing mechanisms for retailers, or as a filter distinguishing between sustainable and unsustainable choices for consumers, and they provide access to markets and price premiums for producers Ref 21 Ref 22 Ref 110 Ref 141. Topics relevant for various schemes are food safety risks, the degree of sustainability, fish welfare practices, working conditions, transparency and many others. However, the specific definitions of sustainability as promoted by different schemes are often strongly skewed towards environmental topics and food safety, and less towards socioeconomic sustainability Ref 111. Recently, schemes such as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council appear to be strengthening their standards in social and ethical domains.

The impact of certification on sustainability is hard to evaluate, but there is reason to believe that the development still follows the progress identified by Naylor and others (2021) in that environmental performance is improving as a response to increased regulation, including private certifications. Following the increased recognition of certifications, there is great variation in how assessments are carried out, ranging from desktop ratings on a narrow set of indicators to multiple onsite visits by professional auditors looking into every aspect of production. Some schemes intend to give companies incentives to improve their practices and require improvements from audit to audit. While private certification schemes are often portrayed as voluntary mechanisms, they are de facto mandatory as purchasers and certain markets expect producers to comply with specific schemes, emerging as a corporate social responsibility strategy Ref 118. The high number of labels and certification may cause confusion and label fatigue among consumers, thus weakening the effect of stimulating sustainable food choices. Other concerns relate to how certification may act as a barrier to trade for smaller companies or companies from developing countries that cannot afford the costs and documentation requirements Ref 21. Certifications are often expensive to attain, and multiple certifications are required when targeting different markets Ref 7. Furthermore, global certification schemes catering for an international market may be disconnected from local sustainable practices and knowledge Ref 67 Ref 82. The creation of standards that reflect the interests of consumers rather than local aquaculture production realities may shift focus away from practices that are sustainable in a local context.

5. Sustainability pathways

Medium- and large-scale marine aquaculture will play an increasingly important role in future food and nutrition security, so it is important to identify factors that support sustainable and responsible development and reduce negative impacts Ref 33 Ref 140 Ref 151. Scenario analysis is a tool to identify pathways to a healthy and productive ocean in the future Ref 103 Ref 115, including aquaculture Ref 32 Ref 48. Here, scenario analysis is used to describe two potential pathways for medium- and large-scale marine aquaculture and link directly to the Sustainable Development Goals and contribute to a more sustainable ocean in 2050. The business-as-usual pathway describes a plausible future that is likely to occur based on current trends, in the absence of any major interventions or shocks. In contrast, the sustainable future pathway describes a more sustainable future that could occur with deliberate actions that change the current trajectory. Using information on the present status of medium- and large-scale aquaculture from the previous three parts of the present subchapter, together with information from the regional workshops held in preparation for the third World Ocean Assessment, two key drivers of change are identified: governance and regulation; and skills and capacity-building. The PESTLE (political, economic, societal, technological, legal, environmental) framework is then used to identify actions that could support the move to a more sustainable future (see table). The approach was adapted from the more comprehensive Future Seas 2030 project Ref 48 Ref 103 Ref 115. These examples could be further developed by States Members of the United Nations and aquaculture stakeholders to create more detailed sustainability pathways using context-specific information.

Business-as-usual scenario

The industry continues to expand using existing farming methods as well as new technologies, novel production methods and new locations, contributing to achieving zero hunger (Sustainable Development Goal 2). Regulatory systems are improving but are still slow to reform compared with the pace of technological development, which limits overall production potential. Insufficient progress is made on environmental and social impacts across all forms of the production system due to reliance on outdated monitoring and assessment methods. While certification schemes start to move the industry towards more sustainable outcomes (Goal 12), they continue to be incremental and occur only in more sustainability-minded corporations. A lack of skills and capacity training leads to a decreasing and disillusioned workforce as traditional skills cannot be transferred to newer technologies and locations.

Sustainable future scenario

The industry continues to expand using existing farming methods as well as new technologies, novel production methods and new locations, contributing to achieving zero hunger (Goal 2). Significant financial investments in new and revised regulatory frameworks provide a more holistic and evidence- based approach to aquaculture licensing, increasing transparency in planning and management decisions for all stakeholders and the public. Environmental and social impacts are reduced due to innovative monitoring and revised approaches, which consider the system holistically (addressing Goals 12, 13 and 14). Certification schemes push the sector above and beyond compliance requirements, leading to increasingly sustainable and responsible production (Goal 12). Government and industry-incentivized capacity-building schemes provide decent work opportunities that keep pace with industry development (Goal 8).

Table Potential actions for each driver of change that could accelerate progress towards a sustainable future scenario in which medium- and large-scale marine aquaculture contributes to increased production of high-quality protein in a responsible manner and supports decent work and economic growth

Source: Prepared by the writing team.

Below are some of the "governance and regulation" and "skills and capacity-building" actions suggested in the table that Member States could use to help to move towards the sustainable future scenario. The ability to implement such initiatives, and the associated timescales, will depend on the aquaculture- specific context in each Member State.

Governance and regulation

A sustainable future relies on governance and regulatory frameworks that have strong social credentials, generated through greater trust and transparency among all actors and a better understanding of how aquaculture operates within the environment and overall societal contributions. Ocean literacy has been defined as a catalyst that can accelerate systemic change and support sustainability goals Ref 93. In a similar way, aquaculture literacy could be a route to increased understanding of the role and responsibilities of aquaculture within the marine environment and how this links to other activities, which could then strengthen governance and regulatory frameworks. In Norway, several initiatives are aimed at increasing public knowledge of aquaculture, including visitor centres and a web- portal that includes facts, data and information for the general public Ref 94.

Governance and regulation must be underpinned by scientific evidence as this increases legitimacy and trust in the rules and practices that are implemented. In this sense, the use of precision farming techniques Ref 52 and large-scale monitoring, supported by remote sensing and satellite data integration, will be crucial for predicting conditions not only in farms but also in aquaculture zones Ref 26, allowing better planning for aquaculture and better coordination with other activities, optimizing the use of space and resources, such as through marine spatial planning. In addition, increased dialogue and knowledge-sharing between sectors and marine users will lead to better understanding of requirements for marine space across all user groups to support the co-development of plans that reduce conflict. Digitalization of the aquaculture sector will support evidence-based co- development of spatial management plans and strategies with other activities and communities. Vast amounts of data collected at farms will provide greater insight into climate change for all marine activities Ref 41. Better understanding of the farming environment will allow for the development of adaptive management strategies, such as early warning systems and flexible farm designs, to increase resilience to climate change Ref 124. Where possible, climate adaptation measures should be mainstreamed into aquaculture planning and practices, especially in regions that are vulnerable to marine heatwaves and algal blooms.

Skills and capacity-building

The pressing need for increased amounts of responsibly produced food requires a significant boost in production at a rapid pace, which in turn demands a ready workforce equipped with the necessary knowledge, skills and experience. The aquaculture sector must consider new and innovative ways to attract new entrants and support the existing workforce in both reskilling and upskilling. Lifelong learning will be important for increased resilience in the future workforce, supported by fair and equitable access to new knowledge and training opportunities. Networking initiatives such as Women in Scottish Aquaculture could provide routes to mentoring and career support for new entrants, returners and the longer-term workforce Ref 72.

Transformative change rarely occurs in silos, so actions are required that will support diverse and inclusive knowledge exchange and co-learning opportunities Ref 114. However, research infrastructure is expensive to install and maintain, which can exclude parts of the sector and limit the potential for upskilling or new knowledge generation. Within the research and innovation landscape, a European Union-funded project (AQUAEXCEL3.0, 2023) is an example of a mechanism that encourages new partnerships and widens access to research infrastructure that would otherwise be unavailable to many individuals and groups.

Aquaculture companies that intend to develop in more remote offshore locations will require more robust structures, advanced technologies and production systems with increased automation and reduced maintenance needs. There may be opportunities to cooperate with other sectors, sharing knowledge and research infrastructure. For example, the Government of Australia has partnered with industry and academia to establish the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre, a 10-year funded initiative that supports research and training initiatives across aquaculture, offshore engineering and renewable energy Ref 15.

5. Conclusion

Medium- and large-scale aquaculture is an important part of the ocean economy and an essential contributor to food and nutrition security. Since the publication of the second World Ocean Assessment, production has increased, but there are still bottlenecks and challenges that need to be addressed if the sector is to significantly increase production and contribute further to sustainability goals. Data gaps and the lack of consistent reporting across species, systems and locations is an issue that makes it difficult to understand the scale and importance of some topics. Nevertheless, across the sector there are many examples that show how innovative solutions have been used to address previous challenges.

References

1. Aas, Turid Synnøve, and others (2022). Utilization of feed resources in the production of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Norway in 2020. Aquaculture Reports, vol. 26, art. 10131.
2. Ababouch, Lahsen, and others (2023). Value chains and market access for aquaculture products. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, vol. 54, pp. 527-553.
3. Afewerki, Samson, and others (2023). Innovation in the Norwegian aquaculture industry. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 759-771.
4. Albrektsen, Sissel, and others (2022). Future feed resources in sustainable salmonid production: A review. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 14, pp. 1790-1812.
5. Alexander, Karen A. (2022). A social license to operate for aquaculture: Reflections from Tasmania. Aquaculture, vol. 550, art. 737875.
6. Alexander, Karen A., and Ingrid Kelling (2024). Social sustainability in seafood systems: a rapid review. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures, vol. 2, art. e1.
7. Amundsen, Vilde Steiro, and Tonje Cecilie Osmundsen (2020). Becoming certified, becoming sustainable? Improvements from aquaculture certification schemes as experienced by those certified. Marine Policy, vol. 119, art. 104097.
8. AQUAEXCEL3.0 (2023). AquaExcel3.0 - AQUAculture infrastructures for EXCELlence in European fish research towards 2020. https://aquaexcel.eu/.
9. Atalah, Javier, and others (2024). Marine heatwaves in the western Mediterranean: Considerations for coastal aquaculture adaptation. Aquaculture, vol. 588, art. 740917.
10. Atalah, Javier, and Pablo Sanchez-Jerez (2020). Global assessment of ecological risks associated with farmed fish escapes. Global Ecology and Conservation, vol. 21, art. e00842.
11. Avdelas, Lamprakis, and others (2021). The decline of mussel aquaculture in the European Union: causes, economic impacts and opportunities. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 13, pp. 91-118.
12. Barnes, Andrew C., and others (2022). Autogenous vaccination in aquaculture: A locally enabled solution towards reduction of the global antimicrobial resistance problem. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 14, pp. 907-918.
13. Billing, Suzannah-Lynn, and others (2021). Is social license to operate relevant for seaweed cultivation in Europe? Aquaculture, vol. 534, art. 736203.
14. Bjelland, Hans Vanhauwaert, and others (2024). Exposed Aquaculture Operations: Strategies for Safety and Fish Welfare. Reviews in Aquaculture.
15. Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre. Blue Economy CRC: Underpinning the Growth of the Blue Economy. https://blueeconomycrc.com.au/, 2022
16. Bondad-Reantaso, Melba G., and others (2023). Review of alternatives to antibiotic use in aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 1421-1451.
17. Botta, Robert, and others (2020). A review of global oyster aquaculture production and consumption. Marine Policy, vol. 117, art. 103952.
18. Brugere, C., and others (2023). Humanizing aquaculture development: Putting social and human concerns at the center of future aquaculture development. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, vol. 54, pp. 482-526.
19. Buck, Bela H., and others (2024). Resolving the term "offshore aquaculture" by decoupling "exposed" and "distance from the coast". Frontiers in Aquaculture, vol. 3, art. 1428056.
20. Budhathoki, Mausam, and others. Societal perceptions of aquaculture: Combining scoping review and media analysis. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 16, pp. 1879-1900.
21. Bush, S.R., and others (2013). Certify Sustainable Aquaculture? Science, vol. 341, pp. 1067-1068
22. Bush, Simon R., and Peter Oosterveer (2015). Vertically Differentiating Environmental Standards: The Case of the Marine Stewardship Council. Sustainability, vol. 7, pp. 1861-1883.
23. Camelo-Guarín, Stefany, and others (2021). Recommendations for implementing integrated multitrophic aquaculture in commercial farms at the landscape scale in southern Chile. Aquaculture, vol. 544, art. 737116.
24. Caputo, Andrea, and others (2023). Antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture: A global analysis of literature and national action plans. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 568-578.
25. Cavalli, Lissandra, and others (2019). Scoping Global Aquaculture Occupational Safety and Health. Journal of Agromedicine, vol. 24, pp. 391-404.
26. Chatziantoniou, Andromachi, and others (2023). Aquasafe: A Remote Sensing, Web-Based Platform for the Support of Precision Fish Farming. Applied Sciences, vol. 13, art. 6122.
27. Colombo, Stefanie M., and others (2023). Towards achieving circularity and sustainability in feeds for farmed blue foods. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 1115-1141.
28. Condie, Corrine M., and others (2022). The long-term evolution of news media in defining socio- ecological conflict: A case study of expanding aquaculture. Marine Policy, vol. 138, art. 104988.
29. Cordano, J., and O'Dea, N. (2023). Informal summary report of the ocean and climate change dialogue 2023. Available at https://unfccc.int/documents/631689.
30. Corporate Accountability Lab (2024). Hidden Harvest: Human Rights and Environmental Abuses in India's Shrimp Industry. https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/hidden-harvest.
31. Costello, Christopher, and others (2020). The future of food from the sea. Nature, vol. 588, pp. 95-100.
32. Couture, Jessica L., and others (2021). Scenario analysis can guide aquaculture planning to meet sustainable future production goals. ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 78, pp. 821-831.
33. Crona, Beatrice I., and others (2023). Four ways blue foods can help achieve food system ambitions across nations. Nature, vol. 616, pp. 104-112.
34. Davies, Ian P. and others (2019). Governance of marine aquaculture: Pitfalls, potential, and pathways forward. Marine Policy, vol. 104, pp. 29-36.
35. De Fonseka, Raneesha, and others (2022). Triploidy leads to a mismatch of smoltification biomarkers in the gill and differences in the optimal salinity for post-smolt growth in Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture, vol. 546, art. 737350.
36. Eriksen, Katrine, and Eirik Mikkelsen (2024). What affects the level of local social acceptance of salmon farming in Norway? Aquaculture, vol. 588, art. 740926.
37. Eroldoğan, Orhan Tufan, and others (2023). From the sea to aquafeed: A perspective overview. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 1028-1057.
38. European Commission (2022). EMFAF Call for Proposals - Blue careers for a sustainable blue economy. https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/funding-opportunities/calls-proposals/emfaf-call-proposals-blue-careers- sustainable-blue-economy_en.
39. European Food Safety Authority, and others (2024). Technical specifications for a EU-wide baseline survey of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from aquaculture animals. EFSA Journal, vol. 22, art. e8928.
40. Falconer, Lynne, and others (2022). Insight into real-world complexities is required to enable effective response from the aquaculture sector to climate change. PLOS Climate, vol. 1, art. e0000017.
41. Falconer, Lynne, and others (2025). Marine aquaculture sites have huge potential as data providers for climate change assessments. Aquaculture, vol. 595, art. 741519.
42. Falconer, Lynne, and others (2023). Planning and licensing for marine aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 1374-1404.
43. FAO (2024). FishStat: Global aquaculture production 1950 - 2022. In FishStatJ.
44. www.fao.org/fishery/en/statistics/software/fishstatj.
45. FAO (2021). GFCM 2030 Strategy for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Rome.
46. FAO (2025). Guidelines for Sustainable Aquaculture. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd3785en.
47. FAO, GFCM (2025). General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean - GFCM: Membership. https://www.fao.org/gfcm/about/membership/en/.
48. Farmery, A.K., and others (2022). Food for all: designing sustainable and secure future seafood systems. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 32, pp. 101-121.
49. Føre, Heidi Moe, and others (2022). Technological innovations promoting sustainable salmon (Salmo salar) aquaculture in Norway. Aquaculture Reports, vol. 24, art. 101115.
50. Føre, Heidi Moe, and Trine Thorvaldsen (2021). Causal analysis of escape of Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout from Norwegian fish farms during 2010-2018. Aquaculture, vol. 532, art. 736002.
51. Føre, Martin, and others (2024). Digital Twins in intensive aquaculture - Challenges, opportunities and future prospects. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 218, art. 108676.
52. Føre, Martin, and others (2018). Precision fish farming: A new framework to improve production in aquaculture. Biosystems Engineering, vol. 173, pp. 176-193.
53. Fry, Jillian P., and others (2019). Occupational Safety and Health in U.S. Aquaculture: A Review. Journal of Agromedicine, vol. 24, pp. 405-423.
54. Fuentes-Santos, Isabel, and others (2021). Modeling the impact of climate change on mussel aquaculture in a coastal upwelling system: A critical assessment. Science of The Total Environment, vol. 775, art. 145020.
55. Galparsoro, Ibon, and others (202). Global stakeholder vision for ecosystem-based marine aquaculture expansion from coastal to offshore areas. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 12, pp. 2061-2079.
56. Gentry, Rebecca R., and others (2020). Exploring the potential for marine aquaculture to contribute to ecosystem services. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 12, pp. 499-512.
57. Georgopoulou, Dimitra G., and others (2024). Swimming behavior as a potential metric to detect satiation levels of European seabass in marine cages. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 11, art. 1350385.
58. Gephart, Jessica A. and others (2021). Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature, vol. 597, pp. 360-365.
59. Glencross, Brett, and others (2024). A SWOT Analysis of the Use of Marine, Grain, Terrestrial-Animal and Novel Protein Ingredients in Aquaculture Feeds. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, vol. 32, pp. 396-434, 2024.
60. Golden, Christopher D., and others (2021). Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature, vol. 598, pp. 315- 320.
61. Gopal, Nikita, and others (2020). Expanding the horizons for women in fisheries and aquaculture. Gender, Technology and Development, art. 24, pp. 1-9.
62. Harvey, M., and others (2024). Ocean sprawl: The global footprint of shellfish and algae aquaculture and its implications for production, environmental impact, and biosecurity. Aquaculture, vol. 586, art. 740747.
63. Hodgson, S. (2023). Aquaculture Legal Assessment and Revision Tool. Legal Guide No. 6. Rome, FAO.
64. Human Rights At Sea (2023). Does it do what it says on the tin? Fisheries and aquaculture certification, standards and rating ecosystem: an independent review 1.0.
65. IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
66. Iversen, Audun, and others (2020). Production cost and competitiveness in major salmon farming countries 2003-2018. Aquaculture, vol. 522, art. 735089.
67. Jolly, Curtis M., and others (2023). Dynamics of aquaculture governance. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, vol. 54, pp. 427-81.
68. Jones, Alice R., and others (2022). Climate-Friendly Seafood: The Potential for Emissions Reduction and Carbon Capture in Marine Aquaculture. BioScience, vol. 72, pp. 123-143.
69. Kalatzis, Panos G., and others (2018). Bacteriophage Interactions with Marine Pathogenic Vibrios: Implications for Phage Therapy. Antibiotics, vol. 7, art. 15.
70. Kaustell, Kim Olavi, and others (2019). Occupational injuries and diseases in fish farming in Finland 1996-2015. International Maritime Health, vol. 70, pp. 4754.
71. Kebede, Endalkachew Abebe, and others (2024). Assessing and addressing the global state of food production data scarcity. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 5, pp. 295-311.
72. Kelling, Ingrid, and Ibrahim Lawan (2023). Equality, diversity and inclusion: A way forward for aquaculture in Scotland. Frontiers in Aquaculture, vol. 2, art. 1151853.
73. Kim, Moo-Jin, and others (2024). A climate change risk assessment in aquaculture in Korea. Climatic Change, vol. 177, art. 93.
74. Kongsvik, T.Ø., and others (2018). Safety climate and compliance in the Norwegian aquaculture industry - Employees' perceptions at different company levels, In Safetyand Reliability - Safe Societies in a Changing World, Haugen, S., and others, eds. CRC Press, London.
75. Kraly, Paul, and others (2022). Understanding factors influencing social acceptability: Insights from media portrayal of salmon aquaculture in Atlantic Canada. Aquaculture, vol. 547, art. 737497.
76. Krause, Gesche, and others (2020). Visualizing the social in aquaculture: How social dimension components illustrate the effects of aquaculture across geographic scales. Marine Policy, vol. 118, art. 103985.
77. Krause, Gesche, and others (2022). Prospects of Low Trophic Marine Aquaculture Contributing to Food Security in a Net Zero-Carbon World. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 6, art. 875509.
78. Krause, Gesche, and others (2024). The social science of offshore aquaculture: uncertainties, challenges and solution-oriented governance needs. Frontiers in Aquaculture, vol. 3, art. 1384037.
79. Kruijssen, Froukje, and others (2018). Gender and aquaculture value chains: A review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture, vol. 493, pp. 328-337.
80. Li, Yanjiao, and others (2024). Risk level assessment of typhoon-induced wave fields around a large- scale suspended mussel farm. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 11, art. 1351316.
81. Lincoln, Jennifer, and others (2024). Proceedings of the Sixth International Fishing Industry Safetyand Health Conference (IFISH 6). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings, No. 72. Rome, FAO.
82. Little, David C., and others (2018). Sustainable intensification of aquaculture value chains between Asia and Europe: A framework for understanding impacts and challenges. Aquaculture, vol. 493, pp. 338-354.
83. Liu, Yueming, and others (2023). Changes in the spatial distribution of mariculture in China over the past 20 years. Journal of Geographical Sciences, vol. 33, pp. 2377-2399.
84. Long, Lina, and others (2024). Offshore aquaculture in China. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 16, pp. 254- 270.
85. Lulijwa, Ronald, and others (2020). Antibiotic use in aquaculture, policies and regulation, health and environmental risks: a review of the top 15 major producers. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 12, pp. 640- 663.
86. Luthman, Ola, and others (2024). Global overview of national regulations for antibiotic use in aquaculture production. Aquaculture International.
87. Machado, Patrícia. C., and others (2023). Regional communication and media analysis of aquaculture in Atlantic islands. Aquaculture International, vol. 31, pp. 2687-2704.
88. Mather, C. (2024). Phasing out open net-pen salmon farming in British Columbia. Science Advances, vol. 10, No. 42, art. 4568
89. Macleod, Michael J., and others (2020). Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture. Scientific Reports, vol. 10, art. 11679.
90. McClenachan, Loren, and Allie Moulton (2022). Transitions from wild-caught fisheries to shellfish and seaweed aquaculture increase gender equity in Maine. Marine Policy, vol. 146, art. 105312.
91. McDonald, Nicole, and others (2024). Skill Development in Current and Future Workers to Thrive in the Digital Aquaculture Industry. Aquaculture Journal, vol. 4, pp. 15-27.
92. McIntosh, P., and others (2022). Supersizing salmon farms in the coastal zone: A global analysis of changes in farm technology and location from 2005 to 2020. Aquaculture, vol. 553, art. 738046.
93. Mckinley, E., and others (2023). The evolution of ocean literacy: A new framework for the United Nations Ocean Decade and beyond. Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 186, art. 114467.
94. Mikkelsen, Eirik, and others (2021). Availability and usefulness of economic data on the effects of aquaculture: a North Atlantic comparative assessment. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 13, pp. 601-618.
95. Mikkelsen, Eirik, and others (2021). Making a Web-Portal With Aquaculture Sustainability Indicators for the General Public. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 5, art. 644314.
96. Misund, Bård, and others (2024). Impact of rent taxation on Norwegian salmon farming companies. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 1-20.
97. Mitchell, Rebecca J., and Lystad, R.P. (2019). Occupational injury and disease in the Australian aquaculture industry. Marine Policy, vol. 99, pp. 216-222.
98. Mizuta, Darien D., and others (2023). The changing role and definitions of aquaculture for environmental purposes. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 130-141.
99. Molinet, Carlos, and others (2021). Vertical distribution patterns of larval supply and spatfall of three species of Mytilidae in a Chilean fjord used for mussel farming: Insights for mussel spatfall efficiency. Aquaculture, vol. 535, art. 736341.
100. Moreau, Darek T.R., and Barbara Neis (2009). Occupational health and safety hazards in Atlantic Canadian aquaculture: Laying the groundwork for prevention. Marine Policy, vol. 33, pp. 401-411.
101. Mustapha, Umar Farouk, and others (2021). Sustainable aquaculture development: a review on the roles of cloud computing, internet of things and artificial intelligence (CIA). Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 13, pp. 2076-2091.
102. Myers, Melvin L. (2010). Review of Occupational Hazards Associated With Aquaculture. Journal of Agromedicine, vol. 15, pp. 412-426.
103. Nash, Kirsty L., and others (2022). Developing achievable alternate futures for key challenges during the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 32, pp. 19-36.
104. Naylor, Rosamond, and others (2023). A global view of aquaculture policy. Food Policy, vol. 116, art. 102422.
105. Naylor, Rosamond L., and others (2021). A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature, vol. 591, pp. 551-563.
106. Ngajilo, Dorothy, and Mohamed F. Jeebhay (2019). Occupational injuries and diseases in aquaculture - A review of literature. Aquaculture, vol. 507, pp. 40-55.
107. Nielsen, Rasmus, and others (2023). The Covid-19 impacts on the European Union aquaculture sector. Marine Policy, vol. 147, art. 105361.
108. Nilsen, Arve, and others (2020). A closer look at closed cages: Growth and mortality rates during production of post-smolt Atlantic salmon in marine closed confinement systems. Aquacultural Engineering, vol. 91, art. 102124.
109. Olsen, Marit Schei, and others (2024). Social license to operate for aquaculture - A cross-country comparison. Aquaculture, vol. 584, art. 740662.
110. Olsen, Marit Schei, and others (2021). Certifying the public image? Reputational gains of certification in Norwegian salmon aquaculture. Aquaculture, vol. 542, art. 736900.
111. Osmundsen, Tonje C., and others (2020). The operationalisation of sustainability: Sustainable aquaculture production as defined by certification schemes. Global Environmental Change, vol. 60, art. 102025.
112. Padin, Xosé A., and others (2024). The declining availability of wild mussel seed for aquaculture in a coastal upwelling system. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 11, art. 1375269.
113. Papageorgiou, Nafsika, and others (2021). Changes of the Mediterranean fish farm sector towards a more sustainable approach: A closer look at temporal, spatial and technical shifts. Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 214, art. 105903.
114. Partelow, Stefan, and others (2023). Aquaculture governance: five engagement arenas for sustainability transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 65, art. 101379.
115. Pecl, Gretta T., and others (2022). Future Seas 2030: pathways to sustainability for the UN Ocean Decade and beyond. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 32, pp. 1-7.
116. Pham Thai, Giang, and others (2023). Potential risks of climate change and tropical storms on ecosystem and clams culture activities in Giao Thuy, Nam Dinh, Vietnam. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, vol. 29, pp. 836-858.
117. Rao, Nitya, and others (2024). A systematic review of the impact of post-harvest aquatic food processing technology on gender equality and social justice. Nature Food, vol. 5, pp. 731-741.
118. Rector, Megan E., and others (2024). The role of salmon aquaculture eco-certification in corporate social responsibility and the delivery of ecosystem services and disservices. Marine Policy, vol. 160, art. 1059480.
119. Reverter, Miriam, and others (2020). Aquaculture at the crossroads of global warming and antimicrobial resistance. Nature Communications, vol. 11, art. 1870.
120. Reyden, Carrie, A.R., and others (2024). Impacts of seeding density on the abundance and size of juvenile mussels and biofouling accumulation in Greenshell™M mussel aquaculture. Aquaculture, vol. 592, art. 741177.
121. Rostan, Julie, and others (2022). Creating a social license to operate? Exploring social perceptions of seaweed farming for biofuels in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 87, art. 102478.
122. Sánchez, Imma, and Daniel Checa (2023). iFishIENCi D4.5 Report on circularity of the iFishIENCi approach. Intelligent fish feeding through Integration of ENabling technologies and Circular principle, iFishIENCi.
123. Sanchez-Jerez, Pablo, and others (2016). Aquaculture's struggle for space: the need for coastal spatial planning and the potential benefits of Allocated Zones for Aquaculture (AZAs) to avoid conflict and promote sustainability. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, vol. 8, pp. 41-54.
124. Sanchez-Jerez, Pablo Jose (2023). and others. EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System indicator update, Mubareka, S., ed. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-76-61674-0, doi:10.2760/19269, JRC132405.
125. Sanz-Lazaro, Carlos, and Pablo Sanchez-Jerez (2020). Regional Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (RIMTA): Spatially separated, ecologically linked. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 271, art. 110921.
126. Sawayama, Eitaro, and others (2019). Identification and quantification of farmed red sea bream escapees from a large aquaculture area in Japan using microsatellite DNA markers. Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 32, art. 26.
127. Schar, Daniel, and others (2020). Global trends in antimicrobial use in aquaculture. Scientific Reports, vol. 10, art. 21878.
128. Schumann, Mark, and Alexander Brinker (2020). Understanding and managing suspended solids in intensive salmonid aquaculture: a review. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 12, pp. 2109-2139.
129. Sickander, Omar, and Ramón Filgueira (2022). Factors affecting IMTA (integrated multi-trophic aquaculture) implementation on Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) farms. Aquaculture, vol. 561, art. 738716.
130. Sievers, Michael, and others (2022). Submerged cage aquaculture of marine fish: A review of the biological challenges and opportunities. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 14, pp. 106-119.
131. Skelton, Bradley M., and others (2022). Inefficiency of conversion of seed into market-ready mussels in New Zealand's Greenshell™ mussel (Perna canaliculus) industry. Aquaculture, vol. 560, art. 738584.
132. Soto, Doris, and others (2023). Environmental risk assessment of non-native salmonid escapes from net pens in the Chilean Patagonia. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 198-219.
133. Soto, Doris, and others (2021). Scientific warnings could help to reduce farmed salmon mortality due to harmful algal blooms. Marine Policy, vol. 132, art. 104705.
134. South, Paul M., and others (2022). The loss of seed mussels in longline aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 14, pp. 440-455.
135. Stavrakidis-Zachou, Orestis, and others (2021). Projecting climate change impacts on Mediterranean finfish production: a case study in Greece. Climatic Change, vol. 165, art. 67.
136. Stenton-Dozey, Jeanette M.E., and others (2021). New Zealand aquaculture industry: research, opportunities and constraints for integrative multitrophic farming. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 55, pp. 265-285.
137. Sutherland, Jordan Francesca Jane, and John Armbrecht (2024). Media representation of aquaculture in Sweden. Aquaculture, vol. 583, art. 740578.
138. Thornber, Kelly, and others (2020). Evaluating antimicrobial resistance in the global shrimp industry. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 12, pp. 966-986.
139. Thorvaldsen, Trine, and others (2020). Occupational health, safety and work environments in Norwegian fish farming - employee perspective. Aquaculture, vol. 524, art. 735238.
140. Tigchelaar, Michelle, and others (2022). The vital roles of blue foods in the global food system. Global Food Security, vol. 33, art. 100637.
141. Tlusty, Michael F. (2012). Environmental improvement of seafood through certification and ecolabelling: theory and analysis. Fish and Fisheries, vol. 13, pp. 1-13.
142. Toledo-Guedes, Kilian, and others (2024). Domesticating the wild through escapees of two iconic mediterranean farmed fish species. Scientific Reports, vol. 14, art. 23772.
143. Troell, Max, and others (2023). Perspectives on aquaculture's contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals for improved human and planetary health. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, vol. 54, pp. 251-342.
144. UN General Assemby (2023). Oceans and the law of the sea. A/RES/78/69. 5 December.
145. UN General Assembly (2015). Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, 21 October.
146. Van Broekhoven, Wouter, and others (2024). Transitioning from wild seed fishery to Seed Mussel Collectors (SMCs): Reviewing the efficiency of collectors for seed provisioning in mussel bottom culture. Aquacultural Engineering, vol. 105, art. 102414.
147. Van Riel, Anne-Jo, and others (2023). Feed-food competition in global aquaculture: Current trends and prospects. Reviews in Aquaculture, vol. 15, pp. 1142-1158.
148. Watson, Lauren, and others (2022). Offshore salmon aquaculture and identifying the needs for environmental regulation. Aquaculture, vol. 546, art. 737342.
149. Watterson, Andrew, and others (2020). The neglected millions: the global state of aquaculture workers' occupational safety, health and well-being. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 77, pp. 15- 18.
150. Weitzman, Jenny, and others (2023). Dimensions of legitimacy and trust in shaping social acceptance of marine aquaculture: An in-depth case study in Nova Scotia, Canada. Environmental Science & Policy, art. 143, pp. 1-13.
151. Willett, Walter, and others (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, vol. 393, pp. 447-492.
152. Wurmann, Carlos, and others (2022). Regional review on status and trends in aquaculture development in Latin America and the Caribbean - 2020. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No 123/3. Rome, FAO.
153. Yin, Zixu, and others (2024). Marine aquaculture spatial planning on market orientation for Pacific oyster in Shandong, China. Aquaculture, vol. 591, art. 741144.
154. Yuan, Jigui, and others (2021). Resource Status and Effect of Long-Term Stock Enhancement of Large Yellow Croaker in China. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 8, art. 743836.
155. Ziegler, Friederike, and others (2024). Greenhouse gas emission reduction opportunities for the Norwegian salmon farming sector - can they outweigh growth? Aquaculture, vol. 581, art. 740431.