Four ways blue foods can help achieve food system ambitions across nations.

Blue foods, sourced in aquatic environments, are important for the economies, livelihoods, nutritional security and cultures of people in many nations. They are often nutrient rich1, generate lower emissions and impacts on land and water than many terrestrial meats2, and contribute to the health3, wellbeing and livelihoods of many rural communities4. The Blue Food Assessment recently evaluated nutritional, environmental, economic and justice dimensions of blue foods globally. Here we integrate these findings and translate them into four policy objectives to help realize the contributions that blue foods can make to national food systems around the world: ensuring supplies of critical nutrients, providing healthy alternatives to terrestrial meat, reducing dietary environmental footprints and safeguarding blue food contributions to nutrition, just economies and livelihoods under a changing climate. To account for how context-specific environmental, socio-economic and cultural aspects affect this contribution, we assess the relevance of each policy objective for individual countries, and examine associated co-benefits and trade-offs at national and international scales. We find that in many African and South American nations, facilitating consumption of culturally relevant blue food, especially among nutritionally vulnerable population segments, could address vitamin B12 and omega-3 deficiencies. Meanwhile, in many global North nations, cardiovascular disease rates and large greenhouse gas footprints from ruminant meat intake could be lowered through moderate consumption of seafood with low environmental impact. The analytical framework we provide also identifies countries with high future risk, for whom climate adaptation of blue food systems will be particularly important. Overall the framework helps decision makers to assess the blue food policy objectives most relevant to their geographies, and to compare and contrast the benefits and trade-offs associated with pursuing these objectives.

Environmental performance of blue foods.

Fish and other aquatic foods (blue foods) present an opportunity for more sustainable diets1,2. Yet comprehensive comparison has been limited due to sparse inclusion of blue foods in environmental impact studies3,4 relative to the vast diversity of production5. Here we provide standardized estimates of greenhouse gas, nitrogen, phosphorus, freshwater and land stressors for species groups covering nearly three quarters of global production. We find that across all blue foods, farmed bivalves and seaweeds generate the lowest stressors. Capture fisheries predominantly generate greenhouse gas emissions, with small pelagic fishes generating lower emissions than all fed aquaculture, but flatfish and crustaceans generating the highest. Among farmed finfish and crustaceans, silver and bighead carps have the lowest greenhouse gas, nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, but highest water use, while farmed salmon and trout use the least land and water. Finally, we model intervention scenarios and find improving feed conversion ratios reduces stressors across all fed groups, increasing fish yield reduces land and water use by up to half, and optimizing gears reduces capture fishery emissions by more than half for some groups. Collectively, our analysis identifies high-performing blue foods, highlights opportunities to improve environmental performance, advances data-poor environmental assessments, and informs sustainable diets.

Global opportunities for mariculture development to promote human nutrition.

An estimated two billion people worldwide currently suffer from micronutrient malnutrition, and almost one billion are calorie deficient. Providing adequate nutrition is a growing global challenge. Seafood is one of the most important sources of both protein and micronutrients for many, yet production from wild capture fisheries has stagnated. In contrast, aquaculture is the world's fastest-growing food production sector and now supplies over half of all seafood consumed globally. Mariculture, or the farming of brackish and marine species, accounts for roughly one-third of all aquaculture production and has received increasing attention as a potential supplement for wild-caught marine fisheries. By analyzing global patterns in seafood reliance, malnutrition levels, and economic opportunity, this study identifies where mariculture has the greatest potential to improve human nutrition. We calculate a mariculture opportunity index for 117 coastal nations by drawing on a diverse set of seafood production, trade, consumption, and nutrition data. Seventeen primary variables are combined into country-level scores for reliance on seafood, opportunity for nutritional improvement, and opportunity for economic development of mariculture. The final mariculture opportunity score identifies countries with high seafood reliance combined with high nutritional and economic opportunity scores. We find that island nations in Southeast Asia and the Caribbean are consistently identified as countries with high mariculture opportunity. In other regions, nutritional and economic opportunity scores are not significantly correlated, and we discuss the implications of this finding for crafting appropriate development policy. Finally, we identify key challenges to ameliorating malnutrition through mariculture development, including insufficient policy infrastructure, government instability, and ensuring local consumption of farmed fish. Our analysis is an important step towards prioritizing nations where the economic and nutritional benefits of expanding mariculture may be jointly captured.

Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses.

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is an emerging responsibility of resource managers around the United States and elsewhere. A key proposed advantage of MSP is that it makes tradeoffs in resource use and sector (stakeholder group) values explicit, but doing so requires tools to assess tradeoffs. We extended tradeoff analyses from economics to simultaneously assess multiple ecosystem services and the values they provide to sectors using a robust, quantitative, and transparent framework. We used the framework to assess potential conflicts among offshore wind energy, commercial fishing, and whale-watching sectors in Massachusetts and identify and quantify the value from choosing optimal wind farm designs that minimize conflicts among these sectors. Most notably, we show that using MSP over conventional planning could prevent >$1 million dollars in losses to the incumbent fishery and whale-watching sectors and could generate >$10 billion in extra value to the energy sector. The value of MSP increased with the greater the number of sectors considered and the larger the area under management. Importantly, the framework can be applied even when sectors are not measured in dollars (e.g., conservation). Making tradeoffs explicit improves transparency in decision-making, helps avoid unnecessary conflicts attributable to perceived but weak tradeoffs, and focuses debate on finding the most efficient solutions to mitigate real tradeoffs and maximize sector values. Our analysis demonstrates the utility, feasibility, and value of MSP and provides timely support for the management transitions needed for society to address the challenges of an increasingly crowded ocean environment.