Turning the tide: India’s new seaweed import guidelines and their implications for sustainable aquaculture

Abstract

India has over 7,500 km of coastline and approximately 844 documented seaweed species yet contributes less than 0.01% of global seaweed production. Output has remained below 300 tonnes (dry weight) per year since the 2013–2014 production collapse. This stagnation has persisted despite USD 76.6 million committed under the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana and a 420% rise in farmgate prices, which together indicate that the binding constraint is biological rather than economic. The sector depends almost entirely on a single introduced species, Kappaphycus alvarezii, cultivated from a narrow genetic base since 2001 and repeatedly affected by ice-ice disease and epiphytism. In 2024, the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, issued India’s first structured framework for the import of live seaweeds and seaweed germplasm. This article reviews that framework. We compare it with two groups of jurisdictions chosen for explicit reasons: the Philippines and Indonesia, the leading producers of Kappaphycus and Eucheuma, whose biosecurity experience parallels India’s; and Norway, an exemplar of well-resourced precautionary aquaculture governance. We assess the 2024 guidelines on four dimensions—quarantine protocols, risk assessment, traceability, and access and benefit-sharing—using doctrinal legal analysis and a comparative governance scoring framework. We find that the guidelines appear well designed in their quarantine and risk-assessment provisions but are likely to encounter implementation challenges in enforcement capacity, quarantine infrastructure, and post-release monitoring — challenges evidenced by the comparative experience of other jurisdictions and by the institutional constraints documented in §3.4. We recommend three complementary interventions to support effective implementation: native-species breeding programs, dedicated seaweed quarantine facilities, and integrated environmental monitoring. The article offers an evidence-based reference point for policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders working to expand India’s seaweed sector while protecting marine biodiversity.

1 Introduction

Seaweed aquaculture is one of the fastest-growing segments of global mariculture, encompassing the cultivation of macroalgae for food, feed, industrial hydrocolloids, biofuels, and pharmaceutical applications under controlled or semi-controlled marine and coastal conditions (FAO, 2024; Chopin, 2014). Global seaweed production has expanded significantly over the past three decades, reaching approximately 38 million tonnes (wet weight) in 2022, with aquaculture accounting for over 97% of total output (FAO, 2024). The sector is increasingly recognized for its multifunctional contributions to food and nutritional security, carbon sequestration, coastal livelihood generation, and ecosystem services including bioremediation and nutrient cycling (Duarte et al., 2017; Sondak et al., 2017; Froehlich et al., 2019). Production is heavily concentrated in East and Southeast Asia, with China (52.8%) and Indonesia (30.6%) collectively accounting for over 83% of global output, while other maritime nations with substantial coastlines remain marginal contributors (FAO, 2024).

India, despite possessing over 7,500 km of coastline, approximately 844 documented seaweed species, and diverse tropical marine habitats spanning nine maritime states and two union territories, contributes less than 0.01% to global seaweed production (Mantri et al., 2020; NITI Aayog, 2024). This paradox of resource abundance and production insignificance constitutes a critical challenge for India’s blue economy aspirations. Commercial seaweed farming in India has been almost exclusively dependent on a single introduced species, Kappaphycus alvarezii, cultivated from a narrow genetic base since its introduction from the Philippines in 1984 (Mantri et al., 2017; Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). While initial scaling efforts yielded promising results, with production rising from 135 tonnes dry weight in 2005 to a peak of 1,490 tonnes in 2013 engaging 950 coastal beneficiaries, the sector experienced a catastrophic collapse in 2013–2014, with output plummeting to 40 tonnes and beneficiary numbers declining to 200 (Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd, 2024). This collapse, primarily attributed to ice-ice disease and epiphyte infestations exacerbated by genetic uniformity of cultivated stocks, was further compounded by institutional and governance challenges, market instability, and weaknesses in extension advisory systems (Hurtado et al., 2014; Largo et al., 2017; Mantri et al., 2017).

The post-collapse recovery has been notably constrained, with production stagnating below 300 tonnes annually despite substantial policy interventions. The Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY), launched in 2020 with an allocation of USD 76.6 million for seaweed cultivation, set ambitious production targets of 11,750 tonnes; however, actual output has remained at approximately 2.5% of this target (Department of Fisheries, 2020; NITI Aayog, 2024). Concurrently, farmgate prices have increased from farmgate prices from USD 0.30/kg to USD 1.56/kg dry weight, representing a 420% appreciation, yet this price signal has failed to stimulate proportionate production expansion (Figure 1). This persistent divergence between economic incentives and production response provides compelling evidence that the binding constraint is biological—specifically, the absence of elite germplasm and economically viable species diversity—rather than market or institutional failure alone. NITI Aayog (2024) has independently identified this germplasm limitation as a primary bottleneck, estimating an unrealized revenue potential exceeding USD 599 million in the seaweed value chain (Araújo et al., 2021; FAO 2022a, 2022b).

Figure 1

Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd. (2024); Department of Fisheries (2020); NITI Aayog (2024).

Globally, seaweed-producing nations have adopted divergent regulatory approaches to the introduction and cultivation of non-native seaweed species, balancing biosecurity imperatives against the need for genetic resource access. These approaches range from open-access strain transfer with limited biosecurity oversight, to integrated quarantine-and-strain-improvement programs, to comprehensive precautionary frameworks embedded in marine spatial planning legislation.

Four jurisdictions provide the most instructive comparators for India. The Philippines, the world’s leading producer of eucheumatoid seaweeds, administers biosecurity through Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Fisheries Administrative Order No. 236, but its experience also illustrates the limits of formal regulation where informal farmer-to-farmer strain exchange persists (Hurtado et al., 2014; Mateo et al., 2020; Suyo et al., 2021). Indonesia, the largest seaweed producer by volume, scaled production rapidly without comprehensive biosecurity governance, and is now retrofitting national standards in response (Kambey et al., 2020, 2021). China integrates quarantine within a national variety-approval system that has produced more than twenty improved Saccharina varieties over five decades (Hwang et al., 2019). Norway operates one of the world’s most rigorous aquaculture biosecurity frameworks, anchored in mandatory pre-cultivation environmental impact assessment and marine spatial planning (Stévant et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2022). These four jurisdictions therefore span the regulatory spectrum from minimal to maximal governance and provide the comparative benchmarks used in Section 4.

To address the germplasm bottleneck constraining India’s seaweed sector, the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, 2023), Government of India issued the Guidelines for Import of Live Seaweeds into India in 2024 (Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, 2024). These guidelines establish India’s first structured regulatory pathway for the introduction of non-native seaweed genetic resources. They incorporate provisions for quarantine, risk assessment, traceability and post-release monitoring, and access and benefit-sharing.

The access and benefit-sharing provisions are aligned with two instruments: the Biological Diversity Act 2002 (as amended in 2023), and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity — a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity that entered into force in 2014 and to which India is a Party.

This review examines the 2024 guidelines through a structured comparative analysis with the four jurisdictions identified above. It employs doctrinal legal analysis of the primary regulatory instruments and a comparative institutional assessment scored across five governance dimensions (Section 4). The article evaluates the guidelines’ provisions, identifies implementation gaps, and proposes complementary interventions necessary to translate regulatory intent into sectoral transformation. By situating India’s regulatory response within global best practices and two decades of production data, the review offers evidence-based guidance for policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders seeking to develop India’s seaweed aquaculture sector while protecting marine biodiversity (Buschmann et al., 2017; Charrier et al., 2017; Hafting et al., 2015; Loureiro et al., 2015) .

2 Development of seaweed aquaculture in India: from exploration to regulatory response (1964 onwards)

Over the past six decades, seaweed utilization and cultivation in India have undergone a significant transformation, progressing from wild harvest and exploratory research to commercial farming attempts and, most recently, to the establishment of a structured regulatory framework for germplasm importation. This evolutionary trajectory, shaped by scientific advances, policy interventions, ecological constraints, and market dynamics, provides essential context for understanding the necessity and significance of the 2024 import guidelines. The development of India’s seaweed sector can be delineated into five distinct phases, each characterized by specific technological milestones, institutional developments, and production outcomes (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd (2024);Department of Fisheries (2020);NITI Aayog (2024).

2.1 1964–1980s: exploration and resource assessment

India’s engagement with seaweed resources began with systematic surveys and taxonomic documentation of its marine algal flora. Early investigations by Krishnamurthy and Joshi (1970) and Umamaheswara Rao (1970) established the foundational understanding of India’s seaweed biodiversity, documenting approximately 844 species across the coastline spanning Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, and West Bengal, along with the island territories of Andaman & Nicobar and Lakshadweep. During this period, seaweed utilization was confined almost entirely to wild harvesting of agar-yielding species (Gelidiella acerosa, Gracilaria spp.) and algin-yielding species (Sargassum spp., Turbinaria spp.) to supply the nascent domestic hydrocolloid industry (Krishnamurthy, 2005). The Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute (CSMCRI), established in Bhavnagar, initiated pioneering research on seaweed chemistry and processing, while the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) undertook resource mapping along the Tamil Nadu and Gujarat coasts. However, cultivation technology remained absent, and the sector was entirely dependent on natural stock harvesting, which was inherently seasonal, variable, and ecologically unsustainable. This phase established the scientific baseline but revealed a critical gap: despite rich biodiversity, no economically viable native species had been identified for large-scale commercial cultivation (CIBA, 2020; ICAR-CIBA, 2020; ICAR-CMFRI, 2021a, 2021b).

2.2 1980s–2000: technology development and early cultivation trials

This period witnessed the transition from resource documentation to active cultivation research. Scientists at CSMCRI and CMFRI developed experimental cultivation techniques for native species including Gracilaria edulis, Gelidiella acerosa, and Gracilaria dura using vegetative propagation methods on coir ropes and bamboo rafts (Mantri et al., 2009; Ganesan et al., 2006). Pilot-scale trials demonstrated technical feasibility but revealed fundamental economic limitations: native species exhibited slow growth rates (2–3% daily growth rate), low biomass yields, and extended cultivation cycles of 60–90 days compared to tropical carrageenan-producing species cultivated elsewhere in Southeast Asia (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). Concurrently, the global seaweed industry was experiencing rapid expansion driven by Kappaphycus alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum cultivation in the Philippines and Indonesia, which offered growth rates of 5–7% per day and harvest cycles of 45 days (Hurtado et al., 2014). Recognizing this productivity gap, Indian researchers initiated discussions on the potential introduction of high-yielding tropical species. The Pepsi Foods Ltd. project in collaboration with CSMCRI attempted early K. alvarezii introduction trials in the late 1990s, setting the stage for the formal introduction that would follow. This phase highlighted a fundamental constraint that would persist for decades: the absence of economically competitive native species for commercial-scale farming.

2.3 2001–2013: commercial introduction and growth phase

The formal introduction of Kappaphycus alvarezii from the Philippines in 1984, facilitated through CSMCRI with appropriate institutional approvals, marked a transformative moment for India’s seaweed sector (Mantri et al., 2017). The species was first acclimatized under controlled laboratory culture and then introduced in the sea in confined conditions. The introduction to the sea was attempted through perforated polythene bag method in Okha, Gujarat (Mairh et al., 1995; Mairh et al., 1999) and later in Mandapam, Tamil Nadu (Eswaran et al., 2002). The pre-commercial trials were undertaken using bamboo raft systems in the Gulf of Mannar region of Tamil Nadu. Its superior growth characteristics - achieving 5–6% daily growth rates with harvest cycles of 45 days - demonstrated immediate commercial viability compared to other native species. Subsequent under commercial operations, production scaled rapidly from 135 tonnes dry weight in 2005 to a peak of 1,490 tonnes in 2013, engaging 950 coastal beneficiaries predominantly from fishing communities in Ramanathapuram district (Mantri et al., 2017). M/s. Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd (formerly PepsiCo India Holdings) emerged as the primary industry partner, establishing procurement networks, processing facilities, and farmer extension services. During this growth phase, farmgate prices from USD 0.30/kg to USD 1.56/kg dry weight, providing meaningful supplementary income to coastal households. Simultaneously, CSMCRI developed tissue culture protocols for K. alvarezii to produce disease-free planting material, and CMFRI expanded cultivation trials to additional coastal sites (Reddy et al., 2008; Mantri et al., 2009). However, this entire commercial edifice rested on a precarious foundation: a single species cultivated from a narrow genetic base derived from limited initial introductions, with no diversification of cultivated species or genetic improvement programs. The sector’s vulnerability to biological shocks remained unaddressed (Luna et al., 2023).

2.4 2014–2023: production collapse, constrained recovery, and policy response

The 2013–2014 production collapse represented a watershed moment for India’s seaweed sector. Output plummeted from 1,490 tonnes to 40 tonnes within a single year, and beneficiary numbers declined from 950 to 200 (Figure 2). While ice-ice disease and epiphyte infestations (Neosiphonia spp.) were the proximate causes, the underlying vulnerability stemmed from genetic uniformity of cultivated stocks, compounded by institutional and governance challenges, inadequate disease surveillance, market instability, and weaknesses in extension advisory systems (Hurtado et al., 2014; Largo et al., 2017; Mantri et al., 2017). The post-collapse period (2015–2023) was characterized by persistent production stagnation despite significant policy interventions. The Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY), launched in 2020 with USD 76.6 million allocated for seaweed cultivation, set production targets of 11,750 tonnes; however, actual output remained below 300 tonnes—approximately 2.5% of the target (Department of Fisheries, 2020). Farmgate prices escalated dramatically from USD 0.30/kg to USD 1.56/kg dry weight, representing a 420% increase, yet this substantial price signal failed to stimulate proportionate production expansion. NITI Aayog’s (2024) comprehensive strategy document independently identified the germplasm constraint as a primary bottleneck, estimating unrealized revenue potential exceeding USD 599 million. This phase demonstrated conclusively that economic incentives, institutional support, and policy investment alone were insufficient to overcome the fundamental biological limitation of species and genetic diversity. The sector required access to elite germplasm—disease-resistant, high-yielding strains and new commercially viable species—which could only be obtained through regulated international exchange (Krishnan and Narayanakumar 2010a, 2010b).

2.5 2024 onwards: the 2024 import guidelines and the methodology of this review

The notification of the Guidelines for Import of Live Seaweeds into India by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying in 2024 represents a paradigm shift in India’s approach to seaweed sector development (Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, 2024). For the first time, India has established a structured regulatory pathway for the introduction of non-native seaweed genetic resources. The guidelines integrate four substantive regulatory components.

First, quarantine protocols require that all imported live seaweed material be routed through designated quarantine facilities — at present, ICAR-NBFGR Lucknow and CSIR-CSMCRI Bhavnagar — for disease screening, pathogen surveillance, and phytosanitary certification before release for cultivation trials. Second, risk assessment procedures require site-specific ecological evaluation of proposed cultivation sites prior to deployment of imported material, with particular attention to ecologically sensitive areas such as the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve. Third, traceability and monitoring provisions establish quarterly reporting requirements covering the chain of custody from import to cultivation site, together with post-release monitoring obligations on importers. Fourth, access and benefit-sharing provisions align the guidelines with the Biological Diversity Act 2002 (as amended in 2023) and India’s obligations under the Nagoya Protocol, including a prohibition on intellectual property claims over imported source material (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2019; Ministry of Fisheries, 2023; MoFAH&D 2020/2023; NCSCM 2014; NITI Aayog 2022).

The guidelines were developed against the backdrop of two decades of production data demonstrating the inadequacy of existing germplasm, the international biosecurity experience reviewed in Section 4, and national strategic priorities articulated by NITI Aayog (2024). They establish the institutional architecture necessary for diversifying India’s cultivated species portfolio beyond Kappaphycus alvarezii and for accessing high-yielding international varieties of Gracilaria, Eucheuma, and other commercially viable taxa. Complementary initiatives — including native-species breeding programs, dedicated seaweed quarantine facilities at the two designated institutes, and integrated environmental monitoring protocols — are at varying stages of conceptualization and implementation (Campbell et al., 2007; Cottier-Cook et al., 2016; Kambey et al., 2020).

2.5.1 Methodology of this review

This review employs a two-stage methodology. Stage one is a structured reading of the 2024 Guidelines for Import of Live Seaweeds into India against their immediate Indian regulatory context — principally the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (as amended in 2023), the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005, and India’s obligations as a Party to the Nagoya Protocol. The reading identifies the regulatory triggers, institutional pathways, and inter-instrument interactions that condition how the 2024 guidelines will operate in practice.

Stage two is comparative regulatory analysis across four jurisdictions — the Philippines, Indonesia, China, and Norway — selected for the reasons set out in the Introduction. For each jurisdiction, the analysis draws on peer-reviewed governance assessments and policy literature rather than direct interpretation of foreign-language statutory text; this is a stated limit of the present review and is acknowledged in §6. Each jurisdiction is scored on five governance dimensions — (i) genetic resource access; (ii) biosecurity governance; (iii) environmental governance; (iv) institutional coordination; and (v) implementation capacity — using a 1–5 ordinal scale adapted from Grafton et al. (2007) and Subasinghe et al. (2023). Scores reflect the cited governance literature triangulated with FAO production data (FAO, 2024) as a proxy for regulatory effectiveness. The Overall Sustainability Index is the unweighted mean of the five-dimension scores. Scores are indicative; they reflect qualitative analysis and should not be read as precise measurements.

3 Challenges constraining India’s seaweed aquaculture development

The development trajectory of India’s seaweed sector, as outlined in Section 2, reveals that despite favorable natural endowments and substantial policy support, commercial seaweed farming has failed to achieve meaningful scale. This persistent underperformance is attributable to a complex interplay of biological, ecological, institutional, and socio-economic constraints that collectively constitute the sustainability challenges facing the sector. Understanding these challenges is essential for evaluating the necessity and adequacy of the 2024 import guidelines as a regulatory response. The principal constraints, assessed for severity, regulatory coverage under the 2024 guidelines, and residual implementation gaps, are presented in Figure 3 and discussed below.

Figure 3

Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd (2024); NITI Aayog (2024); Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (2024), and published literature.

3.1 Germplasm limitation and genetic vulnerability

The most critical constraint facing India’s seaweed sector is the near-complete dependence on a single introduced species, Kappaphycus alvarezii, cultivated from a narrow genetic base since 2001. Unlike finfish and shrimp aquaculture, where selective breeding programs have produced multiple improved strains over decades, seaweed cultivation in India has operated without any systematic genetic improvement initiative (Mantri et al., 2017). The initial introduction comprised limited genetic material from the Philippines, and subsequent vegetative propagation over two decades has further eroded genetic diversity through clonal degradation—a phenomenon well-documented in carrageenan-producing seaweeds globally (Hurtado et al., 2014; Roleda et al., 2025). This genetic uniformity renders the entire cultivated stock susceptible to synchronized disease outbreaks, as demonstrated by the 2013–2014 ice–ice disease epidemic that reduced production by 97% within a single year (Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd, 2024).

The absence of disease-resistant strains, high-yielding varieties, or alternative commercially viable species means that the sector lacks the biological resilience necessary for sustained production. NITI Aayog (2024) has independently identified this germplasm bottleneck as the primary constraint, noting that India’s seaweed biodiversity of approximately 844 species remains largely unexploited for commercial cultivation, while the few native species investigated—Gracilaria edulis, Gracilaria dura, Gelidiella acerosa—exhibit growth rates and economic returns insufficient to attract commercial investment. The economic comparison between K. alvarezii and G. edulis reveals a stark disparity: net revenue from K. alvarezii cultivation USD 1,401/unit/year exceeds that of G. edulis (USD 584/unit/year) by approximately 140%, making species diversification economically unattractive without access to improved germplasm (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). Addressing this constraint will require not merely the importation of new genetic material—which the 2024 guidelines now enable—but the establishment of systematic post-importation genetic improvement programs, including multi-location field trials, marker-assisted selection, and tissue culture-based micropropagation, as discussed in Section 5.1.

3.2 Disease susceptibility and biosecurity gaps

Disease outbreaks represent the most immediate threat to production stability in India’s seaweed farming sector. The ice-ice disease, characterized by whitening and tissue degradation of K. alvarezii thalli under environmental stress, has been the principal cause of production losses since 2013 (Largo et al., 2017). Unlike finfish aquaculture, where pathogen-specific diagnostics and vaccination strategies are well-established, seaweed disease management remains largely reactive and poorly understood in the Indian context. Epiphytic infestations, particularly by Neosiphonia spp. (formerly Polysiphonia), further compromise crop quality and yield, with infested biomass being rejected by processors due to contamination of carrageenan extracts (Hurtado et al., 2014). Roleda et al. (2025) have further highlighted the unintended consequences of using inorganic fertilizers in commercial eucheumatoid farming, noting that such practices can compromise crop health and quality, adding another dimension to the biosecurity challenge.

The biosecurity framework for seaweed cultivation in India has historically been absent—there are no dedicated seaweed quarantine facilities, no standardized disease surveillance protocols, and no regulatory mechanism for monitoring the health status of cultivated stocks across farming sites. This stands in stark contrast to the elaborate biosecurity infrastructure established for shrimp aquaculture following the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) outbreaks of the 1990s, which led to the creation of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority and mandatory disease screening protocols (Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005). The 2024 import guidelines represent the first attempt to establish biosecurity protocols specific to seaweed, including quarantine requirements for imported germplasm; however, the operational infrastructure for implementing these protocols—dedicated quarantine facilities, trained personnel, molecular diagnostic capabilities—remains to be developed. Emerging diagnostic technologies, including environmental DNA metabarcoding and loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays, offer promising avenues for strengthening quarantine screening beyond conventional methods, as discussed in Section 5.2.

3.3 Environmental and ecological concerns

The ecological implications of cultivating non-native seaweed species in India’s marine habitats constitute a significant sustainability concern that has generated considerable scientific debate. Thus, cultivation of K. alvarezii has raised concerns about potential impacts on native seaweed diversity and coral reef ecosystems (Chandrasekaran et al., 2008). However, systematic studies conducted by CSIR-CSMCRI and MoFCC-NCSCM over the past decade present a more nuanced picture. Veeragurunathan et al. (2022) documented 184 seaweed species across 21 islands of the Gulf of Mannar, finding no significant decline in native species diversity attributable to K. alvarezii cultivation. Krishnan et al. (2021) reported that the quantitative spread of K. alvarezii on reef areas was negligible, affecting only 0.00022% of the reef area at Mulli Island.

The precautionary principle is a foundational norm of international and Indian environmental law. In its most widely cited formulation — Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development — it provides that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The principle has been incorporated into Indian environmental jurisprudence by the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 and applied across statutes including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. In practical terms, the principle requires that regulators act to prevent serious environmental harm even when the underlying scientific evidence is incomplete, with the burden of demonstrating safety resting on the proponent of the activity rather than on the regulator.

Applied to the present context, the precautionary principle requires that any expansion of non-native seaweed cultivation — particularly the introduction of new species under the 2024 guidelines — be accompanied by robust environmental monitoring protocols. The guidelines’ provisions for restricted use and distribution, site-specific risk assessment, and post-release monitoring are precautionary in design, but their effectiveness will depend on the establishment of baseline ecological data and long-term monitoring at cultivation sites. Climate change adds further complexity: rising sea-surface temperatures, ocean acidification, and altered monsoon patterns may shift the ecological suitability of cultivation sites and modify species interactions in ways that are presently unpredictable (Duarte et al., 2017). The development of a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based National Seaweed Cultivation Suitability Atlas, recommended by NITI Aayog (2024) and discussed in §5.3, would provide the spatial governance framework necessary for risk-proportionate environmental management (Vea and Ask, 2011; Williams and Smith, 2007).

3.4 Institutional, governance, and extension challenges

The institutional framework governing seaweed aquaculture in India has historically been fragmented across multiple agencies without clear coordination mechanisms. The Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, 2020), the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the National Biodiversity Authority, and state fisheries departments all hold overlapping jurisdictions over different aspects of seaweed cultivation, processing, and trade (NITI Aayog, 2024). This institutional fragmentation has resulted in regulatory ambiguity, delayed decision-making, and inconsistent policy implementation across maritime states.

The extension advisory system for seaweed farming remains underdeveloped compared to that for shrimp or finfish aquaculture. Farmer training programs have been sporadic, and the technical knowledge required for disease identification, crop management, and quality control has not been systematically disseminated to coastal communities (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). The PMMSY’s ambitious production targets were not accompanied by proportionate investment in extension infrastructure, contributing to the gap between policy aspiration and field-level outcomes. The 2024 import guidelines introduce a multi-institutional governance structure involving the Department of Fisheries, ICAR-NBFGR, and designated quarantine facilities; however, the operational coordination between these entities and the capacity building required for effective implementation represent significant institutional challenges. The establishment of a dedicated Seaweed Development Board—analogous to the Marine Products Export Development Authority for seafood or the Rubber Board for natural rubber—could provide the institutional focus and coordination capacity that the sector currently lacks, as discussed in Section 5.4.

3.5 Socio-economic constraints and market development

India’s seaweed farming sector is predominantly composed of small-scale coastal fishers and self-help groups, particularly women’s groups in Tamil Nadu, for whom seaweed cultivation provides supplementary income rather than primary livelihood (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). These smallholder farmers face multiple socio-economic barriers to sustainable production scaling. Access to credit for seaweed farming remains limited, as financial institutions lack familiarity with the sector’s risk profile and production economics. The supply chain is characterized by limited procurement structures, with only few dominant buyers in most cultivation areas, limiting farmers’ bargaining power and market access. Post-harvest processing infrastructure is minimal—most farmers sell raw dried seaweed without value addition, capturing only a fraction of the value chain.

The economic viability of seaweed farming is further constrained by the seasonality of production (limited to post-monsoon months in most regions), the high labor intensity of planting and harvesting operations, and vulnerability to extreme weather events. While farmgate prices have increased substantially (USD 0.10/kg to USD 1.56/kg over 2005–2024), this price appreciation reflects supply scarcity rather than value chain development, and the benefits have not translated into proportionate expansion of the farmer base, which remains at approximately 250 beneficiaries—well below the thousands engaged during the peak production years (Figure 2).

The 2024 import guidelines, by potentially enabling species diversification and year-round cultivation through introduction of species suited to different seasons and geographies, could address some of these economic constraints. However, realizing the sector’s potential to generate employment for over 50,000 coastal households (NITI Aayog, 2024) will require complementary investments in processing infrastructure, digital extension platforms, cooperative farming models, and market linkages - interventions that extend well beyond the guidelines’ regulatory scope but are essential for translating germplasm access into inclusive economic growth, as discussed in Section 5.5.

Sections 3.1–3.5 have set out the five constraints that the 2024 guidelines must, directly or indirectly, address: a narrow germplasm base (3.1), recurrent disease vulnerability (3.2), unresolved ecological risk (3.3), fragmented institutional governance (3.4), and underdeveloped market and extension architecture (3.5). The guidelines are best assessed not in the abstract but against the experience of jurisdictions that have confronted the same constraints — some successfully, some less so. Section 4 therefore turns to a structured comparison of India’s framework with those of the Philippines, Indonesia, China, and Norway, using the five-dimension scoring methodology specified in Section 2.5.1. The comparison is intended to identify which features of the 2024 guidelines are well-aligned with international good practice, and which require complementary measures to function effectively in the Indian context.

4 Comparative analysis with international regulatory frameworks

This section examines seaweed governance frameworks from four jurisdictions selected on explicit comparative criteria. The Philippines and Indonesia are included as the world’s first and second largest producers of eucheumatoid seaweeds (Kappaphycus alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum), collectively accounting for over 70% of global carrageenan raw material supply (FAO, 2024); their biosecurity governance experiences — including documented disease crises, regulatory responses, and implementation challenges — are directly analogous to India’s own production trajectory and germplasm constraints (Hurtado et al., 2014; Kambey et al., 2020). China is included as the world’s largest seaweed producer overall, offering insights into systematic genetic improvement and institutional coordination at scale. Norway is included as an exemplar of rigorous, precautionary aquaculture biosecurity governance: it operates one of the world’s most comprehensive marine aquaculture regulatory frameworks, with mandatory environmental impact assessment, spatial planning requirements, and well-resourced enforcement agencies, providing a benchmark for best-practice environmental governance that India’s guidelines aspire toward (Stévant et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2022). Each jurisdiction is assessed across four dimensions: genetic resource access mechanisms, biosecurity protocols, sectoral outcomes, and implementation lessons applicable to India (Table 1).

4.1 The Philippines: pioneering biosecurity governance for eucheumatoid farming

The Philippines represents the most directly relevant comparator for India, given its dominant position in global Kappaphycus and Eucheuma production and its experience managing the biosecurity challenges inherent in tropical eucheumatoid farming. Philippine seaweed production reached approximately 1.4 million tonnes in 2022, supporting over 200,000 farming households across multiple island provinces (FAO, 2024). This scale was achieved through a combination of genetic resource access, institutional support, and—critically—the development of biosecurity governance frameworks in response to disease-driven production crises remarkably similar to India’s 2013–2014 experience (Anand et al., 2018; Ganesan et al., 2017).

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) administers the Philippines’ seaweed biosecurity framework through Fisheries Administrative Order No. 236, which establishes quarantine protocols, movement restrictions, and disease surveillance requirements for seaweed farming (Mateo et al., 2020). BFAR’s approach integrates quarantine screening with a national strain improvement program coordinated through SEAFDEC, which evaluates imported and locally selected varieties for disease resistance, growth performance, and carrageenan quality across multiple cultivation sites (Hurtado et al., 2014). This integration of biosecurity with genetic improvement represents a key lesson for India: quarantine protocols and variety development are complementary rather than sequential activities (Bjørkan and Billing, 2022; Kelly et al., 2020).

However, the Philippine experience also reveals significant implementation challenges. Kambey et al. (2021) documented that informal farmer-to-farmer exchange of planting material frequently bypasses formal biosecurity channels, creating pathways for disease transmission that regulatory frameworks cannot fully control. Mateo et al. (2020) found that enforcement capacity varies substantially across local government units, with resource-constrained municipalities often unable to implement the monitoring and surveillance requirements specified in national regulations. These implementation gaps—between regulatory design and field-level practice—are directly relevant to India’s own multi-layered governance structure and should inform realistic expectations for guideline implementation (Dept. of Agriculture, Philippines, 2022; Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, 2017; Norwegian Ministry, 2008).

4.2 Indonesia: lessons from scale without adequate biosecurity

Indonesia’s seaweed sector, the world’s largest by volume with production exceeding 9.6 million tonnes in 2022 (FAO, 2024), offers a cautionary perspective on the consequences of prioritizing production scaling over biosecurity governance. The sector’s rapid expansion—driven by strong export demand for carrageenan raw material—occurred largely without the comprehensive biosecurity frameworks that characterize more regulated jurisdictions.

Kambey et al. (2020) documented that Indonesia’s seaweed biosecurity management has been characterized by fragmented institutional responsibilities, limited quarantine infrastructure, and inadequate disease surveillance systems. The consequences have been significant: recurring ice-ice disease outbreaks, declining carrageenan quality in exported raw material, and progressive genetic deterioration of cultivated stocks through uncontrolled vegetative propagation—a trajectory that closely mirrors India’s own experience, albeit at vastly different scales. The Indonesian government has subsequently recognized these deficiencies and initiated regulatory reforms, including the development of national biosecurity standards and quality certification systems for seaweed planting material.

The Indonesian experience underscores a critical insight for India: the 2024 import guidelines’ emphasis on biosecurity protocols, quarantine screening, and traceability requirements represents a proactive approach that avoids the reactive regulatory pattern observed in Indonesia, where biosecurity frameworks are being retrofitted after production systems have already been compromised. India’s advantage lies in establishing comprehensive regulatory infrastructure before large-scale genetic resource importation begins, rather than attempting to impose biosecurity discipline on an already established and informally governed production system (Mantri et al., 2019; Periyasamy et al., 2014; Reddy et al., 2003; Vairappan 2006; Veeragurunathan et al., 2021b).

4.3 China: institutional integration and systematic genetic improvement

China’s seaweed sector, producing approximately 20.3 million tonnes in 2022 (FAO, 2024), demonstrates the transformative potential of integrating genetic resource access with systematic variety improvement programs within a coordinated institutional framework. China’s National Variety Approval Committee evaluates and certifies seaweed varieties through standardized multi-location field trials, creating a formal pathway from genetic resource acquisition to commercially deployed varieties (Hwang et al., 2019).

The Chinese model is distinguished by its institutional integration: research institutions, variety evaluation bodies, extension services, and production enterprises operate within a coordinated framework that accelerates the translation of genetic resources into commercial varieties. This contrasts with India’s current institutional landscape, where CSIR-CSMCRI, ICAR-CMFRI, ICAR-NBFGR, and state fisheries departments operate with limited coordination mechanisms. China’s experience suggests that the effectiveness of India’s import guidelines will depend substantially on the development of analogous institutional coordination—a National Seaweed Variety Evaluation Program that bridges the gap between imported genetic material and locally adapted, commercially viable varieties, as discussed in Section 5.1.

China’s approach to Saccharina japonica (kelp) breeding—which has produced over 20 improved varieties through systematic selection and hybridization programs over five decades—illustrates the long-term investment horizon required for meaningful genetic improvement in seaweed aquaculture (Hwang et al., 2019). India’s guidelines establish the regulatory gateway for genetic resource access, but the Chinese experience demonstrates that sustained institutional commitment to post-importation variety development is the critical determinant of sectoral transformation.

4.4 Norway: environmental governance and precautionary regulation

Norway’s seaweed governance framework, though operating in a fundamentally different ecological and economic context (temperate kelp species, nascent commercial cultivation), offers valuable insights into environmental governance approaches relevant to India’s ecological concerns. Norway’s regulatory framework requires mandatory pre-cultivation environmental impact assessments, establishes spatial planning requirements for marine aquaculture sites, and integrates seaweed cultivation governance within broader marine resource management legislation (Stévant et al., 2017).

The Norwegian model’s emphasis on precautionary environmental governance is particularly relevant given the ecological sensitivities surrounding non-native species cultivation in India’s marine habitats, including the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve. Norway’s approach demonstrates that environmental monitoring can be integrated into regulatory frameworks without creating prohibitive barriers to sectoral development—a balance that India’s guidelines attempt to achieve through their provisions for site-specific risk assessment and post-release monitoring.

However, the Norwegian context also illustrates the limitations of direct regulatory transplantation. Norway’s regulatory capacity—characterized by well-resourced enforcement agencies, comprehensive marine spatial planning systems, and established environmental monitoring infrastructure—reflects institutional capabilities that India is still developing. The comparative lesson is not that India should replicate Norwegian regulatory standards, but rather that environmental governance provisions should be calibrated to implementation capacity, with progressive strengthening as institutional capabilities develop.

4.5 Comparative synthesis and implications for India

The comparative analysis reveals several cross-cutting insights that inform the assessment of India’s 2024 guidelines. First, all four jurisdictions demonstrate that genetic resource access and biosecurity governance are complementary imperatives—countries that have achieved production scale without adequate biosecurity (Indonesia) have subsequently faced quality and sustainability challenges, while those with integrated approaches (Philippines, China) have achieved more resilient production systems. India’s guidelines, by establishing biosecurity protocols concurrent with genetic resource access mechanisms, adopt the more sustainable regulatory approach (Figure 4).

Figure 4

BFAR, 2020; Kambey et al., 2020; Hwang et al., 2019; Stévant et al., 2017; Department of Fisheries et al., 2024).

Figure 4 presents a comparative regulatory assessment of India and the four comparator jurisdictions across key governance dimensions—biosecurity governance, genetic resource access, environmental governance, and overall sustainability index—illustrating the relative strengths and gaps in each country’s regulatory framework.

Second, the comparative evidence consistently demonstrates that importation frameworks alone are insufficient for sectoral transformation. The Philippines’ SEAFDEC program, China’s National Variety Approval Committee, and Norway’s environmental governance systems all represent complementary institutional mechanisms that translate regulatory access into productive outcomes. India’s guidelines establish the necessary regulatory foundation, but the institutional architecture for post-importation variety development, environmental monitoring, and decentralized implementation remains to be constructed.

Third, the implementation gap—between regulatory design and field-level practice—emerges as a universal challenge across all jurisdictions examined. The Philippines’ experience with informal planting material exchange, Indonesia’s fragmented institutional responsibilities, and the resource constraints facing enforcement agencies in all four countries suggest that India should anticipate similar implementation challenges and design adaptive governance mechanisms accordingly (Figure 3).

Figure 5 presents the global distribution of seaweed aquaculture production and regulatory sustainability assessment across major producing nations, contextualizing India and the four comparator jurisdictions within the broader global landscape of seaweed governance and production capacity.

Figure 5

FAO (2024), national policy documents, and published regulatory frameworks.

A broader question raised by the comparative analysis is whether national-level regulatory frameworks are structurally adequate for governing a sector whose biological risks, pathogen spread through unregulated germplasm exchange, genetic erosion through uncontrolled vegetative propagation are inherently transboundary. The movement of Kappaphycus alvarezii strains between the Philippines, Indonesia, and India over the past four decades occurred largely outside formal regulatory channels, demonstrating that national biosecurity frameworks are only as effective as the weakest link in the international exchange network. A supra-national governance architecture analogous to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for terrestrial crops or the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code for finfish pathogens could provide the standardized phytosanitary certification, mutual recognition of quarantine protocols, and coordinated disease surveillance that national frameworks alone cannot deliver. The FAO’s Global Seaweed Coalition and emerging OECD work on blue bioeconomy governance offer nascent institutional platforms for such coordination. While binding international instruments for seaweed biosecurity governance remain a long-term aspiration, India’s 2024 guidelines could serve as a model for regional harmonization within the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) framework, creating a regional biosecurity compact among seaweed-producing nations that reduces the risk of pathogen introduction through informal germplasm exchange.

5 Future perspectives

The 2024 import guidelines represent a foundational regulatory intervention; however, their effectiveness in transforming India’s seaweed sector will depend on complementary developments across institutional, technological, ecological, and socio-economic dimensions. The convergence of emerging technologies, evolving governance frameworks, and growing market demand for seaweed-derived products creates both opportunities and imperatives for strategic sectoral development. The comparative regulatory assessment (Figure 4) and the global production landscape (Figure 5) contextualize India’s position relative to established seaweed-producing nations and underscore the scale of transformation required. The key future directions are discussed below.

5.1 Post-importation genetic improvement and strain development

The guidelines establish the regulatory pathway for importing live seaweed genetic material, but importation alone will not resolve the germplasm constraint identified in Section 3.1. The comparative analysis (Section 4) demonstrates that successful seaweed-producing nations have invested in systematic post-importation genetic improvement programs that evaluate, adapt, and enhance imported material for local conditions. China’s National Variety Approval Committee and the Philippines’ SEAFDEC strain improvement program exemplify institutional mechanisms that bridge the gap between genetic resource acquisition and commercially viable variety deployment (Hurtado et al., 2014; FAO, 2024). As illustrated in Figure 4, China and the Philippines score significantly higher than India on genetic resource access and institutional coordination dimensions—gaps that targeted program development must address (Gupta et al., 2011, 2015; Hafting et al., 2015; Kerrison et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2017).

For India, the development of a National Seaweed Variety Evaluation Program—conducting multi-location field trials across representative cultivation sites in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh—will be essential for translating imported genetic resources into locally adapted, high-performing varieties. Advances in genomic selection and marker-assisted breeding, already transforming finfish and shrimp aquaculture globally, offer significant potential for accelerating seaweed strain improvement (Houston et al., 2020). The application of tissue culture-based micropropagation techniques, which CSMCRI has pioneered for Kappaphycus and Gracilaria species, could enable rapid multiplication of superior genotypes identified through evaluation trials (Mantri et al., 2017). Furthermore, the integration of genomic tools with traditional selection approaches could facilitate the development of disease-resistant strains—addressing the ice-ice vulnerability that precipitated the 2013–2014 production collapse documented in Section 3.1—without the regulatory and public acceptance challenges associated with transgenic approaches. The successful implementation of such programs will require sustained research investment, inter-institutional collaboration between CSMCRI, CMFRI, and ICAR-NBFGR, and the development of specialized human resources in seaweed genetics and breeding—capacities that are currently limited but could be developed through targeted training programs and international collaborations with institutions such as SEAFDEC and the Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences.

A question of strategic importance for India’s long-term seaweed sector development is whether native agarophyte species — principally Gracilaria edulis, Gracilaria dura, and Gelidiella acerosa — can be developed through systematic breeding to compete economically with Kappaphycus alvarezii. The current economic disparity is substantial: net revenue from K. alvarezii cultivation (approximately USD 1,401/unit/year) exceeds that of G. edulis (approximately USD 584/unit/year) by approximately 140%, primarily reflecting differences in growth rate (5–6% vs. 2–3% daily) and harvest cycle duration (45 vs. 60–90 days) (Krishnan and Narayanakumar, 2013). However, this comparison reflects the performance of unimproved native germplasm against two decades of informal selection in K. alvarezii — a comparison that does not reflect the potential of systematically improved native varieties. Evidence from analogous programs in other seaweed genera is encouraging selective breeding of Saccharina japonica in China has produced varieties with 30–50% higher yields than wild-type material over five decades of systematic improvement (Hwang et al., 2019), and marker-assisted selection programs for Pyropia yezoensis have successfully modified cell wall polysaccharide composition (Niwa et al., 2009). For Indian agarophytes, agar gel strength — the primary quality determinant for industrial applications — is a quantitatively inherited trait that has been shown to respond to selection in Gracilaria species (Rebours et al., 2014). Breeding for higher gel strength, faster growth, and disease resistance in G. dura and G. edulis is therefore scientifically tractable, though it requires a sustained investment horizon of 10–15 years before commercially competitive varieties could be deployed. The 2024 import guidelines, by enabling access to high-performing Gracilaria germplasm from international sources, could accelerate this timeline by providing superior starting material for hybridization with locally adapted native genotypes — a strategy that combines the growth performance of elite imported strains with the ecological fitness of native species.

5.2 Strengthening biosecurity and quarantine infrastructure

The guidelines’ quarantine provisions establish the regulatory framework for screening imported material, but their operationalization will require significant investment in dedicated infrastructure and technical capacity. It is important to recognize the functional scope of quarantine: these procedures are designed to ensure that imported planting material is free from pests and pathogens; they do not, by themselves, identify or develop disease-resistant or genetically superior strains (Hurtado et al., 2014). Disease resistance is a biological trait that must be established through the breeding and research programs discussed in Section 5.1. However, quarantine screening serves a critical quality assurance function—material that fails disease screening is rejected, ensuring that only pathogen-free material proceeds to cultivation trials, analogous to seed certification systems in terrestrial crop agriculture.

The development of dedicated seaweed quarantine facilities at ICAR-NBFGR and CSMCRI, equipped with controlled environment cultivation systems and molecular diagnostic capabilities, will be a prerequisite for effective implementation. Emerging diagnostic technologies—including environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding for pathogen detection, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays for rapid field-level screening, and next-generation sequencing for comprehensive pathobiome characterization—could significantly enhance the sensitivity and efficiency of quarantine screening beyond conventional microscopic and culture-based methods (Bass et al., 2015). The integration of digital traceability systems, potentially leveraging block-chain technology for immutable record-keeping of imported material from source to cultivation site, could strengthen the guidelines’ traceability provisions and facilitate the quarterly reporting requirements. The Philippines’ experience with BFAR’s quarantine protocols and Indonesia’s lessons regarding the biosecurity consequences of informal exchange systems (Section 4.1, 4.2) provide practical templates for developing India’s quarantine Standard Operating Procedures, adapted for the specific pathogen risks associated with tropical eucheumatoid and agarophyte species. The comparative assessment (Figure 4) highlights that India’s biosecurity governance score (3/5) exceeds Indonesia’s (2/5) but remains below the Philippines (4/5) and Norway (5/5), indicating the scope for strengthening quarantine infrastructure.

5.3 Ecological monitoring and environmental governance

The introduction of new seaweed species under the guidelines will necessitate robust environmental monitoring frameworks that go beyond the current provisions for post-release surveillance. The Norwegian model of mandatory pre-cultivation environmental impact assessment (Section 4.4) provides a template for strengthening India’s approach—requiring baseline ecological surveys at proposed cultivation sites before imported material is deployed, enabling subsequent detection and attribution of environmental changes.

Advances in remote sensing, including satellite-based monitoring of coastal habitats and drone-based surveys of cultivation sites, offer cost-effective tools for large-scale environmental surveillance that could complement ground-level ecological assessments (Duarte et al., 2017). The development of a GIS-based National Seaweed Cultivation Suitability Atlas, integrating oceanographic data, habitat mapping, and species distribution models, could guide the spatial deployment of imported genetic resources to sites where ecological risks are minimized and cultivation potential is maximized. NITI Aayog (2024) has recommended the development of such a portal, and its integration with the guidelines’ environmental monitoring provisions would create a comprehensive spatial governance framework.

The evidence from India’s own experience—demonstrating that K. alvarezii cultivation has not significantly affected native seaweed diversity across 21 islands of the Gulf of Mannar (Veeragurunathan et al., 2021a) and that species spread on reef areas has been negligible (Krishnan et al., 2021)—provides a basis for calibrating the precautionary approach, as discussed in Section 3.2. Future environmental governance should be risk-proportionate: more stringent monitoring for species with documented invasive potential in comparable ecosystems and streamlined protocols for species with established safety records in Indian waters. Critically, cultivation practice standards must also address the emerging concern regarding the use of inorganic fertilizers in seaweed farming, which Roleda et al. (2025) have identified as an unintended consequence that can compromise the organic integrity and environmental sustainability of seaweed crops—a consideration that India’s guidelines should proactively address as the sector scales. Climate change adaptation must also be integrated into environmental governance frameworks, as rising sea surface temperatures, ocean acidification, and altered monsoon patterns may shift the ecological suitability of cultivation sites and modify species interactions in ways that require adaptive management responses.

5.4 Institutional coordination and governance reform

The multi-agency governance structure identified in Section 3.3 as a constraint will require deliberate institutional reform for effective guideline implementation. The experience of the Coastal Aquaculture Authority—which required over a decade to achieve operational effectiveness in regulating shrimp aquaculture—suggests that establishing functional inter-agency coordination for seaweed governance will be a gradual process requiring sustained political commitment and institutional investment (Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005).

Future governance arrangements could draw on the Philippines’ model of local government unit-based implementation, adapted for India’s panchayati raj institutional framework, to create decentralized implementation mechanisms that reduce the coordination burden on central agencies while maintaining regulatory consistency. The establishment of a dedicated Seaweed Development Board—analogous to the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) for seafood or the Rubber Board for natural rubber—could provide the institutional focus and coordination capacity that the sector currently lacks. Such a body could integrate the regulatory functions of the import guidelines with the developmental functions of PMMSY, the research coordination functions currently dispersed across CSMCRI, CMFRI, and ICAR-NBFGR, and the market development functions necessary for value chain growth. The comparative assessment (Figure 4) underscores that India’s institutional coordination score (2/5) is the lowest among all comparator jurisdictions except Indonesia, highlighting the urgency of governance reform.

The guidelines’ intellectual property provisions, which prohibit IP claims over imported material, will require integration with India’s broader biodiversity governance framework—specifically the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol—to provide legal clarity and operational coherence for both importers and source country providers (Kamau et al., 2010). Future regulatory iterations should explicitly articulate the relationship between the guidelines’ IP provisions and these existing governance instruments, establishing India as a responsible participant in global genetic resource exchange while protecting sovereign rights over biological resources.

5.5 Socio-economic transformation and inclusive growth

The ultimate measure of the guidelines’ success will be their impact on the livelihoods of coastal communities engaged in seaweed farming. NITI Aayog (2024) has estimated the sector’s potential to generate employment for over 50,000 coastal households with a total addressable market exceeding USD 599 million—but realizing this potential will require complementary investments that extend well beyond the guidelines’ regulatory scope, addressing the market and extension constraints identified in Section 3.4 and 3.5.

The development of processing infrastructure—currently the weakest link in India’s seaweed value chain—will be critical for capturing domestic value from imported genetic resources rather than perpetuating the export of raw dried material for processing abroad. Emerging biorefinery concepts, which extract multiple high-value products from seaweed biomass through cascading processing steps, could transform the economics of seaweed farming by creating diversified revenue streams from carrageenan, agar, alginate, biostimulants, nutraceuticals, and biofuel precursors (Torres et al., 2019). The integration of seaweed cultivation within Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) systems—combining seaweed with finfish and shellfish cultivation to create nutrient cycling loops—represents another promising avenue for enhancing both environmental sustainability and economic returns (Troell et al., 2009; Chopin et al., 2012).

Digital technologies offer significant potential for addressing the extension and market access constraints identified in Section 3.5. Mobile-based advisory platforms, cloud-enabled decision support systems for cultivation management, and digital marketplace platforms connecting farmers directly with processors and exporters could reduce information asymmetries and improve farmer bargaining power without requiring large-scale physical infrastructure investment (Joffre et al., 2018). Cooperative farming models and cluster-based approaches, successfully employed in India’s dairy sector through the Amul model, could be adapted for seaweed farming to achieve economies of scale in input procurement, processing, and marketing while maintaining the smallholder participation that characterizes the sector.

The PMMSY’s USD 2.4 billion investment framework, with USD 76.6 million specifically allocated for seaweed cultivation, provides the fiscal architecture for supporting these complementary investments. The convergence of the 2024 import guidelines, NITI Aayog’s strategic framework, and PMMSY’s investment allocations creates an unprecedented policy window for transforming India’s seaweed sector from its current state of constrained potential to a globally competitive, environmentally sustainable, and socially inclusive industry. The global production landscape (Figure 5) illustrates the magnitude of this opportunity: India’s current production of approximately 300 tonnes represents less than 0.001% of global seaweed output, yet the country possesses the natural endowments, policy frameworks, and institutional foundations to achieve transformative growth.

6 Conclusion

India’s seaweed aquaculture sector stands at a critical juncture. Despite possessing an extensive coastline of approximately 8,118 km, a rich marine biodiversity encompassing approximately 844 seaweed species, and substantial policy support through the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana, the sector has remained constrained by its near-complete dependence on a single introduced species — Kappaphycus alvarezii — cultivated from a narrow genetic base. The 2013–2014 production collapse, which reduced output by 97% within a single year, starkly demonstrated the consequences of this biological vulnerability, compounded by the institutional, market, and extension-system weaknesses documented in Section 3.

The 2024 Guidelines for Import of Live Seaweeds into India represent the first comprehensive regulatory response to this fundamental constraint. This article’s analysis — drawing on two decades of production data, a multi-dimensional constraint assessment (Section 3), and a structured comparative evaluation of international regulatory frameworks from the Philippines, Indonesia, China, and Norway (Section 4; Figure 4) — demonstrates that the guidelines incorporate several internationally recognized regulatory elements, including quarantine protocols, risk-assessment requirements, traceability provisions, and restricted distribution mechanisms. These provisions address the biosecurity imperatives that must accompany any expansion of genetic resource access.

However, the analysis also reveals that the guidelines, while necessary, are not sufficient. The comparative evidence (Figure 4) demonstrates that successful seaweed-producing nations have complemented importation frameworks with systematic post-importation genetic improvement programs, decentralised implementation mechanisms, cultivation practice standards, and integrated value-chain development. India’s guidelines establish the regulatory gateway but not the institutional architecture for translating imported genetic material into commercially viable, locally adapted varieties. The absence of a post-quarantine variety evaluation framework, insufficient specification of inter-agency coordination mechanisms, and the lack of cultivation practice standards — including safeguards against the use of inorganic fertilisers that can compromise crop integrity (Roleda et al., 2025) — represent gaps that must be addressed through complementary policy interventions.

The convergence of the 2024 import guidelines with NITI Aayog’s strategic framework and the PMMSY’s investment architecture creates an unprecedented opportunity for sectoral transformation. Realizing this opportunity will require sustained investment in quarantine infrastructure and diagnostic capabilities, development of a national variety evaluation program, strengthening of environmental monitoring frameworks, institutional coordination reform, and complementary socio-economic interventions in processing infrastructure, extension services, and market development. The integration of emerging technologies — genomic tools for strain improvement, digital platforms for extension and market access, and remote sensing for environmental monitoring — offers pathways for accelerating this transformation while maintaining the environmental safeguards and social inclusiveness essential for long-term sustainability.

6.1 Limitations

This review has three principal limitations. First, the comparative analysis of the Philippines, Indonesia, China, and Norway draws on peer-reviewed governance literature rather than primary statutory interpretation; readers seeking clause-level engagement with foreign instruments should consult the cited sources directly. Second, the 1–5 ordinal scoring is qualitative and reflects the authors’ judgement informed by the cited literature; alternative weightings of the five dimensions would yield different aggregate indices. Third, the review does not include primary fieldwork with farmers, importers, or regulatory officials, and therefore captures the de jure regulatory architecture more fully than its de facto operation. Fourth, because the 2024 guidelines were notified shortly before this review was conducted, the assessment necessarily addresses their design rather than their operational performance; empirical evaluation of implementation outcomes will require a follow-up study once a meaningful implementation record has accumulated.

6.2 Concluding remarks

India’s seaweed sector need not remain constrained by the biological limitations that have defined its trajectory for two decades. The 2024 import guidelines, if implemented within a comprehensive and adaptive governance framework, can enable the genetic resource diversification necessary to build a resilient, productive, and sustainable seaweed aquaculture industry — one that contributes meaningfully to coastal livelihoods, marine bioeconomy development, and India’s blue economy aspirations. The global landscape of seaweed aquaculture (Figure 5) demonstrates that nations with comparable starting positions have achieved transformative growth through the combination of genetic resource access, institutional coordination, and sustained policy commitment — a pathway now open to India.

References

• 1

  AnandK. V.EswaranK.GhoshA. (2018). Life cycle impact assessment of a seaweed product obtained from Gracilaria edulis—a potent plant biostimulant. J. Clean. Prod.170, 1621–1627. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.241

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd (2024). “ Seaweed production and beneficiary data 2005–2024,” in Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Pepsico India Holdings). (Chennai: M/s. Aquagri Processing Pvt. Ltd).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AraújoR.Vázquez CalderónF.Sánchez LópezJ.Costa AzevedoI.BruhnA.FluchS.et al (2021). Current status of the algae production industry in Europe: an emerging sector of the blue bioeconomy. Front. Mar. Sci.7, 626389. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.626389

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  (2005). “ The coastal aquaculture authority act 2005 (No. 24 of 2005),” in Government of India, New Delhi. (New Delhi: Government of India).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BassD.StentifordG. D.LittlewoodD. T. J.HartikainenH. (2015). Diverse applications of environmental DNA methods in parasitology. Trends Parasitol.31, 499–513. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2015.06.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BFAR (2020). “ Fisheries Administrative Order No. 236: Guidelines on the importation and exportation of fishery/aquatic products,” in Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. (Manila: Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BjørkanM.BillingS. L. (2022). Commercial seaweed cultivation in Scotland and the social pillar of sustainability: A Q-method approach to characterizing key stakeholder perspectives. Front. Sustain. Food. Syst.6, 795024. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.795024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BuschmannA. H.CamusC.InfanteJ.NeoriA.IsraelÁ.Hernández-GonzálezM. C.et al (2017). Seaweed production: overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity. Eur. J. Phycol.52, 391–406. doi: 10.1080/09670262.2017.1365175

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  CampbellM. L.GouldB.HewittC. L. (2007). Survey evaluations to assess marine bioinvasions. Mar. pollut. Bull.55, 360–378. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.01.015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  CampbellI.MateoJ.RusekwaS. B.KambeyC. S. B.HurtadoA.MsuyaF. E.et al (2022). An international evaluation of biosecurity management capacity in the seaweed aquaculture industry. J. Environ. Manage.304, 114112. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  ChandrasekaranS.NagendranN. A.PandiarajaD.KrishnankuttyN.KamalakannanB. (2008). Bioinvasion of Kappaphycus alvarezii on corals in the Gulf of Mannar, India. Curr. Sci.94, 1167–1172.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  CharrierB.AbreuM. H.AraujoR.BruhnA.CoatesJ. C.De ClerckO.et al (2017). Furthering knowledge of seaweed growth and development to facilitate sustainable aquaculture. New Phytol.216, 967–975. doi: 10.1111/nph.14728

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  ChopinT. (2014). Seaweeds: top mariculture crop, ecosystem service provider. Glob. Aquac. Advocate.17, 54–56.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  ChopinT.CooperJ. A.ReidG.CrossS.MooreC. (2012). Open-water integrated multi-trophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diversification of fed aquaculture by extractive aquaculture. Rev. Aquac.4, 209–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01074.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  CIBA (2020). “ Hydrocolloid industry analysis and import data,” in Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture. (Chennai: ICAR-Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  Cottier-CookE. J.NagabhatlaN.BadisY.CampbellM. L.ChopinT.DaiW.et al (2016). “ Safeguarding the future of the global seaweed aquaculture industry,” in United Nations University (INWEH) and Scottish Association for Marine Science Policy Brief (Hamilton, Ontario (Canada) & Oban (UK): United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) and Scottish Association for Marine Science), 1–12.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  Department of Agriculture, Philippines (2022). “ Philippine seaweed industry roadmap 2022-2026,” in Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. (Manila: Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  Department of Fisheries (2020). “ Pradhan mantri matsya sampada yojana: operational guidelines,” in Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India. (New Delhi: Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India. (2024). Guidelines for Import of Live Seaweeds into India. Notification No. J-1503529/5/2024-DOF (E-24345). (New Delhi: Government of India). Available online at: https://dof.gov.in/circulars/guidelines-import-live-seaweeds-india-21-10-2024 (Accessed July 3, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  DuarteC. M.WuJ.XiaoX.BruhnA.Krause-JensenD. (2017). Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? Front. Mar. Sci.4, 100. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  EswaranK.GhoshP. K.MairhO. P. (2002). Experimental field cultivation of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) Doty ex Silva at Mandapam region. Seaweed. Res. Utilization.24, 67–72.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  FAO (2022a). “ The global status of seaweed production, trade and utilization,” in Globefish Research Programme, vol. 124. (FAO, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  FAO (2022b). “ The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2022,” in Fao. (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  FAO (2024). “ The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2024,” in Fao. (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  FroehlichH. E.AfflerbachJ. C.FrazierM.HalpernB. S. (2019). Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting. Curr. Biol.29, 3087–3093.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.041

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  GanesanM.EswaranK.ReddyC. R. K. (2017). Farming of agarophytes in India—a long-time sustainability for the industry and preserving wild stocks. J. Appl. Phycol.29, 2239–2248. doi: 10.1007/s10811-017-1128-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  GanesanM.ThiruppathiS.JhaB. (2006). Mariculture of Hypnea musciformis (Wulfen) Lamouroux in south east coast of India. Aquaculture256, 201–211. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.02.039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  GraftonR. Q.KompasT.McLoughlinR.RaynsN. (2007). Benchmarking for fisheries governance. Mar. Policy31, 470–477. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2006.12.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  GuptaV.BaghelR. S.KumarM.MantriV. A.ReddyC. R. K.JhaB. (2011). Growth and agarose characteristics of isomorphic gametophyte (male and female) and sporophyte of Gracilaria dura and their marker assisted selection. Aquaculture318, 389–396. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.06.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  GuptaV.KumariP.ReddyC. (2015). Development and characterization of somatic hybrids of Ulva reticulata Forsskål (×) Monostroma oxyspermum (Kutz.)Doty. Front. Plant Sci.6, 24. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  HaftingJ. T.CraigieJ. S.StengelD. B.LoureiroR. R.BuschmannA. H.YarishC.et al (2015). Prospects and challenges for industrial production of seaweed bioactives. J. Phycol.51, 821–837. doi: 10.1111/jpy.12326

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  HoustonR. D.BeanT. P.MacqueenD. J.GundappaM. K.JinY. H.JenkinsT. L.et al (2020). Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture. Nat. Rev. Genet.21, 389–409. doi: 10.1038/s41576-020-0227-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  HurtadoA. Q.GerungG. S.YasirS.CritchleyA. T. (2014). Cultivation of tropical red seaweeds in the BIMP-EAGA region. J. Appl. Phycol.26, 707–718. doi: 10.1007/s10811-013-0116-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  HwangE. K.YotsukuraN.PangS. J.SuL.ShanT. F. (2019). Seaweed breeding programs and progress in eastern Asian countries. Phycologia58, 484–495. doi: 10.1080/00318884.2019.1639436

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  ICAR-Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (2020). “ Annual report 2019-20,” in Icar-Ciba. (Chennai: ICAR-Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  ICAR-CMFRI (2021a). “ Annual report 2020-21,” in Icar-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. (Kochi: ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  ICAR-CMFRI (2021b). “ Seaweed cultivation and productivity studies,” in Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. (Kochi: ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  JoffreO. M.KlerkxL.DicksonM. (2018). How is innovation in aquaculture conceptualized and managed? A systematic literature review and reflection framework to inform analysis and action. Aquaculture493, 224–234. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.12.020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  KamauE. C.FedderB.WinterG. (2010). The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing: what is new and what are the implications for provider and user countries and the scientific community? Law Environ. Dev. J.6, 246–262.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  KambeyC. S. B.CampbellI.Cottier-CookE. J.NorA. R. M.SondakC. F. A.LimP. E. (2020). An analysis of the current status and future of biosecurity frameworks for the Indonesian seaweed industry. J. Appl. Phycol.32, 2147–2160. doi: 10.1007/s10811-019-02020-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  KambeyC. S. B.CampbellI.Cottier-CookE. J.NorA. R. M.KassimA.SadeA.et al. (2021). Seaweed aquaculture: a preliminary assessment of biosecurity measures for controlling the ice-ice syndrome and pest outbreaks of a Kappaphycus farm. J. Appl. Phycol. 33(5), 3179–3197. doi: 10.1007/s10811-021-02530-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  KellyE. L. A.CannonA. L.SmithJ. E. (2020). Environmental impacts and implications of tropical carrageenophyte seaweed farming. Conserv. Biol.34, 326–337. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13462

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  KerrisonP. D.StanleyM. S.EdwardsM. D.BlackK. D.HughesA. D. (2015). The cultivation of European kelp for bioenergy: site and species selection. Biomass Bioenergy80, 229–242. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.035

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  KimJ. K.YarishC.HwangE. K.ParkM.KimY. (2017). Seaweed aquaculture: cultivation technologies, challenges and its ecosystem services. ALGAE32, 1–13. doi: 10.4490/algae.2017.32.3.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  KrishnanP.AbhilashK. R.SreerajC. R.Deepak SamuelV.PurvajaR.AnandA.et al. (2021). Balancing livelihood enhancement and ecosystem conservation in seaweed farmed areas: a case study from Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, India. Ocean Coast Manag.207, 105590. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105590

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  KrishnamurthyV. (2005). Algae of India and Neighbouring Countries: I. Chlorophycota (New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  KrishnamurthyV.JoshiH. V. (1970). A Check-List of Indian Marine Algae (Bhavnagar: Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  KrishnanM.NarayanakumarR. (2010a). “ Socio-economics of seaweed farming in India,” in Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Special Bulletin No. 104(Kochi: ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  KrishnanM.NarayanakumarR. (2010b). Structure, conduct and performance of value chain in seaweed farming in India. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev.23, 505–514.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  KrishnanM.NarayanakumarR. (2013). “ Social and economic dimensions of carrageenan seaweed farming in India,” in Social and economic dimensions carrageenan seaweed farming. Eds. ValderramaD.CaiJ.HishamundaN.RidlerN. (Rome: FAO), 163–184.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  LargoD. B.ChungI. K.PhangS. M.GerungG. S.SondakC. F. A. (2017). “ Impact of climate change on Eucheuma-Kappaphycus farming,” in Tropical seaweed farming trends, problems and opportunities. Developments in Applied Phycology, vol. 9 . Eds. HurtadoAqCritchleyAtNeishI. C. ( Springer, Cham), 121–129. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-63498-2_7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  LoureiroR.GachonC. M. M.ReboursC. (2015). Seaweed cultivation: potential and challenges of crop domestication at an unprecedented pace. New Phytol.206, 489–492. doi: 10.1111/nph.13278

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  LunaM.LlorenteI.LunaL. (2023). A conceptual framework for risk management in aquaculture. Mar. Policy147, 105377. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105377

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  MairhO. P.ZodapeS. T.TewariA.MishraJ. P. (1999). Effect of nitrogen sources on the growth and bioaccumulation of nitrogen in marine red algae Kappaphycus striatum (Rhodophyta, Solieriaceae) in culture. Ind. J. Mar. Sci.28, 55–59.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  MairhO. P.ZodapeS. T.TewariA.RajyaguruM. R. (1995). Culture of marine red algae Kappaphycus striatum (Schmitz) Doty on the Saurashtra region, west coast of India. Ind. J. Mar. Sci.24, 24–31.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  MantriV. A.EswaranK.ShanmugamM.GanesanM.VeeragurunathanV.ThiruppathiS.et al (2017). An appraisal on commercial farming of Kappaphycus alvarezii in India: success in diversification of livelihood and prospects. J. Appl. Phycol.29, 335–357. doi: 10.1007/s10811-016-0948-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  MantriV. A.GanesanM.GuptaV.KrishnanP.SiddhantaA. K. (2019). An overview on agarophyte trade in India and need for policy interventions. J. Appl. Phycol.31, 3011–3023. doi: 10.1007/s10811-019-01791-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MantriV. A.GanesanM.KavaleM. G.GajariaT. K. (2020). Status, exploitation and resource management of alginophytes in India: an account and way forward. J. Appl. Phycol.32, 4423–4441. doi: 10.1007/s10811-020-02269-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  MantriV. A.ThakurM. C.KumarM.ReddyC. R. K.JhaB. (2009). The carpospore culture of industrially important red alga Gracilaria dura (Gracilariales, Rhodophyta). Aquaculture297, 85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.09.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  MateoJ. P.CampbellI.Cottier-CookE. J.LuhanM. R. J.FerriolsV. M. E. N.HurtadoA. Q. (2020). Analysis of biosecurity-related policies governing the seaweed industry of the Philippines. J. Appl. Phycol.32, 2009–2022. doi: 10.1007/s10811-020-02083-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (2019). Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. (New Delhi: Government of India).

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Ministry of Fisheries (2023). National Committee on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Species Into Indian Waters: Procedural Guidelines. (New Delhi: Government of India).

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (2020). Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (Pmmsy). (New Delhi: Government of India).

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (2023). Guidelines for Import of Live Seaweeds for Commercial Purpose. (New Delhi: Government of India).

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (2024). Guidelines for Import of Live Seaweeds Into India. (New Delhi: Government of India).

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (2017). Government Regulation Number 28 Concerning Fish Cultivation. (Jakarta: Government of Indonesia).

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  NCSCM (2014). Temporal Change Analysis and Impact Assessment of Kappaphycus Alvarezii in Gulf of Mannar. (Chennai: National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (MoEF&CC)).

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  NITI Aayog (2022). Seaweed and Seaweed Based Products: Sectoral System of Innovation to Harness the Potential for India's Economic Development. (New Delhi: NITI Aayog, Government of India).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  NITI Aayog (2024). Strategy for the Development of Seaweed Sector in India. (New Delhi: NITI Aayog, Government of India).

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  NiwaK.IidaS.KatoA.KawaiH.KikuchiN.KobiyamaA.et al. (2009). Genetic diversity and introgression in two cultivated species (Porphyra yezoensis and Porphyra tenera) and closely related wild species of Porphyra (Bangiales, Rhodophyta). J. Phycol. 45(2), 493–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2009.00661.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries (2008). Act of 6 June 2008 No. 37 Relating to the Management of Wild Living Marine Resources (Marine Resources Act). (Oslo: Government of Norway).

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  PeriyasamyC.AnantharamanP.BalasubramanianT. (2014). Social upliftment of coastal fisher women through seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) Doty) farming in Tamil Nadu, India. J. Appl. Phycol.26, 775–781. doi: 10.1007/s10811-013-0228-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  ReboursC.Marinho-SorianoE.Zertuche-GonzálezJ. A.HayashiL.VásquezJ. A.KradolferP.et al (2014). Seaweeds: an opportunity for wealth and sustainable livelihood for coastal communities. J. Appl. Phycol.26, 1939–1951. doi: 10.1007/s10811-014-0304-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  ReddyC. R. K.KumarG. R. K. A. G.SiddhantaA. K.TewariA. (2003). In vitro somatic embryogenesis and regeneration of somatic embryos from pigmented callus of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) Doty (Rhodophyta, Gigartinales). J. Phycol.39, 610–616. doi: 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.02092.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ReddyC. R. K.JhaB.FujitaY.OhnoM. (2008). Seaweed micropropagation techniques and their potentials: an overview. J. Appl. Phycol. 20(5), 609–617. doi: 10.1007/s10811-007-9205-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  RoledaM. Y.TahiluddinA. B.NeishI. C.CritchleyA. T. (2025). Shot in the foot: Unintended consequences of using inorganic fertilizer in commercial tropical eucheumatoid seaweed farming. Rev. Aquac.17, e70019. doi: 10.1111/raq.70019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  SondakC. F. A.AngP. O.BeardallJ.BellgroveA.BooS. M.GerungG. S.et al (2017). Carbon dioxide mitigation potential of seaweed aquaculture beds (SABs). J. Appl. Phycol.29, 2363–2373. doi: 10.1007/s10811-016-1022-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  StévantP.ReboursC.ChapmanA. (2017). Seaweed aquaculture in Norway: recent industrial developments and future perspectives. Aquac. Int.25, 1373–1390. doi: 10.1007/s10499-017-0120-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  SubasingheR.Alday-SanzV.Bondad-ReantasoM. G.JieH.ShinnA. P.SorgeloosP. (2023). Biosecurity: Reducing the burden of disease. J. World Aquacult. Soc54, 397–426. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12966

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  SuyoJ. G. B.Le MassonV.ShaxsonL.LuhanM. R. J.HurtadoA. Q. (2021). Navigating risks and uncertainties: Risk perceptions and risk management strategies in the Philippine seaweed industry. Mar. Policy126, 104408. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104408

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  TorresM. D.KraanS.DomínguezH. (2019). Seaweed biorefinery. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol.18, 335–388. doi: 10.1007/s11157-019-09496-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  TroellM.JoyceA.ChopinT.NeoriA.BuschmannA. H.FangJ. G. (2009). Ecological engineering in aquaculture—potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture297, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.09.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Umamaheswara RaoM. (1970). The Economic Seaweeds of India, Vol. 20. (Mandapam Camp: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (Bull. CMFRI No. 20)), 1–68.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  VairappanC. S. (2006). Seasonal occurrences of epiphytic algae on the commercially cultivated red alga Kappaphycus alvarezii (Solieriaceae, Gigartinales, Rhodophyta). J. Appl. Phycol.18, 611–617. doi: 10.1007/s10811-006-9062-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  VeaJ.AskE. (2011). Creating a sustainable commercial harvest of Laminaria hyperborea, in Norway. J. Appl. Phycol.23, 489–494. doi: 10.1007/s10811-010-9610-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  VeeragurunathanV.MandalS. K.VizhiJ. M.GraceP. G.GurumoorthyU. (2022). Studies on seaweeds diversity along the intertidal zone of islands of Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve, India for policy and management recommendation. J. Coast. Conserv.26, 28. doi: 10.1007/s11852-022-00878-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  VeeragurunathanV.MantriV. A.VizhiJ. M.EswaranK. (2021a). Influence of commercial farming of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Rhodophyta) on native seaweeds of Gulf of Mannar, India: Evidence for policy and management recommendation. J. Coast. Conserv.25, 51. doi: 10.1007/s11852-021-00836-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  VeeragurunathanV.MantriV. A.VizhiJ. M.EswaranK. (2021b). Influence of commercial farming of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Rhodophyta) on native seaweeds of Gulf of Mannar, India: Evidence for policy and management recommendation. J. Coast. Conserv.25, 51. doi: 10.1007/s11852-021-00836-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  WilliamsS. L.SmithJ. E. (2007). A global review of the distribution, taxonomy, and impacts of introduced seaweeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.38, 327–359. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095543

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar