The IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions™ as a tool for enhancing the sustainable development of marine aquaculture

1 Introduction

Climate change and biodiversity crises are looming (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2021; Steffen et al., 2015; Ripple et al., 2017; IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2022). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Pörtner et al., 2019) and the United Nations (United Nations, 2021a; United Nations, 2021b) are warning of the impacts of climate change on ocean and coastal ecosystems and their consequences on coastal populations. In total, 23% of the world’s population is concentrated in coastal areas, which are deemed particularly vulnerable to climate change effects and biodiversity losses (Goussard and Ducrocq, 2017) and whose populations are particularly reliant on seafood production, fisheries, and aquaculture for their present and future food supply and security (Salz and Macfadyen, 2007; Barange et al., 2018; Costello et al., 2020). In addition, significant deoxygenation is occurring in deep seas and coastal waters, further threatening the future of marine systems, both socially and ecologically (Laffoley and Baxter, 2019; United Nations, 2021a; United Nations, 2021b). As a result, conserving oceans is now urgent (Laffoley and Baxter, 2016; Le Gouvello et al., 2017; Laffoley and Baxter, 2019), as is the adaptation of coastal social-ecological systems to respond to these growing threats.

Global fish production from aquaculture and fisheries peaked at approximately 178 million tons in 2020, with aquaculture representing 49% (88 million tons) of the total fish volumes (FAO, 2022). Approximately 1/3 of marine fish stocks remain listed as overfished. As the world’s population is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, global fisheries will continue to be under pressure to meet future demands for seafood (UnitedNations, 2015). Attention is increasingly turning to aquaculture as a key factor in meeting this shortfall, given its impressive continuing growth to supply fish for human consumption. It is estimated that edible food from the sea could increase by 21–44 million tons by 2050 (+36–74% compared to current yields), with a major increase in the potential of marine aquaculture (Costello et al., 2020), although there have been words of caution over such aquaculture “over-optimism” and its potential consequences (Sumaila et al., 2022).

Aquaculture plays an important role in the sustainable development of coastal communities, contributing to food security, poverty alleviation, and economic resilience, while enhancing marine ecosystem services in some cases, such as carbon sequestration, nutrient mitigation, and habitat creation (Alleway et al., 2018; Custódio et al., 2019). Sustainable aquaculture can also contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Hambrey, 2017; Brugere et al., 2018; Troell et al., 2023 (in press)). However, over the past decades, questions around the poor sustainability of some aquaculture systems have been frequently raised (Soto et al., 2012; Edwards, 2015; Alleway et al., 2018; Aubin et al., 2019), as aquaculture’s rapid growth has also been dampened by significant negative environmental impacts, leaving social and economic conflicts in its wake in some parts of the world (Alleway et al., 2018). While ecosystem-based approaches to aquaculture development have gained momentum in responding to these challenges, it could be accelerated if regulatory impediments and management constraints were lifted, and if a thorough economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by aquaculture systems was undertaken (Alleway et al., 2018). Aquaculture can support marine and coastal conservation and local community resilience under some conditions and situations (Le Gouvello et al., 2017). This indicates the complementarity between nature conservation and sustainable development while implementing aquaculture projects in marine areas, therefore requiring further examination of the conditions enabling their mutual and reciprocal benefits.

NbS are defined by the IUCN as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems in ways that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). NbS are gaining momentum around the world, given their potential to address today’s major societal challenges. In coastal areas for example, NbS interventions, such as a combination of restoration of wetlands, marshes, and dune systems and the creation of protected areas, are being deployed to address coastal erosion, risk of submersion, and marine biodiversity loss (Bauduceau et al., 2015; Châles et al., 2022; O’Leary et al., 2022). While the conceptual and operational frameworks for NbS are being adopted and show promise in coastal, urban, and agricultural systems (Nesshöver et al., 2017; Raymond et al., 2017; IUCN, 2020b), they have very rarely been considered in the case of aquaculture systems. In principle, the NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ could support the sustainable development of aquaculture, within “blue economy” goals (Hughes, 2021). le Gouvello et al. (2022) reviewed the NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ in relation to existing and prevailing sustainability concepts and approaches for aquaculture. Riisager-Simonsen et al. (2022) analyzed their potential in marine interventions including aquaculture (Riisager-Simonsen et al., 2022). All these authors concur on the complementarity of the NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™, with existing approaches aimed at making aquaculture more sustainable. Le Gouvello et al. (2022) further argued that the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™, which has emerged out of discussions around the operationalization of the NbS concept, could even enhance potential synergies between aquaculture and marine conservation.

This paper further unpacks how the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ can steer marine aquaculture development toward greater sustainability while simultaneously supporting marine conservation and coastal communities’ resilience to climate change. To do this, it uses: 1) a semi-review of how the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ criteria apply to social-ecological systems, incorporating aquaculture and the challenges that it raises (Section 2), and 2) a practical test application of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ in cases of seaweed farming in the Zanzibar archipelago (IUCN, 2020c) and the Kalimantan Mangrove Shrimp Program (KMSP) in Kalimantan, Indonesia (BNCFF, unpublished) (Section 3). Section 4 discusses the findings, including future research questions. Section 5 concludes. While this paper discusses the links between NbS and aquaculture, it does not attempt to demonstrate that aquaculture is an NbS since data is still lacking to do so robustly.

2 The IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ applied to aquaculture

2.1 Eight criteria and a self-assessment tool

The NbS concept has been actively promoted by the IUCN since 2009 as a new approach to achieving sustainable development (Eggermont et al., 2015; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019). In 2020, the IUCN launched the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™, with a set of eight interconnected criteria and their associated indicators, to help design, assess, implement, strengthen, and upscale NbS interventions (IUCN, 2020a) (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Table 1 The eight criteria of the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions™ and some keywords from each of the 28 indicators (for indicators’ full titles and explanations, see IUCN (2020a and 2020b).

Each of the eight criteria has a set of 3-5 associated indicators, totaling 28 (Table 1) (IUCN, 2020a; IUCN, 2020b). The IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ also proposes a self-assessment tool, currently in an Excel computation tabular format, with a 4-level scoring system for each indicator: ‘Insufficient’ (red); ‘Partial’ (orange); ‘Adequate’ (light green); ‘Strong’ (dark green). The scoring must be justified in the ‘Rationale’ column. Links to relevant references, publications, and data sources must be provided in the ‘Means of verification’ column. The scores obtained are then aggregated and a final evaluation of the overall adherence of the assessed intervention to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ is provided through a table and a radial diagram.

Some assessed interventions may end up with one or several criteria having an insufficient score, in which case, they are not considered in adherence with the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™. However, this self-assessment tool is not intended for certification but to help define how an intervention can be improved to more closely match NbS criteria. In the following sections, each criterion is reviewed in the context of marine aquaculture. We highlight and discuss specific issues that need to be scrutinized or that could contribute to aquaculture systems for these to be considered an NbS and meet the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ criteria.

2.2 What is aquaculture’s relevance to key societal challenges?

Criterion 1 of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ requires the identification of the specific societal challenge(s) that an intervention is addressing, of the seven proposed by Criterion 1 (Table 2). Identifying the societal challenges to address may bring new perspectives to aquaculture developments or interventions, as well as raising debate over prioritization and benefits. The effects of aquaculture regarding the listed IUCN societal challenges can be positive or negative. For instance, how aquaculture development can best fulfill its promise in terms of contribution to food security and economic growth (Costello et al., 2020) requires reconsideration of the assumptions behind its continued growth and, therefore, also the type of aquaculture that needs to be promoted to address specific societal challenges (Sumaila et al., 2022). Another example is that of climate mitigation and adaptation, which may require specifically-designed aquaculture systems (Hughes, 2021), such as a “climate-smart aquaculture” system (Dabbadie et al., 2018; Soto et al., 2018; Galappaththi et al., 2020) that is also oriented toward improved community well-being (Campbell et al., 2021), or one that pays greater attention to human rights and the labor rights of its workers (Brugere et al., 2023) for it to be considered as satisfying Criterion 1.

TABLE 2

Table 2 Examples of the potential ways in which aquaculture development could address or have a negative impact on societal challenges.

2.3 Are aquaculture systems informed by scale

The “Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture” (EAA) has long been recognized as the scientific basis for sustainable aquaculture (Soto et al., 2008; IUCN, 2009). Ecosystem-based Approaches are incorporated under the NbS umbrella (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019). A direct link exists between the requirement of NbS Criterion 2 for informing scales and interactions in the design of NbS and the EAA’s defined scales (i.e., the aquaculture farm, the water body in which the farm is located, and the watershed/aquaculture zone), over which regional, national, global, and market-trade scales are imposed (Soto et al., 2008). Some recent tools for spatial planning of aquaculture, such as the establishment of aquaculture management zones and/or Allocated Zones for Aquaculture (AZAs) are now proposed for the implementation of EAA and, thus, could specifically inform Criterion 2 of the Global Standard for NbS™ (Brugere et al., 2010; Aguilar-Manjarrez et al., 2017; Gimpel et al., 2018; Lester et al., 2018; le Gouvello et al., 2022).

2.4 Is aquaculture contributing to a net gain in biodiversity and ecosystem integrity

Nowadays, most sustainable aquaculture developments aim at having as little environmental impact as possible, based on robust Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) conducted using the EAA (Troell et al., 2013). Such assessments should be carried out considering various spatial and temporal scales, including far-field and near-field effects and short-, mid-, and long-term effects (Ottinger et al., 2016; Weitzman et al., 2019). However, the NbS Global Standard for a net biodiversity gain (Criterion 3) goes beyond the first requirement to pass the EAA and to reduce negative impacts, since it clearly states that “a positive net gain on biodiversity and ecosystem integrity must be achieved and demonstrated to validate the NbS”, referring to the Ecosystem Services (ES) concept. While aquaculture provisional services are straightforward to value in monetary terms, others are more difficult to quantify and are typically under-valued, even though they are often badly impacted by aquaculture itself (Muir et al., 1999). Stronger or more robust methods of assessing the biodiversity gain of aquaculture are under development (Filgueira et al., 2015; Le Gouvello et al., 2017; Alleway et al., 2018; Aubin et al., 2019; Custódio et al., 2019; Smaal et al., 2019; Weitzman, 2019; Theuerkauf et al., 2021; Bridger et al., 2022; le Gouvello et al., 2022). The level at which Criterion 3 is met by an aquaculture intervention would largely depend on the type, species, and farming practices that the aquaculture system involves. Some types of aquaculture production (e.g., integrated multitrophic aquaculture) and cultivation of extractive species (e.g., low trophic species, algae, and certain bivalves) can have a direct positive effect on strengthening not only the provision of ES but also regulating and supporting services and, potentially, cultural services. Initiatives of “restorative mariculture”, which associate seaweeds and/or shellfish cultivation in opened water systems are emerging, indicating natural habitat benefits for other wild species (Theuerkauf et al., 2021).

2.5 What is the economic viability of aquaculture operations

Economic viability is a prime concern for aquaculture producers and is integral to the sustainability of their operations. However, as proposed by Criterion 4’s indicators, economic viability and feasibility assessment must rely on the critical evaluation of how economic benefits are obtained and shared among the stakeholders involved. NbS Criterion 4 brings up the discussion of what may be considered a truly viable economic aquaculture system that considers social issues (Hughes, 2021), although the terms “inclusiveness” and “equity” are not explicitly mentioned in the Criterion’s indicators. Criterion 4 also implies that positive and negative externalities must be fully identified and measured despite the difficulty of doing so due to insufficient economic data, in particular at a sub-national level (Mikkelsen et al., 2021). This also means going beyond conventional micro- and macro-economic and financial indicators (e.g., gross and net incomes, accountable added value, and Gross Domestic Profit (Costanza et al., 2016)). Yet, indicators reflecting social benefits and people’s well-being in the context of aquaculture are seldom used, in the large part because our understanding of the human and social dimensions of aquaculture, and the extent to which the sector can contribute to greater equity, human rights, and well-being is considerably lagging behind (Brugere et al., 2021; Brugere et al., 2022; Brugere et al., 2023 (in press)). Ongoing studies are addressing the choice of relevant social and economic indicators (Krause et al., 2020; Mikkelsen et al., 2021), sustainable aquaculture value chains (Bush et al., 2019a), gender issues (Kruijssen et al., 2018), the development of inclusive business models in aquaculture (Kaminski et al., 2020), Community-based or Community-oriented Aquaculture (Bradford, 2017; Ateweberhan et al., 2018; Campbell et al., 2021), and policy coherence and benefit sharing for greater equity in aquaculture development (Brugere et al., 2021) – all of which are central to the future sustainability of aquaculture and to meet the SDGs (Hambrey, 2017; Brugere et al., 2018; Eriksson et al., 2018). They could all help assess economic viability as defined by Criteria 4, along with complementary tools to broaden the economic analysis to encompass equity issues in aquaculture, such as the equity diagnosis evaluation tool for mariculture developed by (Eriksson et al., 2018).

2.6 Are aquaculture governance systems inclusive, transparent, and empowering

Many failures in the development of aquaculture and associated detrimental effects on surrounding social-ecological systems have been associated with a lack of solid governance systems and appropriate regulations (Brugere, 2006; Davies et al., 2019) a situation that could make critical the adherence to the Criterion 5 (Inclusive governance). For example, conflicts are even more prevalent in coastal areas, where there are variety of practices, multiple types of rights, contested accesses and weak institutions influences (Brugere, 2006; IUCN, 2007). Local communities have also been disconnected from local aquaculture development (Krause et al., 2015) and numerous examples exist of poor acceptability of aquaculture developments in local communities, owing to a lack of dialog between aquaculture producers, shareholders, and other stakeholders (Vince and Haward, 2017; Mather and Fanning, 2019; Raux et al., 2020; Brugere et al., 2023 (in press)) and insufficient consideration of “social license” and “social acceptability” by the aquaculture industry (Baines and Edwards, 2018; Mather and Fanning, 2019). To date, the uptake of integrated coastal management (ICM) to address sustainable coastal development and adaptation objectives has not met expectations (Stephenson et al., 2019), nor has aquaculture been able to take its real position in ICM initiatives. For marine aquaculture development to comply with Criterion 5, the activity needs to be seen as an integral part of the wider coastal social-ecological system within which it is embedded (Soto et al., 2012; Brugere et al., 2018).

The participation and integration of all aquaculture actors within a broader governance system, as part of improved governance, has been investigated and demanded for decades (Rey-Valette et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2008; Brugere et al., 2010; Lazard et al., 2014; Brugere et al., 2018; Jolly et al., 2022). Improved governance is also required for the development of aquaculture on larger scales (Davies et al., 2019; Costello et al., 2020) as well as on a community level (Bradford, 2017; Ateweberhan et al., 2018). However, governance situations vary from one area to another depending on national political and administrative systems and the organization of value chains (Bush et al., 2019b). Therefore, characteristics of inclusiveness, transparency, and empowerment in aquaculture governance, as laid out in Criterion 5, will depend on the context (type of aquaculture, institutions and policies in place, organization of the sector, etc.) and will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

2.7 To what extent does aquaculture enable equitably balancing trade-offs between the achievement of their primary goal(s) and the continued provision of multiple benefits

Constraints associated with complex systems make trade-offs (in policies, space, time, benefits, etc.) inevitable, and the equitability of these trade-offs is dependent on how decisions are made (Hughes, 2021), i.e., on “good governance” (Cf. Criterion 5). Addressing Criterion 6 is likely to be challenging for all stakeholders involved in a potential NbS-aquaculture intervention. The IUCN provides guidance (IUCN, 2020b) on the data and tools that can be used to provide evidence on the equitability of trade-offs (Table 1) and to identify necessary safeguards or corrective actions. Answering Criterion 6 may therefore require specific investigations to be conducted on a case-by-case basis.

2.8 Does aquaculture enable adaptive management

The promotion of the adaptative management (Criterion 7) and adaptative capacity of aquaculture systems was embedded in the EAA (Soto et al., 2008; IUCN, 2009). Adaptive management has since been applied in the context of specific aquaculture systems but would require further exploration. For instance, participatory and iterative consultations involving adaptive management based on a “conception loop” involving the wide aquaculture stakeholder community (local communities, local authorities, regional and national representatives of the sector, value chain actors, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, etc.) were introduced in various aquaculture projects and enabled the design and adoption of corrective actions to manage risks and make the system move on an adaptive and progressive trajectory (Aubin et al., 2019). Risk identification and risk management cut across the evaluations proposed in Criteria 2, 6, and 7.

2.9 Is aquaculture sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context

Aquaculture as a sector often straddles administrative jurisdictions and different ministries with their own laws and policies, which results in both gaps and complexity in the legal frameworks for the sector. This situation has significantly impaired its development in many places (IUCN, 2009; Cavallo et al., 2020; Cavallo et al., 2021). Consequently, the extent to which aquaculture-related policies are integrated within a broader policy context needs to be considered to assess the compliance of aquaculture systems with Criterion 8. The existence and the development of aquaculture systems must be considered in accordance with various planning tools, policy instruments dealing with water, ocean, and coastal management; natural resources management; SDGs; and international and national policies (Macias et al., 2019; le Gouvello et al., 2022).

3 Applying the IUCN Global Standard for NbS to case studies in Zanzibar and Indonesia

Two case studies were selected to explore the application of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ in the context of aquaculture: one of a seaweed farming system in East Africa, and one of a shrimp farming system in Southeast Asia. The intention was to assess the extent to which these forms of aquaculture comply with the Global Standard’s criteria but not to compare them, given their different locations and contexts. These two case studies use data from published or unpublished works in which the authors were involved (IUCN, 2020c; BNCFF, unpublished) as a primary source for testing the self-assessment tool of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ (IUCN, 2020b) in its first application to aquaculture systems. The scoring itself was conducted by the authors and locally associated teams. COVID-19 restrictions prevented the implementation of the scoring exercise with local stakeholders.

3.1 Could seaweed farming in Zanzibar qualify as an NbS according to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™?

3.1.1 Description of the social-ecological system involved in Zanzibar

The first social-ecological system examined was located in the Zanzibar archipelago, in the Indian Ocean, as a semi-autonomous territory, under the authority of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGoZ), forming a political union within the United Republic of Tanzania (Lange, 2015; Khamis et al., 2017; Hugé et al., 2018; IUCN, 2020c). The Zanzibar economy is largely based on tourism (accounting for 35% of Gross Domestic Product, GDP), fisheries and aquaculture, spices, and raffia.

Zanzibar is the main producer of seaweed in East Africa (103,200 t in 2018 in Tanzania wet weight) (FAO, 2020). Seaweed farming was introduced from the Philippines in 1989 (Lange and Jiddawi, 2009; Hedberg et al., 2018; IUCN, 2020c). It is practiced mostly by women in intertidal zones and close to mangrove forests and coral reefs. It is an extensive form of artisanal aquaculture, with low inputs. The sun-dried seaweeds are collected in the villages and exported to Europe by a few export traders, with little or no local value addition. The seaweed sector has helped raise the economic status of rural women, given its significant role in contributing to the provision of ecosystem services (e.g., income), as identified by Lange and Jiddawi (2009), and has led to positive impacts on the quality of life in coastal communities (Lange and Jiddawi, 2009; Valderrama et al., 2013; Lange, 2015; Ateweberhan et al., 2018; IUCN, 2020c). These benefits have, however, been disputed (Bryceson, 2002), most notably because of the negative impacts that seaweed farming has on women’s health (Fröcklin et al., 2012; Brugere et al., 2020b). Furthermore, the international market is very competitive, and difficulties in accessing it are compounded by the lack of organization of women seaweed producers and the strong bargaining power of seaweed buyers. Higher-valued cultivated species Kappaphycus alverezii (commercially known as ‘Cottonii’) have been suffering from the impacts of climate change (through higher water temperature and variations in salinity), while the production of lower-valued species (Euchema denticulatum, commercially known as ‘Spinosum’) that constitutes the bulk of production and exports is earning little income for farmers (Msuya et al., 2007; Brugere et al., 2019). Consequently, the production of seaweed has been declining over the past years and does not look as attractive and does not look as attractive to coastal communities as it used.

The islands of Zanzibar are experiencing rapid changes, with population growth, immigration, urbanization, growing tourism, and the increasing demand for fisheries increasing demand for fisheries, agricultural and forestry products. This situation is resulting in higher pressures on coastal ecosystems and marine resources, impairing the overall resilience of the population in coastal areas, which are already affected by climate change. In response to these threats, the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar has promoted the establishment of multiple-use marine protected zones known as Marine Conservation Areas (MCAs) since the early 1980s (IUCN, 2020c). Approximately 80% of the seaweed production in Zanzibar is practiced in these conservation areas. Zanzibar MCAs aim at protecting critical marine habitats while enhancing sustainable artisanal fisheries and mariculture and their practices. However, effective management of these MCAs remains a challenge. The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar has recently embarked on the development of a blue economy strategy, in which the importance of such seaweed production for coastal communities is acknowledged (RGoZ, 2020). Seaweed farming in Zanzibar is embedded in the overall management concept of marine conservation, blue growth, blue economy, integrated coastal management, and marine spatial planning in Zanzibar.

3.1.2 Assessment of the case in Zanzibar

We summarise here the original findings from the detailed assessment of the ‘Seaweed farming in Zanzibar’ against the eight criteria of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™. The assessment and case study analysis were carried out based on inputs from the authors and other IUCN NbS team members (unpublished data, Supplementary materials) and were complemented by secondary information (Brugere et al., 2019; Brugere et al., 2020a; Brugere et al., 2020b; IUCN, 2020c) collected prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). The self-assessment tool Excel scoring system was used (IUCN, 2020b). The overall results are presented in Table 3 and the full results are presented in the Supplementary Materials.

TABLE 3

Table 3 Overall result of the assessment of Zanzibar seaweed farming, according to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™’s self-assessment tool (results were discussed and refined with the NbS IUCN team).

The results (Table 3) indicate that the strengths of Seaweed farming in Zanzibar, as an NbS, are in addressing key social challenges (Criterion 1; 44% adherence), its scalability potential (Criterion 2; adherence of 44%), its economic feasibility (Criterion 4; adherence of 42%), and its overall sustainability policy framework (Criterion 8; 44%). These are nonetheless rather moderate scores (<50% adherence), which indicate room for improvement. For instance, better economic viability (Criterion 4) could be expected if more added value was generated through post-harvest activities favored in this aquaculture value chain, such as locally processing seaweeds for use in cosmetics or food products. Local women have started producing artisanal soap made with seaweed and plants, which is sold to tourists (IUCN, 2020c), but this is still embryonic. The degree of inclusiveness of the current aquaculture business model is also questionable (Eriksson et al., 2018; Kaminski et al., 2020; Brugere et al., 2021), in particular with regard to the benefits drawn by women seaweed farmers as most of the benefits are shared among a limited number of actors, i.e., the traders and export agents. The up-scaling potential (Criterion 2) of such a solution must therefore be carefully considered, as seaweed farming very much depends on external drivers such as export markets. Local tourist-based markets driving demand for seaweed-based products may also be risky, given the potential negative impacts on the Zanzibari social-ecological system that may result from excessive touristic local developments (Benansio et al., 2016).

Two of the criteria were scored overall as “Insufficient” (in red) for Biodiversity and Trade-offs (Criteria 3 and 6: 17% and 22% adherence respectively). The biodiversity net gain criterion is evaluated with a very low score, as no clear evidence of biodiversity monitoring was provided in the secondary data used. Actions to improve aspects referred to by this criterion could include the establishment of adequate measures to reduce, control, and mitigate any negative impacts of seaweed farming on biodiversity (including seagrass beds) and to reduce waste (IUCN, 2020c). Similarly, information was lacking to provide evidence for equitable trade-offs.

The governance and adaptative management criteria (Criteria 5 and 7 respectively, both with 33% adherence) also scored low, partly because of the top-down nature of the governance system, monitored by the national and local authorities, and under-representation of key stakeholders, such as the women seaweed farmers and local communities, at various governance levels.

This first assessment of seaweed farming in Zanzibar, as an NbS, clearly places this solution in the “partial” scoring group, with 40% adherence to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ (Table 3). Among the eight criteria’s 28 associated indicators, eight (28%) of them would need to be further discussed and rationalized. According to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ guidance, the scoring of any one criterion as “Insufficient” would disqualify an intervention as NbS (IUCN, 2020b). Such a lack of adherence with the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™, however, would seem here unduly severe and should prompt further investigation and validation of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS^™ self-assessment tool on the one hand, as well as further investigation on the ground and validation by local stakeholders on the other. It would be even more necessary that the assessment’s results reflect a situation at a particular moment in time. The institutional context has evolved since the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), notably with the acknowledgment of the importance of seaweed farming for socio-economic development and gender equality in the government’s recent Blue Economy strategy (RGoZ, 2020), and this would need to be accounted for. Thus, the proposed operational framework provided by the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ may help to generally improve the seaweed farming sector in Zanzibar to address sustainable development challenges, while identifying corrective actions and, thus, consolidating the positioning of seaweed farming in Zanzibar.

Based on this case study, we may conclude that Zanzibar seaweed farming presents many assets to be considered as an NbS, enabling the provision of local income to coastal communities, while being integrated into the general management framework of marine conservation areas and the blue economy strategy (RGoZ, 2020). However, even in this case, which could seem rather straightforward at first glance, many questions would need to be further addressed to ensure that it is a true NbS.

3.2 Could shrimp farming coupled with mangrove restoration in Indonesia qualify as an NbS according to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™?

3.2.1 Description of the social-ecological system involved in Indonesia

The second case study considers the Kalimantan Mangrove Shrimp Project (KMSP) implemented in the Sesayap River Delta in Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo using SELVA SHRIMP, a zero input (no feed, no fertilizers, no antibiotics) and certified sustainable silvofishery model, which promotes mangrove restoration in shrimp ponds (BNCFF, unpublished). The initiative is privately managed by Blueyou, a Swiss seafood trading and consulting company, operating with a local partner in Indonesia to contract farmers, to process, to export shrimps, and to conduct mangrove restoration in a selected area.

This farming area of Tarakan, bordering central Borneo, is part of a global biodiversity hotspot (De Bruyn et al., 2014). It covers approximately 150,000 ha of mangrove habitat. The latter provides major ecosystem services (Arifanti et al., 2022) including provisioning services, climate mitigation, protection against disaster (submersion, erosion…), cultural services, and essential habitats for numerous species, including endangered species. Degradation of mangroves associated with shrimp farming has been well documented and remains a crucial environmental issue related to shrimp farming (Boone Kauffman et al., 2017). In addition, there is a common belief that mangroves negatively impact shrimp health in this Indonesian region, which makes it challenging for farmers involved in the KMSP.

Silvofishery practices in mangrove areas refer to extensive shrimp polyculture systems in ponds that include mangrove trees that can be situated in the farming area or integrated within the ponds, or that are adjacent to the ponds (Bosma et al., 2016). These farming models show promising results regarding mangrove state, shrimp yield productivity, and subsequent additional income for the farmers, although these practices need to be implemented carefully. The planned KMSP intervention will provide improved natural mangrove habitats for Black Tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) and other commercially important species, such as mud crab (Scylla spp.), thus increasing the yield of aquaculture products in the farming area (BNCFF, unpublished). The wild juveniles of these two commercial species are collected and trapped in farming ponds, and no other input is added and no other input is added to this simple low-tech system. According to the project manager, “mangrove forests are maintained and preserved in order to provide habitat and food for the animals that are raised in small channels and ponds within the forest”.

Although still in its early stages, the KMPS project builds upon the successes of a similar intervention in Ca Mau province in Southern Vietnam, which encompasses 15,000 ha of silvofishery, for a production of 3,200 tons of Black Tiger shrimp (Bridson, 2013), conducted under the SELVA Shrimp program and based on three functional pillars: (1) improved market access and up-side value through Fair Trade, Aquaculture Stewardship Certification (ASC), and specific consumer marketing; (2) increased resilience and productivity of farms and ecosystems through reforestation of mangroves; and (3) facilitated funding for mangrove reforestation and monitoring of conservation efforts by third-party verification under the existing SELVA SHRIMP auditing scheme. In addition to increasing ecosystem resilience, it is anticipated that restored mangrove forest areas will provide the opportunity to access carbon offsets and Blue Carbon investment programs to finance further mangrove restoration and ensure the program’s sustainability.

The KMSP local partner works closely with local, small-scale shrimp farmers encompassing approximately 30,000 ha of traditional ponds (Tarakan) situated in the delta. The project includes successive phases, with the first of these targeting 2,000 ha of the farming area producing 500 t of Black Tiger shrimp yearly (plus live mud crabs), with a mangrove reforestation potential of 400 ha (20% of total surface).

3.2.2 Assessment of Kalimantan Mangrove Shrimp Program in Indonesia

The evaluation of the KMSP as an NbS was conducted with the support of the Blue Natural Capital Funding Facility (BNCFF) (https://bluenaturalcapital.org/), which is managed by the IUCN and serves as a re-granting mechanism to support the development of financially sustainable investment opportunities based on blue natural capital (BNCFF, unpublished). Approximately four people were involved in the evaluation exercise, consisting of members of the Blueyou team, as well as IUCN NbS and BNCFF representatives.

The overall evaluation process of the KMSP project (see Supplementary Materials) according to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™’s self-assessment tool revealed that the project adheres to most of the criteria, although weaknesses could be identified through the exercise (Table 4). This is primarily because the project is in its early stages and local data from the initiative are lacking. The level of adherence to each criterion varied from 33% on Adaptive Management (Criterion 7) to 56% each on Addressing societal challenges (Criterion 1) and Sustainability and mainstreaming (Criterion 8). Overall, the project score is 46%.

TABLE 4

Table 4 Overall result of the assessment of Kalimantan Mangrove Shrimp Program in Indonesia, according to the IUCN NbS Global Standard™’s self-assessment tool (results were discussed and refined with the BNCFF team).

The societal challenges (Criterion 1; 56% of adherence) are multiple and are addressed under the overall umbrella of the SELVA SHRIMP program, e.g., improving livelihoods through higher incomes for farmers, and improving the ecological state of the mangrove, although progress could be made in collecting present and future information to monitor specific indicators.

Criterion 2, focusing on the upscaling potential and complemented by other types of solutions and risks (Criterion 2; 44% adherence), was demonstrated in the aforementioned Vietnamese project (Ca Mau) (Bridson, 2013). A similar implementation is anticipated in the KPSM project, with the first 3-year phase project that targets 10% of the shrimp farming area, and will be up-scaled on the same basis. Biodiversity net gain (Criterion 3, 42% adherence) is a strong asset of the project as direct biodiversity benefits are purposely and specifically targeted through mangrove conservation and restoration tools. The underlying assumption here is that improved mangrove health and increased habitat will be associated with benefits for birds, reptiles, and other species, but robust local data (and appropriate funding) are needed to test this assumption.

The project scored 50% on the criterion related to economic feasibility (Criterion 4) due to its design seeking to increase the economic viability of shrimp farming in the target area. It is important to reemphasize that the assessment is based on the results obtained elsewhere, due to insufficient local evidence at this time. It is, however, anticipated that the organization of the KPMS project with local partners of the value chain, involving direct agreements with the farmers inspired by Fair Trade principles, would enable economic feasibility as well as some equity in the system. Other economic benefits may also be anticipated through blue carbon credits linked to mangrove restoration. These assumptions will be tested as data are generated by the project.

The project only scored 40% on Criterion 5, focusing on inclusive governance, reflecting a trend that can often be observed in aquaculture private projects (Bush et al., 2019b). The relatively low score for this criterion reflects the limited scope of the stakeholder engagement processes in the private sector. Direct stakeholders (shrimp farmers and the shrimp processing plant) were consulted and will continue to be engaged during the project. But other direct (middlemen, traders) or indirect (other representatives of the local communities, government officers, MPA managers, NGO representatives, etc.) stakeholders were not included, nor were their interests and concerns documented. Further, broadening stakeholder engagement would help the project identify marginalized groups who would benefit from inclusion in the project.

The project received a score of 44% (Partial) for Criterion 6 on Trade-offs. The project identifies and documents direct financial costs and benefits. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was analyzed, accounting for the financial costs and benefits and evaluating these against an alternative business-as-usual scenario, for instance, the silvofishery model vs. conventional shrimp farming using inputs. This financial analysis, however, fell short in accounting for trade-offs, which are more complex to value in economic terms.

The lowest score among all criteria was observed for Criterion 7, based on adaptative management (score of 33%). While the KMSP includes some baselines against which progress will be monitored and evaluated, these are not robust, and there are gaps in the integration of lessons during the project cycle. It was also rated partial in incorporating risk identification and management beyond the intervention site.

Criterion 8 on Sustainability and Mainstreaming scored 56% (Adequate). The strong role that the IUCN and the Blue Natural Capital Funding Facility will play in aggregating lessons and best practices from this field implementation in national and global policy is evident. The project contributes to Indonesia’s Nationally-Determined Contributions through the restoration of mangroves and by capturing emissions, and to SDGs 13, 14, and 15 (UnitedNations, 2015). The project was rated adequate for the systematic capture of lessons and the accessibility of these to strategic audiences, primarily through the BNCFF. Nevertheless, it was ranked partial in informing and influencing policy and regulatory frameworks due to the nature of the private sector or the non-integration of the indirect stakeholders in the intervention (Criterion 5). BNCFF has encouraged the project manager to apply for third-party certification through Fair Trade and ASC certification as a way of incorporating policy, regulations, and law into project implementations. The BNCFF and the IUCN play a key role in working to capture lessons, and these will be shared to support the uptake and mainstreaming of this NbS approach beyond the site level.

To conclude, this case study is an encouraging example of a project that links ecosystems, the economy, and society. Project baselines were collected from a similar initiative in Vietnam rather than the current project sites; therefore, the project score, at present, will not reflect this case study with 100% accuracy until its own baselines have been established. Furthermore, as is common in the private sector, the project primarily consulted direct beneficiaries rather than a broader range of stakeholders, and this is likely to influence the overall scoring. This notwithstanding, the KMSP mariculture intervention performed relatively well, partly due to the targeted biodiversity benefits (Criterion 3) that are expressed and placed at the same priority level as the usual socio-economic benefits targeted in aquaculture systems. Project buy-in and long-term sustainability would benefit from the inclusion of indirect stakeholders in the project design (Criterion 1), ensuring inclusive governance processes (Criterion 5) and better accounting for project trade-offs (Criterion 6). In addition, the project should broaden its landscape and temporal considerations of costs, benefits, and knock-on effects as well as incorporating socio-political risks (Criteria 2, 4, 6). Nevertheless, in this case, it must be emphasized that doing the assessment during the early/planning phase of an intervention may be highly optimistic as it will naturally reflect what people want it to be like. However, the exercise, conducted at this early stage, helps to identify future work to ensure that the intervention is stronger.

4 Discussion

4.1 Relevance and applicability of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ to context-specific aquaculture developments

The self-assessment tool of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ revealed, for the two analyzed case studies, that most indicators are rated “moderate” to “adequate”. This means approximately 40-50% adherence to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™. In the case of Zanzibar, two criteria were scored as “Insufficient” due to a current lack of adherence to the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ (Biodiversity and Balance trade-offs). However, in both locations, the evaluation process should be seen as part of their own project improvement cycle. The projects should be revised, with appropriate local consultation in Zanzibar, and with local data produced and connected over time in both cases. At this stage, the NbS exercise through the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™’s self-assessment tool revealed weaknesses in the aquaculture systems assessed but also pointed out ways to strengthen their sustainability through specific future actions. The exercise also showed the importance of considering the contextual and temporal characteristics of the aquaculture system under consideration when applying the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™.

The societal challenges of addressing social and economic development—through improved livelihoods, increased economic incomes, and contribution to economic life—are also translated in high scores for Criterion 4 (economic feasibility). This higher score is based on rather strong assets, in both case studies, on economic targets and feasibility aspects. The results of the application of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ indicate critical issues that would have to be further addressed at different stages of each project’s implementation. For instance, as underlined through the Zanzibar case’s assessment, it is important to consider whether an economic model strictly depending on a fluctuating export market is a long-term, viable project. Similarly, the Kalimantan project is based on the high-value shrimp market for exports.

On inclusiveness, governance, trade-offs, and adaptability (Criteria 5 to 7), both case studies performed rather poorly. This is due to weaknesses in the design, monitoring, and governance of the projects, as well as a lack of relevant data informing these criteria. Interestingly, the cases reflect two different situations for governance. Seaweed farming in Zanzibar is a private family business, but the sector is managed in a top-down manner, with limited representation for women seaweed producers. The Kalimantan project is also private but appears limited in its degree of involvement of other stakeholders beyond direct interested parties. In Zanzibar, the challenge is to better include key stakeholders (women producers) in decision-making processes and the overall governance of the sector, whereas in the Kalimantan project, the challenge is to enlarge the stakeholder platform, which is currently restricted to farmers, the local processor-partner, and the foreign export company. This illustrates that the application of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ can shed light on ways forward with issues that are typically acknowledged as problematic in aquaculture developments.

The main practical outcome provided by the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ is also that the self-assessment tool exercise tool exercise frames and highlights the complexity of assessing coastal social-ecological system sustainability (including the aquaculture component) in practice. The importance of recognizing the complexity of coastal issues (O’Leary et al., 2022) was made evident in the evaluation of the two case studies. Concrete observations and potential corrective actions could be drawn up from the self-assessment. For instance, the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ encouraged both presented projects to perform better and improve their net gain outcomes.

4.2 Application and relevance of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ to aquaculture development more generally

In terms of methodological innovations, the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ brings a new vision that aggregates existing concepts for framing aquaculture sustainability (Hughes, 2021; le Gouvello et al., 2022). Its eight criteria and 28 indicators present the necessary methodological detail to answer specific questions. The EAA (Soto et al., 2008) encompasses the NbS principles and most of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS^™’s criteria (Hughes, 2021). The IUCN Global Standard for NbS™, if applied more regularly for aquaculture projects, may contribute to the overall EAA “reinvigorating” process that Brugere et al. (2018) advocate (le Gouvello et al., 2022). It may also help in developing a more operational Sustainable Blue Economy that includes aquaculture (Hughes, 2021).

However, the application of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ also raises some fundamental questions regarding what may be considered a ‘natural’, ecosystem-based versus an ‘engineered, artificialized aquaculture system (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Nesshöver et al., 2017; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019). Human-technological interventions in aquaculture blur the limit to the “naturalness” acceptation of the NbS in aquaculture, for example, in relation to the use of compounded feeds, sea cages like finfish net-pen farms, or reliance on triploid, genetically selected strains of exotic species (e.g., Pacific oysters in Europe). It also raises practical questions about the feasibility of the production expansion ambitions of major producers. For example, how the NbS approach could actually contribute to improving the overall sustainability of shrimp farming in major producing countries like Indonesia and Ecuador, which are both aiming to produce over one million tons of shrimp per year (Boyd et al., 2021). The assumption that the combined and simultaneous requirements of Criteria 3 and 4 for biodiversity gain and economic viability may exclude from NbS qualification industrial, large-scale, high input-output aquaculture systems, in favor of artisanal, extensive, local, or niche aquaculture production systems would require further investigation on a case study basis (le Gouvello et al., 2022).

Regarding marine biodiversity, some forms of aquaculture, such as “restorative aquaculture” (Theuerkauf et al., 2019) could meet some of the criteria of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™. However, in line with the IUCN NbS principles (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019), the use of aquaculture as an “ecosystem engineer” should be handled with caution, and all options and alternative actions, such as the preservation or restoration of natural habitats (seagrasses, mangrove areas, etc.), should be considered before deciding upon the implementation of an aquaculture production as a solution. In that sense, the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ may help as it introduces criteria and indicators to validate the solution, and, for instance, to run relevant cost-benefit analyses in addressing the questions raised in Criteria 3, 4, and 6 (biodiversity gain, economic viability, and trade-offs). But the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ does not explicitly address rights, equity, well-being, and benefit sharing, and this constitutes a weakness in the standard itself in our view, unless a specific evaluation of these issues is conducted in parallel, using appropriate tools (such as value chain sustainability, social sustainability, and inclusiveness assessments) (Eriksson et al., 2018; Bush et al., 2019a; Krause et al., 2020; Brugere et al., 2021).

Despite the positive outlook that the NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ offer in the analysis of aquaculture development, many questions remain regarding their operationalization in the aquaculture context of aquaculture. The case studies have shown that some IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ criteria may be more important to meet in some contexts and aquaculture systems than in others. However, this may change over time, since context-dependent priorities and perceptions also evolve, suggesting that there is no universality over the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ (hence the importance of its regular revisions), even though NbS principles themselves aren’t supposed to change and can be considered ‘universal’.

There is, therefore, a need to document additional cases of potential aquaculture-related NbS to clarify and further refine both the limits and potential of the NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ in their application to aquaculture. Future research questions could also tackle its complementarity with other types of assessments, such as cost-benefit analysis, certification audits, environmental and social impact assessments at the farm level, and the adherence to wider sustainability principles (such as those of the EAA at the institutional level) to inform holistic decision-making and appropriate prioritization of aquaculture developments. How mitigation actions are promoted and those responsible for aquaculture systems that did not score well on some criteria being made accountable should also be integral to future research into the application of the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™. Addressing and providing guidance on these issues would alleviate the risk of discouraging the use of a standard potentially perceived as too strict, especially if no support is provided to comply with it, or if the rewards of an “NbS qualification” are unclear to aquaculture producers and policymakers.

Finally, it should be noted that, although the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™’s self-assessment tool implemented in the analysis of the case studies has a set of guiding questions and four assessment levels, its results depend on and are therefore subjective to the person conducting the assessment. It is therefore important that different stakeholders involved in a certain initiative work together as a group to discuss and agree on the most accurate assessment, reduce partiality, and assess the initiative as objectively and precisely as possible. The NbS’s self-assessment tool for the Global Standard is a first step in an educative process intended to draw a roadmap for the progression of all NbS initiatives.

5 Conclusion

The NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ provide opportunities to refine analyses and document the sustainability of aquaculture systems; to reinforce the implementation of guiding principles, such as those of the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA); and to further contribute to entangling the place and role of aquaculture production systems and aquaculture development more generally within social-ecological systems. Our review of the applicability of the NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ in the aquaculture context suggests that there are as many nuances of NbS compliance as there are aquaculture systems. Piloting the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™’s self-assessment tool in two case studies of aquaculture development highlighted the weaknesses while providing pointers for corrective actions as part of a roadmap toward greater sustainability. Despite complementarities between the NbS concept and other sustainability concepts, not all aquaculture systems may comply with the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™, even though they comply with other sustainability concepts. This notwithstanding, the NbS concept and the IUCN Global Standard for NbS™ could inspire and provide operational guidance for the development of a new generation of aquaculture initiatives specifically designed as NbS. Thus, our findings advocate pursuing the context-sensitive promotion of aquaculture developments as NbS.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not provided for this study on human participants because No direct field individual data were used in the study, no requirement for an ethical approval. The study was done in agreement with local and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

The work was conceived and undertaken by the authors. The corresponding author coordinated the whole work with two main reviewers, the second author (EC-S) and the last author (CB). The information on Zanzibar case were collected and analyzed by the first author (RL), in collaboration with AS, FS and CB while the study case in Indonesia was provided by the work of DH and discussed with all the other authors. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This work was conducted in collaboration with the Ocean Team of the IUCN Centre for Conservation Action based in the IUCN headquarters. The Zanzibar case study was funded by the French Development Agency (AFD), in the framework of the France-IUCN partnership 2017-2020. The Kalimantan project was funded by the Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Sustainable Development of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg and the Total Foundation. The authors thank the local teams (NGOs, representatives of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar) and the Blueyou team (Indonesia) for their help in documenting the case studies.

Conflict of interest

The author RL is a self-employed person, under a consultancy firm STERMOR, and consulted as expert by the IUCN team for this work and this publication. The author CB is under the same status, self-employed by her consultancy firm Soulfish, and consulted as expert.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1146637/full#supplementary-material

References

Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Soto D., Brummett R. (2017). Aquaculture zoning, site selection and area management under the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. a handbook (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)). Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/I6834EN/i6834en.pdf

Google Scholar

Alleway H. K. (2023). Climate benefits of seaweed farming. Nat. Sustainability. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-01044-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alleway H. K., Gillies C. L., Bishop M. J., Gentry R. R., Theuerkauf S. J., Jones R. (2018). The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: valuing benefits to people and nature. BioScience 69 (1), 59–68. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy137

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Appiott J., Morello E., Campbell D., Charles A., Cheilari A., Christensen T., et al. (2021). ICES/IUCN-CEM FEG workshop on testing OECM practices and strategies (WKTOPS)”. (Copenhagen V Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). doi: 10.17895/ices.pub.8135

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arifanti V. B., Sidik F., Mulyanto B., Susilowati A., Wahyuni T., Yuniarti N., et al. (2022). Challenges and strategies for sustainable mangrove management in Indonesia: a review. Forests 13 (5), 695. doi: 10.3390/f13050695

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ateweberhan M., Hudson J., Rougier A., Jiddawi N. S., Msuya F. E., Stead S. M., et al. (2018). Community based aquaculture in the western Indian ocean: challenges and opportunities for developing sustainable coastal livelihoods. Ecol. Soc. 23 (4), 17. doi: 10.5751/ES-10411-230417

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aubin J., Callier M., Rey-Valette H., Mathe S., Wilfart A., Legendre M., et al. (2019). Implementing ecological intensification in fish farming: definition and principles from contrasting experiences. Rev. Aquaculture 11 (1), 149–167. doi: 10.1111/raq.12231

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aubin J., Rey-Valette H., Mathé S., Wilfart A., Legendre M., Slembrouck J., et al. (2014). Guide for implementing ecological intensification of aquaculture systems” (France: INRA: INRA. (Rennes).

Google Scholar

Baines J., Edwards P. (2018). The role of relationships in achieving and maintaining a social licence in the new Zealand aquaculture sector. Aquaculture 485, 140–146. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.11.047

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barange M., Bahri T., Beveridge M. C., Cochrane K. L., Funge-Smith S., Poulain F. (2018). Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of currrent knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)). Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i9705en/I9705EN.pdf

Google Scholar

Barbier E. B., Koch E. W., Silliman B. R., Hacker S. D., Wolanski E., Primavera J., et al. (2008). Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. science 319 (5861), 321–323. doi: 10.1126/science.1150349

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bauduceau N., Berry P., Cecchi C., Elmqvist T., Fernandez M., Hartig T., et al. (2015). Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities: final report of the horizon 2020 expert group on’Nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities’. (Brussels: European Union), 74. doi: 10.2777/765301

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Belton B., Bush S. R., Little D. C. (2018). Not just for the wealthy: rethinking farmed fish consumption in the global south. Global Food Secur. 16, 85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benansio J. S., Mathias W., Annette B., Narriman J. (2016). Have the fishing communities of Zanzibar island benefited from increasing tourism development? J. Dev. Agric. Economics 8 (5), 95–107. doi: 10.5897/JDAE2016-0727

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bloodworth J., Baptie M., Preedy K., Best J. (2019). Negative effects of the sea lice therapeutant emamectin benzoate at low concentrations on benthic communities around Scottish fish farms. Sci. Total Environ. 669, 91–102. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.430

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

BNCFF (unpublished). “Evaluating the BNCFF-funded projects from blueyou and seatech based on the global standard for nature-based solutions (NbS): a pilot application of the self-assessment tool,” in Assessment report (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN).

Google Scholar

Bolognini L., Grati F., Marino G., Punzo E., Scanu M., Torres C., et al. (2019). Safeguarding marine protected areas in the growing Mediterranean blue Economy/Recommendations for aquaculture (P.M. project). https://pharos4mpas.interreg-med.eu

Google Scholar

Boone Kauffman J., Arifanti V. B., Hernández Trejo H., del Carmen Jesús García M., Norfolk J., Cifuentes M., et al. (2017). The jumbo carbon footprint of a shrimp: carbon losses from mangrove deforestation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15 (4), 183–188. doi: 10.1002/fee.1482

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bosma R. H., Nguyen T. H., Siahainenia A. J., Tran H. T., Tran H. N. (2016). Shrimp-based livelihoods in mangrove silvo-aquaculture farming systems. Rev. Aquaculture 8 (1), 43–60. doi: 10.1111/raq.12072

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyd C. E., Davis R. P., McNevin A. A. (2021). Comparison of resource use for farmed shrimp in Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Aquaculture Fish Fisheries 1 (1), 3–15. doi: 10.1002/aff2.23

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bradford J. (2017). Underwater community gardens? exploring community-based marine aquaculture as a coastal resource management strategy in Nova Scotia, Canada (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Dalhousie University). Master. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17927.85926

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bridger D., Attrill M. J., Davies B. F., Holmes L. A., Cartwright A., Rees S. E., et al. (2022). The restoration potential of offshore mussel farming on degraded seabed habitat. Aqua. Fish & Fisheries. 2, 437–449. doi: 10.1002/aff2.77

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bridson P. (2013). “Ca Mau province of southern Vietnam and other areas of southeast Asia extensive mixed shrimp and mangrove forestry (silvofishery) farms independently verified to be compliant with the selva shrimp® criteria developed by blueyou consulting Ltd,” in Seafood watch report (USA: Monterey Bay Aquarium).

Google Scholar

Brugere C. (2006). “Can integrated coastal management solve agriculture-fisheries-aquaculture conflicts at the land-water interface? a perspective from new institutional economics,” in Environment and livelihoods in coastal tropical zones: managing agriculture – fishery – aquaculture conflicts. Eds. Huong T.P.T. C.T., Gowing J. W., Hardy B. (Oxon: CABI International), 258–273.

Google Scholar

Brugere C., Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Beveridge M. C., Soto D. (2018). The ecosystem approach to aquaculture 10 years on–a critical review and consideration of its future role in blue growth. Rev. Aquaculture 0), 1–22. doi: 10.1111/raq.12242

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brugere C., Bansal T., Kruijssen F., Williams M. (2023). Humanizing aquaculture development: putting social and human concerns at the centre of future aquaculture development. J. World Aquaculture Soc, in press.

Google Scholar

Brugere C., et al. (2022). “Social and human dimensions of aquaculture,” in Global conference on aquaculture millennium +20 – aquaculture for food and sustainable development. shanghai, China, 22–25 September 2021 (Shanghai, China: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report, Rome).

Google Scholar

Brugere C., le Gouvello R., Simard F. (2019). “Mission report of the AquaCoCo IUCN team, Zanzibar, December 2018,” in AquaCoCo project in Zanzibar: aquaculture, coastal communities and conservation (Gland, Switzerland: AFD/IUCN).

Google Scholar

Brugere C., le Gouvello R., Simard F., Jumbe A., Spadone A. (2020a). “Report of the AquaCoCo stakeholder workshop, stonetown, Zanzibar, 17-18 July 2019,” in AquaCoCo project in Zanzibar: aquaculture, coastal communities and conservation (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN).

Google Scholar

Brugere C., Msuya F. E., Jiddawi N., Nyonje B., Maly R. (2020b). Can innovation empower? reflections on introducing tubular nets to women seaweed farmers in Zanzibar. Gender Technol. Dev. 1–21. doi: 10.1080/09718524.2019.1695307

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brugere C., Ridler N., Haylor G., Macfadyen G., Hishamunda N. (2010). “Aquaculture planning: policy formulation and implementation for sustainable development,” in Technical paper. Ed. F.F.a. Aquaculture (Rome, Italy: FAO).

Google Scholar

Brugere C., Troell M., Eriksson H. (2021). More than fish: policy coherence and benefit sharing as necessary conditions for equitable aquaculture development. Mar. Policy 123, 104271. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104271

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bryceson I. (2002). Coastal aquaculture developments in Tanzania: sustainable and non-sustainable experiences. Western Indian Ocean Journal Marine Sciences 1 (1), 1–10. http://hdl.handle.net/1834/21

Google Scholar

Bush S. R., Belton B., Little D. C., Islam M. S. (2019a). Emerging trends in aquaculture value chain research. Aquaculture 498, 428–434. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.08.077

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bush S. R., Oosterveer P., Bottema M., Meuwissen M., de Mey Y., Chamsai S., et al. (2019b). Inclusive environmental performance through ‘beyond-farm’aquaculture governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 41, 49–55. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.09.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Campbell L. M., Fairbanks L., Murray G., Stoll J. S., D’Anna L., Bingham J. (2021). From blue economy to blue communities: reorienting aquaculture expansion for community wellbeing. Mar. Policy 124, 104361. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104361

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cavallo M., Frangoudes K., Pérez Agúndez J., Raux P. (2020). Exploring troubles, attitudes, and strategies related to integrated aquaculture. a case of the andalusia region (South of Spain). J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8 (9), 684. doi: 10.3390/jmse8090684

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cavallo M., Perez Agundez J. A., Raux P., Frangoudes K. (2021). Is existing legislation supporting socially acceptable aquaculture in the European union? a transversal analysis of France, Italy and Spain. Rev. Aquaculture 13 (3), 1683–1694. doi: 10.1111/raq.12540

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Châles F., Bellanger M., Bailly D., Dutra L. X., Pendleton L. (2022). Using standards for coastal nature-based solutions in climate commitments: applying the IUCN global standard to the case of pacific small island developing states. Nature-Based Solutions 3, 100034. doi: 10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100034

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen-Shacham E., Andrade A., Dalton J., Dudley N., Jones M., Kumar C., et al. (2019). Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling nature-based solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 98, 20–29. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen-Shacham E., Walters G., Janzen C., Maginnis S. (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN Gland Switzerland 97. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Costanza R., Daly L., Fioramonti L., Giovannini E., Kubiszewski I., Mortensen L. F., et al. (2016). Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable development goals. Ecol. Economics 130, 350–355. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Costello C., Cao L., Gelcich S., Cisneros-Mata M.Á., Free C. M., Froehlich H. E., et al. (2020). The future of food from the Sea. Nature 588, 1–6. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Craig R. K. (2022). Promoting 'Climate change plus' industries through the administrative state: the case of marine aquaculture. Yale J. Reg. 39, 479. Available: https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/18200/09.%20Craig%20Article%20Final.%20479-532.pdf?sequence=1

Google Scholar

Crutzen P. J., Stoermer E. F. (2021). The ‘Anthropocene. In: Benner S., Lax G., Crutzen P. J., Pöschl U., Lelieveld J., Brauch H. G., et al (eds) Paul J. Crutzen and the Anthropocene: A New Epoch in Earth’s History. The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science, vol 1. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-82202-6_2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Custódio M., Villasante S., Calado R., Lillebø A. I. (2019). Valuation of ecosystem services to promote sustainable aquaculture practices. Rev. Aquaculture, 1–14. doi: 10.1111/raq.12324

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dabbadie L., Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Beveridge M. C. M., Bueno P. B., Ross L. G., Soto D. (2018). “Chapter 20: effects of climate change on aquaculture: drivers,impacts and policies,” in Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of currrent knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization), 464.

Google Scholar

Davies I. P., Carranza V., Froehlich H. E., Gentry R. R., Kareiva P., Halpern B. S. (2019). Governance of marine aquaculture: pitfalls, potential, and pathways forward. Mar. Policy 104, 29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

De Bruyn M., Stelbrink B., Morley R. J., Hall R., Carvalho G. R., Cannon C. H., et al. (2014). Borneo And Indochina are major evolutionary hotspots for southeast Asian biodiversity. Systematic Biol. 63 (6), 879–901. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syu047

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dempster T., Sanchez-Jerez P., Tuya F., Fernandez-Jover D., Bayle-Sempere J., Boyra A., et al. (2006). Coastal aquaculture and conservation can work together. School Natural Sci. Papers Vol. 314 (2 2006), 309–310. doi: 10.3354/meps314309

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Edwards P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture 447, 2–14. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eggermont H., Balian E., Azevedo J. M. N., Beumer V., Brodin T., Claudet J., et al. (2015). Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental management and research in Europe. GAIA-Ecological Perspect. Sci. Soc. 24 (4), 243–248. doi: 10.14512/gaia.24.4.9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eriksson H., Troell M., Brugere C., Chadag M., Phillips M., Andrew N. (2018). “Equitable mariculture: a diagnostic framework for equitable mariculture development in the Western Indian ocean. Equitable mariculture,” (Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research). Available at: https://www.aciar.gov.au/publication/Equitable-mariculture

Google Scholar

FAO (2003). “Report of the expert consultation on international fish trade and food security; Casablanca, Morocco, 27 - 30 January 2003”,” in FAO fisheries report (Rome: FAO).

Google Scholar

FAO (2020). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020 (Rome: FAO).

Google Scholar

FAO (2022). “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation,” (Rome, Italy: FAO).

Google Scholar

Filgueira R., Byron C. J., Comeau L. A., Costa-Pierce B., Cranford P. J., Ferreira J. G., et al. (2015). An integrated ecosystem approach for assessing the potential role of cultivated bivalve shells as part of the carbon trading system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 518, 281–287. doi: 10.3354/meps11048

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fröcklin S., de la Torre-Castro M., Lindström L., Jiddawi N. S., Msuya F. E. (2012). Seaweed mariculture as a development project in Zanzibar, East Africa: a price too high to pay? Aquaculture 356, 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.05.039

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Galappaththi E. K., Ichien S. T., Hyman A. A., Aubrac C. J., Ford J. D. (2020). Climate change adaptation in aquaculture. Rev. Aquaculture 12 (4), 2160–2176. doi: 10.1111/raq.12427

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gephart J. A., Pace M. L. (2015). Structure and evolution of the global seafood trade network. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (12), 125014. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gimpel A., Stelzenmüller V., Töpsch S., Galparsoro I., Gubbins M., Miller D., et al. (2018). A GIS-based tool for an integrated assessment of spatial planning trade-offs with aquaculture. Sci. Total Environ. 627, 1644–1655. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.133

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Goussard J. J., Ducrocq M. (2017). Facing the future: conservation as a precursor for building coastal territorial cohesion and resilience. Aquat. Conservation: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 27, 151–161. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2823

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hambrey J. (2017). “The 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals: the challenge for aquaculture development and management,” in FAO fisheries and aquaculture circular (Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture).

Google Scholar

Hedberg N., von Schreeb K., Charisiadou S., Jiddawi N. S., Tedengren M., Nordlund L. M. (2018). Habitat preference for seaweed farming–a case study from Zanzibar, Tanzania. Ocean Coast. Manage. 154, 186–195. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hugé J., Van Puyvelde K., Munga C., Dahdouh-Guebas F., Koedam N. (2018). Exploring coastal development scenarios for Zanzibar: a local microcosm-inspired Delphi survey. Ocean Coast. Manage. 158, 83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hughes A. D. (2021). Defining nature-based solutions within the blue economy: the example of aquaculture. Front. Mar. Sci. 1042. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.711443

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Eds. Brondizio J. S. E. S., Díaz S., Ngo H. T. (Bonn, Germany: IPBES).

Google Scholar

IPCC (2022). “Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability,” in Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Eds. Pörtner D.C.R. H.-O., Tignor M., Poloczanska E. S., Mintenbeck K., Alegría A., Craig M., Langsdorf S., Löschke S., Möller V., Okem A., Rama B. (Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: USA: Cambridge University Press).

Google Scholar

IUCN (2007). Guide for the sustainable development of Mediterranean aquaculture. interaction between aquaculture and the environment (Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain: International Union of Nature Conservancy).

Google Scholar

IUCN (2009). Guide for the sustainable development of Mediterranean aquaculture 2. aquaculture site selection and site management (Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain: IUCN VIII).

Google Scholar

IUCN (2020a). Global standard for nature-based solutions”, in: a user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. 1st ed. (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN).

Google Scholar

IUCN (2020b). Guidance for using the IUCN global standard for nature-based solutions. a user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of nature-based solutions. 1st ed. (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN).

Google Scholar

IUCN (2020c). “Worldwide catalogue of case studies on aquaculture and marine conservation, N°1: Zanzibar,” in Worldwide catalogue of projects/case studies: aquaculture in marine protected areas. Ed. G.M.a.P. Program (Gland, Switzerland: International Union of Nature Conservation).

Google Scholar

IUCN (2021). “TUNISIA CASE STUDY, offshore finfish cage-farming and the marine protected area of the kuriat islands in monastir bay,” in Worldwide catalogue of case studies on aquaculture and marine conservation (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: IUCN).

Google Scholar

IUCN-WCP (2019). “Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures,”. Ed. A.T.F.o. OECMs (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN). doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.PATRS.3.en

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jolly C. M., Nyandat B., Yang Z., Ridler N., Menezes A., Matias F., et al (2022) “Dynamics of aquaculture governance, (2010-2020),” in Global conference on aquaculture 2020 (Shanghai, China: FAO).

Google Scholar

Kaminski A. M., Kruijssen F., Cole S. M., Beveridge M. C. M., Dawson C., Mohan C. V., et al. (2020). A review of inclusive business models and their application in aquaculture development. Rev. Aquaculture. 1–22. doi: 10.1111/raq.12415

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khamis Z. A., Kalliola R., Käyhkö N. (2017). Geographical characterization of the Zanzibar coastal zone and its management perspectives. Ocean Coast. Manage. 149, 116–134. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krause G., Billing S.-L., Dennis J., Grant J., Fanning L., Filgueira R., et al. (2020). Visualizing the social in aquaculture: how social dimension components illustrate the effects of aquaculture across geographic scales. Mar. Policy 118, 103985. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103985

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Krause G., Brugere C., Diedrich A., Ebeling M. W., Ferse S. C., Mikkelsen E., et al. (2015). A revolution without people? closing the people–policy gap in aquaculture development. Aquaculture 447, 44–55. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kruijssen F., McDougall C. L., van Asseldonk I. J. (2018). Gender and aquaculture value chains: a review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture 493, 328–337. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.038

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Laffoley D., Baxter J. M. (2016). Explaining ocean warming: causes, scales, effects and consequences (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-WCPA).

Google Scholar

Laffoley D., Baxter J. M. (2019). Ocean deoxygenation: everyone’s problem - causes, impacts, consequences and solutions_Full report (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN).

Google Scholar

Lange G.-M. (2015). Tourism in Zanzibar: incentives for sustainable management of the coastal environment. Ecosystem Serv. 11, 5–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lange G.-M., Jiddawi N. (2009). Economic value of marine ecosystem services in Zanzibar: implications for marine conservation and sustainable development. Ocean Coast. Manage. 52 (10), 521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.08.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lazard J., Rey-Valette H., Aubin J., Mathé S., Chia E., Caruso D., et al. (2014). Assessing aquaculture sustainability: a comparative methodology. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 21 (6), 503–511. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2014.964350

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

le Gouvello R., Brugere C., Simard F. (2022). Aquaculture and nature-based solutions. identifying synergies between sustainable development of coastal communities, aquaculture, and marine and coastal conservation (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN).

Google Scholar

Le Gouvello R., Hochart L. E., Laffoley D., Simard F., Andrade C., Angel D., et al. (2017). Aquaculture and marine protected areas: potential opportunities and synergies. Aquat. Conservation: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 27, 138–150. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2821

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lester S., Stevens J., Gentry R., Kappel C., Bell T., Costello C., et al. (2018). Marine spatial planning makes room for offshore aquaculture in crowded coastal waters. Nat. Commun. 9 (1), 1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03249-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Macias J. C., Avila Zaragozá P., Karakassis I., Sanchez-Jerez P., Massa F., Fezzardi D., et al. (2019). Allocated zones for aquaculture: a guide for the establishment of coastal zones dedicated to aquaculture in the Mediterranean and the black Sea. (Rome: FAO). Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5736en/CA5736EN.pdf

Google Scholar

Mascorda Cabre L., Hosegood P., Attrill M. J., Bridger D., Sheehan E. V. (2021) Offshore longline mussel farms: a review of oceanographic and ecological interactions to inform future research needs, policy and management Rev. Aquaculture. 1–24. doi: 10.1111/raq.12549

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mather C., Fanning L. (2019). Social licence and aquaculture: towards a research agenda. Mar. Policy 99, 275–282. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.049

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mente E., Martin J. C., Tuck I., Kormas K. A., Santos M. B., Bailey N., et al. (2010). Mesoscale effects of aquaculture installations on benthic and epibenthic communities in four Scottish sea lochs. Aquat. living Resour. 23 (3), 267–276. doi: 10.1051/alr/2010030

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mikkelsen E., Fanning L., Kreiss C., Billing S.-L., Dennis J., Filgueira R., et al. (2021). Availability and usefulness of economic data on the effects of aquaculture: a north Atlantic comparative assessment. Rev. Aquaculture 13 (1), 601–618. doi: 10.1111/raq.12488

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Msuya F. E., Shalli M. S., Sullivan K., Crawford B., Tobey J., Mmochi A. J. (2007). A Comparative Economic Analysis of Two Seaweed Farming Methods in Tanzania. The Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems Program. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island and the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association. 27p. Available at: https://www.crc.uri.edu or https://www.wiomsa.org

Google Scholar

Muir J. F., Brugere C., Young J. A., Stewart J. A. (1999). The solution to pollution? the value and limitations of environmental economics in guiding aquaculture development. Aquaculture Economics Manage. 3 (1), 43–57. doi: 10.1080/13657309909380232

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nesshöver C., Assmuth T., Irvine K. N., Rusch G. M., Waylen K. A., Delbaere B., et al. (2017). The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 1215–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

O’Leary B. C., Fonseca C., Cornet C. C., de Vries M. B., Degia A. K., Failler P., et al. (2022). Embracing nature-based solutions to promote resilient marine and coastal ecosystems. Nature-Based Solutions 3, 100044. doi: 10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100044

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ottinger M., Clauss K., Kuenzer C. (2016). Aquaculture: relevance, distribution, impacts and spatial assessments–a review. Ocean Coast. Manage. 119, 244–266. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pörtner H. O., Roberts D. C., Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Tignor M., Poloczanska E., et al. (2019). “IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate,” (Monaco: International Panel on Climate Change). 1170. Available at: https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf

Google Scholar

Queiroz L., Rossi S., Meireles J., Coelho C. (2013). Shrimp aquaculture in the federal state of ceará, 1970–2012: trends after mangrove forest privatization in Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manage. 73, 54–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.11.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raux P., Peírez Aguíndez J. A., Rougier J. E., Lancelot L., Barbe A. (2020). “Principles and tools to foster social acceptability in Mediterranean aquaculture,” in Seírie rapports r-45- 2020. Ed. Amure. P. (Plouzané: AMURE (Ifremer/UBO).

Google Scholar

Raymond C. M., Frantzeskaki N., Kabisch N., Berry P., Breil M., Nita M. R., et al. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rey-Valette H., Clément O., Aubin J., Mathé S., Chia E., Legendre M., et al. (2008). Guide to the co-construction of sustainable development indicators in aquaculture (Paris: Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement).

Google Scholar

RGoZ (2020). “Zanzibar Blue economy policy,”. Ed. Ministry of Blue Economy and Fisheries (MoBEF), Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGoZ) (Zanzibar, Tanzania: Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar). Available at: http://planningznz.go.tz/doc/new/BE%20Policy-2020.pdf

Google Scholar

Riisager-Simonsen C., Fabi G., van Hoof L., Holmgren N., Marino G., Lisbjerg D. (2022). Marine nature-based solutions: where societal challenges and ecosystem requirements meet the potential of our oceans. Mar. Policy 144, 105198. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105198

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ripple W. J., Wolf C., Newsome T. M., Galetti M., Alamgir M., Crist E., et al. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. BioScience 67 (12), bix125–bix125. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix125

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salz P., Macfadyen G. (2007). “Regional dependency on fisheries,” in Report to the European parliament, project no. iP/B/Pech/St/ic/2006-198. (Brussels: European Parliament)

Google Scholar

Smaal A. C., Ferreira J. G., Grant J., Petersen J. K., Strand Ø. (2019). Goods and services of marine bivalves (Switzerland: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96776-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Soto D., Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Brugere C., Angel D., Bailey C., Black K., et al. (2008). “Applying an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture: principles, scales and some management measures,” in Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture - expert workshop 7-11 may 2007, palma de mallorca, Spain. Eds. Soto D., Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Hishamunda. N. (Rome: FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings and Université des îles Baléares), 15–35.

Google Scholar

Soto D., Ross L. G., Handisyde N., Bueno P. B., Beveridge M., Dabbadie L., et al. (2018). “Chapter 21: climate change and aquaculture: vulnerability and adaptation options,” in Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of currrent knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization), 465.

Google Scholar

Soto D., White P., Dempster T., De Silva S., Flores A., Karakassis Y., et al. (2012). Addressing aquaculture-fisheries interactions through the implementation of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA). Farming waters People Food, 385–436. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i2734e/i2734e03h.pdf

Google Scholar

Steffen W., Richardson K., Rockström J., Cornell S. E., Fetzer I., Bennett E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223), 736. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stentiford G., Bateman I., Hinchliffe S., Bass D., Hartnell R., Santos E., et al. (2020). Sustainable aquaculture through the one health lens. Nat. Food, 1–7. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0127-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stephenson R. L., Hobday A. J., Cvitanovic C., Alexander K. A., Begg G. A., Bustamante R. H., et al. (2019). A practical framework for implementing and evaluating integrated management of marine activities. Ocean Coast. Manage. 177, 127–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sumaila U. R., Pierruci A., Oyinlola M. A., Cannas R., Froese R., Glaser S., et al. (2022). Aquaculture over-optimism? Front. Mar. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.984354

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Theuerkauf S. J., Barrett L. T., Alleway H. K., Costa-Pierce B. A., St. Gelais A., Jones R. C. (2021) Habitat value of bivalve shellfish and seaweed aquaculture for fish and invertebrates: pathways, synthesis and next steps. Rev. Aquaculture. 1–19. doi: 10.1111/raq.12584

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Theuerkauf S. J., Morris J. A. Jr., Waters T. J., Wickliffe L. C., Alleway H. K., Jones R. C. (2019). A global spatial analysis reveals where marine aquaculture can benefit nature and people. PloS One 14 (10), e0222282. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222282

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Troell M., Costa-Pierce B., Stead S., Cottrell R. S., Brugere C., Farmery A., et al. (2023 in press). Perspectives on aquaculture’s contribution to the SDGs for improved human and planetary health. J. World Aquaculture Soc. 189–201. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00307-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Troell M., Kautsky N., Beveridge M., Henriksson P., Primavera J., Rönnbäck P., et al. (2013). “Aquaculture,” in Encyclopedia of biodiversity (Elsevier), 189–201.

Google Scholar

United Nations (2015). “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development,” in A/RES/70/1. Ed. Nations U. (New York: General Assembly). Available at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

Google Scholar

United Nations (2021a). World ocean assessment II - volume i” (New York: United Nations).

Google Scholar

United Nations (2021b). World ocean assessment II - volume II” (New York: United Nations).

Google Scholar

Valderrama D., Cai J., Hishamunda N., Ridler N. (2013). “Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming,” in Fisheries and aquaculture technical paper (Rome: FAO).

Google Scholar

Vince J., Haward M. (2017). Hybrid governance of aquaculture: opportunities and challenges. J. Environ. Manage. 201, 138–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.039

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Watson R. A., Nichols R., Lam V. W. Y., Sumaila U. R. (2017). Global seafood trade flows and developing economies: insights from linking trade and production. Mar. Policy 82, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.04.017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weitzman J. (2019). Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: a review of approaches, definitions, and uses. Ecosystem Serv. 35, 194–206. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weitzman J., Steeves L., Bradford J., Filgueira R. (2019). “Far-field and near-field effects of marine aquaculture,” in World Seas: an Environmental Evaluation (Elsevier), 197–220. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00011-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar