United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021
Scientific Grouphttps://sc-fss2021.org/

Food Systems Summit Brief
Prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the
Food Systems Summit
April 15, 2021

by
Jim Leape, Fiorenza Micheli, Michelle Tigchelaar, Edward H. Allison, Xavier Basurto, Abigail
Bennett, Simon R. Bush, Ling Cao, Beatrice Crona, Fabrice DeClerck, Jessica Fanzo,
Stefan Gelcich, Jessica A. Gephart, Christopher D. Golden, Christina C. Hicks, Avinash
Kishore, J. Zachary Koehn, David C. Little, Rosamond L. Naylor, Elizabeth R. Selig,
Rebecca E. Short, U. Rashid Sumaila, Shakuntala H. Thilsted, Max Troell,
Colette C.C. Wabnitz (affiliations listed at the end)

Blue foods – fish, invertebrates, algae
and aquatic plants captured or cultured in
freshwater and marine ecosystems – play acentral role in food and nutrition security
for billions of people and are a cornerstoneof the livelihoods, economies, and culturesof many coastal and riparian communities.
Blue food systems are extraordinarily diverse, involving thousands of species inmany different production systems andsupporting a wide array of cultures and diets, including those of Indigenous Peoples.
Many blue foods are rich in bioavailable micronutrients and can be produced in waysthat are more environmentally sustainable
than terrestrial animal-source foods. Yet
despite their unique value and interconnections with terrestrial food systems, blue
foods are often left out of food system
1analyses, discussions, decisions, and solutions.
Realizing the potential of blue foods
to play a central role in ending malnutrition
and in building healthy, nature-positive andresilient food systems will require that governments embed blue foods in food-system governance. Here, we focus on three
central imperatives for policymakers:

women, Indigenous Peoples and other historically marginalized groups – are includedin blue food decision-making and policy.
Government policy should expand investment in small-scale actors, support sustainable development and diversification of
their sector, and ensure that trade and economic policy takes account of their roles inproviding equitable economic opportunityand nutrition.

1. Bring blue foods into the heart of foodsystem decision-making.
Governments should integrate blue
foods into food policymaking, for example
in a Ministry of Food, so that they can govern the entire food value chain, from producers to consumers, for both terrestrial
and aquatic systems. They should ensurethat blue foods are managed as a food system, not just a natural resource, for humansustenance and within environmental limits, and that they are fully included in policies for the food system as a whole.

Debates and decisions about foodsystems generally focus on agriculture andlivestock. Blue foods – fish, invertebrates,
algae and aquatic plants captured or cultured in freshwater and marine ecosystems– are perennially neglected1. Yet blue foods
play a central role in food and nutrition security for billions of people and will be evermore important as the world seeks to create just food systems that support thehealth of people and the planet2–6. It is thus
paramount that governments bring blue
food systems into their food-related decision-making.

2. Protect and develop the potentialof blue foods to help end malnutrition.
Governments should recognize theRight to Food and manage blue foods as asource of nutrients that can help end malnutrition. To that end, food policy should
harness the nutritional diversity of blue
foods; take measures across the food system to reduce loss of nutrients from waste,environmental change and management
failures; and ensure equitable distributionof blue food production and consumption.

Last year, the UN Committee ofWorld Food Security High Level Panel of Experts called for a transformation of thefood system, moving “from a singular focus
on increasing the global food supply
through specialized production and export
to making fundamental changes that diversify food systems, empower vulnerable andmarginalized groups, and promote sustainability across all aspects of food supply
chains, from production to consumption”7.
Properly understood and managed, blue
foods are profoundly suited to that shift.

3. Support the central role of small-scale
actors in fisheries and aquaculture.

The blue food portfolio is highly diverse. There are more than 3,000 species ofmarine and freshwater animals and plants

Small-scale actors supply most of theblue food for human consumption. Governments need to ensure they – including2

used for food6,8. Blue food systems are supported by a wide range of ecosystems, cultures and production practices – fromlarge-scale trawlers on the high-seas tosmall-scale fishponds integrated within agricultural systems – supporting access tonutritious food for communities throughglobal and local markets alike. This diversity supports resilience that can help local
food systems withstand shocks like COVID19 and climate extremes9–11 and offers
many possibilities for governments andcommunities seeking to build food systems
that are healthy, sustainable, and just.

than beef, with vast potential to be improved further16. In some cases, unfed aquaculture (such as filter-feeding shellfish
and seaweeds) can actually improve thewater quality of the environment it occupies.
Blue foods are important to livelihoods in many vulnerable communities.
The FAO estimates that about 800 million
people make their living in blue food systems17, mostly in small-scale fisheries andaquaculture. These systems produce awide variety of blue foods, supporting
healthy diets and resilience in the face ofclimate change and market fluctuations.

Blue foods can be a cornerstone ofgood nutrition and health. Many of them
are rich in bioavailable micronutrients that
help prevent maternal and infant mortality,
stunting, and cognitive deficits. And blue
foods can be a healthier animal-source protein than terrestrial livestock: they are richin healthy fats and can help reduce obesity
and non-communicable diseases. In many
parts of the world, blue foods are also moreaccessible and affordable than other animal-source foods12,13. Aquatic plants, including seaweeds, are a traditional presence in diets in the Asia-Pacific region andoffer a variety of possibilities for low-carbon, nutritious food. Coastal and riparian
Indigenous Peoples, from the Arctic to the
Amazon, have traditionally had among thehighest per capita aquatic food consumption rates in the world14,15.

To capitalize on the potential of blue
foods, decision-makers must address significant challenges. Wild capture fisheries,
both marine and freshwater, need to bebetter managed18,19 as many fish stocks
have become severely depleted and sometechnologies have high environmental
footprints. Although aquaculture is becoming increasingly sustainable, growing use of
feed in some sectors is putting pressure on
the environment through overfishing, deforestation for feed crops and intensification of agricultural production. Intensification of aquaculture can concentrate nutrient pollution and exacerbate risks associated with pathogens and high dependence
on antibiotics20.
Environmental stressors can also
limit blue food production and must be
mitigated. Climate change will increasingly
affect the health and productivity of fishstocks and aquatic ecosystems21. These impacts will have implications for food security, livelihoods and economies worldwide
and especially in wild-capture fisheries inAfrica, East and South Asia, and small island
developing states22,23. Other kinds of pollution, from agricultural runoff to plastics,
further threaten productivity and theBlue foods can have lighter environmental footprints than other animalsource foods16. Across a diverse sector, thedetails matter: greenhouse gas emissions
and biodiversity impacts can be quite highfor some blue food systems, such as bottom trawling or aquaculture systems withlow feed efficiencies, especially when they
are poorly sited or poorly managed. But
many fisheries and aquaculture systems already offer footprints that are much lower
3

safety of foods harvested from polluted
waters24,25.

There is every reason to expect that
total demand for blue foods will grow substantially in the years ahead, as populationand incomes increase, and as attention toward healthy and sustainable food expands. If produced responsibly, they haveessential roles to play in ending malnutrition and in building healthy, nature-positive and resilient food systems, including
for people living on lands marginal for agricultural production (particularly forests,
wetlands and small islands), many of whomare Indigenous32. Realizing that potential,
however, will require that governments arethoughtful about how to develop thoseroles. Here, we focus on three central imperatives for policymakers:

Like all food systems, blue food systems are beset by inequities. Wealth-generating activities are often favored overthose important to nutrition and health,
livelihoods, and culture. The aquatic resource management systems, knowledge
and rights of Indigenous Peoples and traditional small-scale fisherfolk have often
been undermined or overlooked in fisheries, water management and ocean governance26. Although blue food value chains
employ roughly equal numbers of men andwomen4, their roles, influence over value
chains, and benefits can be highly unequal.
Progress toward gender equality is criticalfor development of more equitable and efficient blue food systems5,27.

1. Integrate blue foods into decisionmaking about food system policies,
programs, and budgets, to enableeffective management of production, consumption and trade, andthe interconnections with terrestrial food production;

Blue foods are the most highlytraded food products – for developing
countries, net revenues from trade of blue
foods exceed those of all agricultural commodities combined28–30. Global supply
chains are complex and often opaque,however, making it difficult or impossible
for buyers to ascertain environmental impacts and human rights abuses in production. In some places harvesting and trade offish for high monetary-value global markets have undermined production that is
important for local food security and livelihoods31.

2. Understand, protect and develop
their potential in ending malnutrition, fostering production of accessible, affordable nutritious foods;
and
3. Support the central role of smallscale actors, with governance andfinance that are responsive to theirdiverse needs, circumstances andopportunities.

The Bangladesh Story
The proliferation of diverse, freshwater aquaculture supply chains in Bangladesh in recent
decades illustrates the potential for blue foods to meet domestic demand, improve foodand nutrition security, and reduce rural poverty33. This “hidden aquaculture revolution” hasinvolved the participation of hundreds of thousands of small- to medium-scale actors along
the supply chain, acting independently and in response to urbanization, growing incomes,
and rising fish demand. Approximately 94% of the fish produced in freshwater aquaculture4

in Bangladesh is directed towards domestic markets and is not traded internationally. Although mostly small-scale, freshwater aquaculture systems have become increasingly intensive and commercial in their operations34. Aquaculture growth and its contribution to foodand nutrition security in Bangladesh have resulted from public investment in infrastructure,a positive business environment for small- and medium-size entrepreneurs, and ‘lighttouch’ government control over the type of systems and species produced 33.

have largely neglected the roles of fish,shellfish and aquatic plants in human nutrition and health. Blue foods also tend to beleft out of food system policymaking at thenational level. Ministries or agencies dedicated to capture fisheries and aquaculture
tend to manage them as a natural resource,with a focus on economic interests – production and trade. In many countries, theresult is that both fisheries and aquaculture
are managed with an emphasis on highmonetary value, export-oriented production. That orientation is reinforced by themarket and naturally favors investments ininnovations and enterprises that offer thehighest financial return. Critical welfare
functions are often neglected; indeed, fisheries agencies often lack the mandate toaddress the potential contributions of blue
foods to food security and public health, tolivelihoods and communities, and to cultural traditions and diets.

The Problem: Fisheries and aquaculture
are typically ignored in management offood systems
Blue foods are deeply interconnectedwith the rest of the food system – in diets,
in supply chains, and in the environment.
Aquatic and terrestrial foods appear on thesame plate and are often substitutes foreach other in household food choices. Capture fisheries provide feed inputs for aquaculture and livestock; terrestrial crops provide feed inputs for aquaculture. Excess nutrients from agriculture and aquaculture
pollute rivers and cause coastal deadzones, undermining fisheries; cultivation offilter feeding fish and seaweeds takes up
nutrients and, if properly managed andscaled, can help protect ecosystem health.
Genetic advances in crops and livestock
have had positive spillover effects on aquaculture through selection and breeding andthrough improvements in nutritional performance and feed efficiency.

When fisheries and aquaculture aresiloed and managed as a natural resource,
policymakers miss vital opportunities foradvancing their goals for nutrition, sustainability, resilience, and livelihoods, and they
make unwitting tradeoffs among those interests. Fisheries that have sustained communities for generations are depleted bydistant water fleets or outcompeted in themarket by large volumes of inexpensive
farmed fish. Farming of species that could
remedy pressing nutrient deficiencies remains undeveloped because management

Yet blue foods are generally ignoredin food system discussions and decisionmaking1. Blue foods receive little attention
in development assistance – the World
Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other major development funders5and investment are directed to high-revenue products. Small-scale producers whoare central to local diets, livelihoods andcommunity resilience lose out to largecommercial concessions.

The African Great Lakes
The small pelagic fisheries of the African Great Lakes region illustrate the opportunities
in bringing blue foods into food system policymaking. These fisheries produce huge volumes of affordable, micronutrient-rich food traded throughout the region, but they
have been given low priority for investment and management because they are seen
as having low economic value. Food system policymaking approaches could include investments to a) reduce post-harvest loss, which can be substantial, and improve foodquality and safety; b) strengthen domestic and intra-regional trade institutions to enhance small-scale trader market access; c) address challenges, risks and opportunities
of female fish traders, who comprise a substantial portion of the post-harvest sector,
and d) manage tradeoffs between sale for animal feed industries and direct human consumption.

The Solution: Governments should fully integrate blue foods into their governanceof the food systemproducers, consumers, and other stakeholders for improved nutritional, environmental, economic, and social outcomes. It
could, for example, manage production
and consumption to create markets formore nutritious species (see Section 2). It
could also expand the capabilities of smallscale producers, through investment andallocation of resource rights to support
livelihoods and community resilience (seeSection 3). More broadly, it enables decision-makers to govern blue foods as a foodsystem, and to ensure blue foods are fully
included in all food system policies.

The potential of blue foods will only
be realized if they are brought into foodsystem decision-making. That requires integrated governance, systematic inclusion
in policy, and a basic change in the way wethink about fish. Specifically, governments
should:1. Create a governance structure that integrates green and blue
Governments should create a Ministry of Food or other structure that can govern the entire food system, managing synergies and tradeoffs in production, consumption and trade. Ministries of agriculture and of fisheries typically focus on production – generally on increasing volume –and often are captured by entrenched interests. A Ministry of Food or similar entity
could manage the disparate interests of

2. Govern blue foods as a food system
At the most basic level, integrating
blue foods into food system decision-making also recognizes that fisheries and aquaculture should themselves be managed asfood systems – they should be managed todeliver society’s goals for nutrition, healthand equity, as well as for economics andsustainability. Government policy and6management should embrace all aspects ofthe blue food sector – including fisheries,
aquaculture development, distribution, exports and imports, and consumption.

quently profound heterogeneity in consumption across different regions of thecountry and between different ethnic andreligious groups. They will also need to redesign policies to enable and incentivize
the capabilities of key actors – from producers to consumers – to adopt transformative practices in the food system as awhole, in value chains, and in the places
where they live (see Section 3).

Promoting a systems approachmeans that governments can ensure nutrient-rich aquatic foods are available and affordable to those for whom they are mostimportant, both nutritionally and culturally. It can work across the value chain to
identify and address the many threats to
supply of blue foods, from overfishing topollution to waste and loss in harvesting,processing and distribution (see Section 2).
It can build a system that is just, ensuring
equitable participation in production, accessibility for consumption, and broad representation in decision-making. By managing blue foods as a system, governments
can also create policies and incentives
across the value chain to shift both production and consumption to species and technologies that have lighter footprints and tofoster diversity in production systems.

3. Include blue foods in all food system policies
Structural reform must be followedby policy inclusion – governments should
integrate blue foods into the policies that
regulate, guide and support the food sector. Government strategies to meet the Human Right to Food, for example (see Section 2), should embrace the potential ofblue foods to offer accessible, affordable
sources of key nutrients. Dietary guidelines
should include the nutritional contributions of different blue foods, to help consumers understand their value for addressing nutrient deficiencies and obesity, diabetes and coronary disease. Safety net programs for children and pregnant and lactating women should also include blue foods,
as fish can be a rich source of essential micronutrients for those most vulnerable
populations, helping to prevent stunting
and cognitive deficits. The food systems
and food sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples must be supported.

Looking at the whole system also enables the government to make public investments where markets fail. Private investment goes to blue food systems andenterprises that offer high financial returns. Governments can allocate publicfunds to develop innovations in fisheries
and aquaculture that offer lower returns
but are important for nutrition, livelihoods,
and sustainability, and it can provide capital for small and medium-sized enterprises
to take those innovations to scale.

Including blue foods in policymaking
for the food system allows governments tobetter manage the interconnections between terrestrial and aquatic food systems.
That includes the regulation of agriculturaland inland aquaculture runoff and otherland-based pollution that can undermine
coastal fisheries and marine aquaculture,such as nutrients that cause coastal deadTo realize this vision, governments
will need to collect data that enable gooddecisions – including data that enable monitoring of fisheries and supply chains, that
capture the vital diversity of species thatare produced and consumed, that survey
the demographic diversity of participantsin the sector, and that reflect the fre-7

zones and toxins that can compromise foodsafety. Governments can also better manage the allocation of crops and fish to competing uses – for food or feed – and support
the development of a circular economy inwhich wastes or by-products from one partof the food system are used as feed inputs
to another.

foods only as a protein source, which neglects the nutrient diversity of fish (in termsof micronutrients and fatty acids) and excludes the contributions of aquatic plants
altogether. In the Bangladesh case discussed above, for example, growth in(farmed) fish consumption has led to an increase in total protein consumption but adecrease in consumption of certain micronutrients, highlighting the challenge of balancing high nutrient content provided bysmall native fish with employment and revenue generation offered by tilapia and pangasius production38. Adopting a nutritionsensitive approach to aquaculture and fisheries, rather than just a production-focus,
can address these issues1,8,39.

The Problem: Blue food systems are not
managed for nutrition

In many countries, ministries manage
blue foods for their wealth-generating benefits, focusing policy on high economicvalue blue food production, often for export. Such a focus risks undermining thecritical welfare functions of blue foods byneglecting the nutritional characteristics,
livelihood contributions, accessibility, andcultural patterns of blue food consumption1,5,8,31. Nutrient-dense blue foods are
regularly exported from nutritionally vulnerable countries to serve either as a highquality product for wealthy consumers or
to be reduced to fishmeal to feed farmed
fish for high-income countries40. Orientation towards export markets not only affects coastal and riparian populations, butalso inland communities who have historically depended on richly nutritious dried or
smoked fish transported from the coast41.

Many blue foods contain high concentrations of bioavailable minerals andvitamins, essential fatty acids, and animal
protein8 – globally roughly 8% of zinc andiron, 13% of protein, and 27% of vitamin
B12 are derived from aquatic foods6. Bluefoods can therefore make key contributions to diet-related health challenges.
They can reduce micronutrient deficiencies
that lead to disease; improve heart, brain
and eye health by uniquely providing
omega-3 fatty acids; and replace consumption of less healthy red and processedmeats6. The micronutrient contributions ofblue foods are especially important forchildhood development, pregnant women
and women of childbearing age35–37 andcan reduce nutritional inequities for girls
and women6.
Not all fish are equal. For example, asingle serving of small indigenous species in
Bangladesh, eaten whole, contributes
more than five times as much vitamin B12
as a single serving of tilapia fillet8. Whichblue foods are on a plate, in what form,
therefore matters as well as how much6,31.
Yet, blue food policy often considers blue

The quantity, quality and safety ofblue food supply are threatened by waste(amounting to 35% of fish harvested globally4), management failures (including
overfishing and Illegal, Unreported, andUnregulated fishing), environmental degradation, and climate change21. It is estimated that declines in marine fish catch8

over the next three decades could subject
an additional 845 million people (11% of
the world’s population) to vitamin A, zinc,or iron deficiencies23. Though all of thesepressures occur globally, their effects arehighest and most strongly felt in tropicaland low-income countries with high dependence on blue foods for nutrition andhealth, livelihoods and income22,23.

equity can be considered together (seeSection 1) and which ensures all actors are
represented, including through engagement with grass-roots and civil society organizations (see Section 3)1,5. Recognizing
the food rights of Indigenous Peoples who
harvest aquatic foods is of particular importance, whether such Peoples have Nation status or not. At a national level, blue
foods should explicitly be included in foodand nutrition policy (see Section 1)1,8. Internationally, blue foods should be positioned
as a vital food source in the context of the
UN Sustainable Development Goals, healthnational adaptation plans (HNAPs), andother international efforts to alleviate malnutrition1.

Finally, blue food policy misses opportunities to support nutrition goals when
it fails to address unequal distribution of
the benefits from blue food systems or theconcentration of power. Women in particular are underrepresented in policies anddecision-making5,27,42. Where genderequality is lacking, blue foods are less affordable5 and blue food waste and losses
are greater43.

2. Harness the nutritional diversity of bluefoods

The Solution: Sustain and enhance the nutritional benefits of blue food systems

Governments should ensure that thenutritional potential of blue foods serves toimprove the health and diets of nutritionally vulnerable people. They should recognize and harness the diversity of local blue
food nutritional profiles, preparation
methods and dietary practices19.

To manage blue food systems for the
benefit of nutrition and health, governments should:
1. Recognize the centrality of the Right toFood in blue food trade and domestic policy

Governments should manage capture fisheries to optimize for nutritional
benefits, not just for maximum sustainable
yield, which can uncover opportunities todiversify fish production without increasingpressure on existing stocks6,45. Aquaculture
development should foster the sustainableproduction of native small fish species thatcan supply context-specific nutrient needs.
As an example, mola, a fish species fromthe Gangetic floodplains, can easily be produced in homestead ponds and offers 80
times more vitamin A than commonly
farmed silver carp8.

The Right to Food states that everyone is entitled to adequate, accessible, andsafe food, that corresponds to their cultural
traditions in a fulfilling and dignified manner44. A Right to Food means that governance of and investment in blue food systems should seek balance between economic opportunities and local rights tofood provisioning1,5, aiming to sustain andinnovate with the full diversity of species,
production and harvest methods, productforms and distribution channels in mind6.
Recognizing the Right to Food requires taking a food systems approach in which nutrition, sustainability, climate-resilience andGovernments should evaluate exports and licenses to distant water fleets toensure they don’t compromise nutritional
9

goals. In some cases (e.g., Namibia) retaining just a small portion of current exports
could meet local nutrition goals31, though
this requires infrastructure to support equitable distribution and access to blue
foods locally (see Section 3).
Public health policies and investments focused on reducing malnutrition
should include blue foods in programs toaddress the specific nutritional needs ofpregnant and lactating women, young children and the elderly – with appropriate
consideration of food safety and pollutants– as was done with the introduction ofdried small fish powder in Myanmar to support children’s health46.
3. Halt loss of nutrients from blue food systems
To ensure that blue foods importantfor nutrition are available, accessible, andaffordable, governments should take steps
to reduce losses in the system. Improved
processing methods can preserve and concentrate nutrients and increase availability
and also improve nutritional quality47.
In many places, better managementof capture fisheries through harvest controls or spatial restrictions, for example,
can restore fish stocks and increase
yields18,19,48. Better regulation of economic
development in floodplains, riparian,coastal, and ocean ecosystems can help
protect blue food production and reducerisks to food safety49,50.
Fisheries and aquaculture policy
should also anticipate and adapt to projected climate change21,22. Governments
should consider nature-based solutions likemangrove and seagrass restoration and restorative aquaculture that can help
strengthen the resilience of aquatic ecosystems51,52. Additional climate adaptation

options are context-specific but include
shifting to offshore resources53, devisingclimate-smart agreements for transboundary resources54 and investing in climate information systems, including early warning
systems for extreme events55,56. Placebased responses to climate change are particularly important for Indigenous Peoples
whose cultures and identities are closely
linked to their local environments57.
4. Improve the distributional equity of blue
food production and consumption
Participation in activities along thevalue chain is often socially differentiated;for example, men dominate blue food production and women blue food processing.
Governments thus need to collect data on
what roles, from fish producers to postharvest processors, traders, and consumers, different groups in society hold andwhy. When divisions of labor exist becauseof unequal opportunities to participate
across the value chain, they are likely to result in distributional and nutritional inequities42. Investments to address the drivers ofunequal opportunities, such as throughstrengthening women’s empowerment,
are known to lead to improvements in outcomes for women and their families. For
example, in Zambia, strategies to uncoverunderlying structural barriers that limit
participation, such as unequal norms andattitudes, increased women’s participationin production processes, and their control
over resources43. Governments need to ensure the full diversity of actors, across social groups, including gender, class, andethnicity, and along the value chain andscale of production, are fairly represented
in decision-making processes5 (see Section
3). In addition, governments should recognize subnational differences in nutritional

10

vulnerability and blue food access in national policy and align subnational policies
and instruments with nutritional goals.

The Problem: Limited recognition and support for the SSFA sector in supporting equitable and sustainable food systems
Small-scale fisheries and aquaculture(SSFA) have been marginalized in dialogues
about sustainable and equitable food system transformation, despite being central
to it in many contexts1. SSFA play a key rolein supplying nutrition and supporting local
economies in many countries. They produce more than half of the global fish catchand contribute over two-thirds of aquatic
foods destined for direct human consumption4, with the potential for lower environmental footprints (e.g., lower fuel use thanin large-scale operations16). In addition, thevalue chains that process and sell theirproducts support about 800 million fulland part-time jobs, half of which are
women4,17. SSFA produce a high diversity ofaquatic foods. This diversity underpins
healthy diets, and resilience in the face ofshocks,climateandmarketchanges31,39,58,59. SSFA also contribute to intra-regional trade, especially in smokedand dried products, which can have more
direct impacts on food security and poverty
alleviation than the globalized system60.
SSFA worldwide face a growing rangeof threats and challenges, including resource over-exploitation, habitat degradation, poor political representation, marketdriven competition for resources (e.g. patterns of trade and foreign fishing), assumed

links between informality and illegality61,
climate change62, and shocks such as thecurrent COVID-19 pandemic58,63,64. Cumulatively, SSFA are being ‘squeezed out’ of
the spaces they occupy on the land-water
margins by other more powerful sectors,
such as tourism, residential and industrial
land use, oil and gas exploration, industrial
fisheries and aquaculture65. Within SSFA,
inequitable access to resources and opportunities and limited gender and social inclusion are key threats. Indigenous Peoples
whose lands and waters have been colonized by others, and whose harvesting activities tend to be small-scale, continue tobe marginalized by public policy. Finally,
pervasive data and monitoring limitations
pose major challenges to understanding
the status of SSFA66 as a lack of data leads
to underestimating SSFA contributions,marginalizing SSFA in policy and decision
making, and aggregated and categorical
data fail to represent the diversity of SSFA
actors and benefits.
Governments and policies predominantly focus on industrialized, large-scale
fisheries and aquaculture, leading to a lackof voice and support for SSFA. One reason
for this persistent neglect is that policy
makers struggle with the diversity, dynamism and perceived informality of SSFA
and their associated cultures5. Most policies affecting the sector make unrealistic
assumptions that SSFA are a homogenous
group limited to producers67,68. In contrast,
the sector is extraordinarily diverse along
many dimensions64. Successful transformations of SSFA require supporting current
activities, whilst exploring new opportunities and encouraging both the entry of newactors into the sector and the redeployment of some current actors to opportunities outside it.

11

The Solution: Support SSFA capabilities
and diversity through inclusive blue foodpolicyGovernments of countries where
SSFA operate should place this sector at thecenter of their national human development and food security strategies, creating
initiatives that support the capabilities ofthe diverse SSFA actors. Supporting the viability of SSFA requires governments to:
1. Include actors from SSFA in decisionmaking and policy development
Inclusion of SSFA in decision-making
is essential to enable more adaptive governance mechanisms and policies thatbuild on the strengths of the diversity ofSSFAs, acknowledge the cultural importance and specific roles of blue foods
for diverse actors and steer food systems
towards a more equitable distribution ofblue food benefits.
Women are greatly underrepresented in policy and decision making eventhough they make up half of the workforce
in SSFA globally. Recent efforts to improve
gender equity in blue food policy havetended to adopt a narrow focus on women,
overlooking men or gender relations27.
Such a narrow focus risks exacerbating inequities by placing the blame, or burden forchange, on women5. Blue food policy development therefore not only needs to involve more input and leadership fromwomen, but also should take a gendertransformative approach to improving intersectional equity in SSFA5,27,69.
Indigenous coastal and riparian Peoples tend to be more blue-food dependent
than the wider population in the countries
they live in14,15. They also have proven systems for food system governance – including knowledge systems – that, if recognized

and supported, could enable the ‘decolonization’ of their food systems70. As access to
traditional food sources has been lost,
adoption of unhealthy diets based on processed foods have led to high rates of dietrelated non-communicable diseases71,72.
Thus, by supporting Indigenous Peoples
food (and wider) sovereignty claims, governments could contribute to transformative health benefits in these communities
and nations.
Governments should support andstrengthen multi-stakeholder initiatives
that have the benefits of SSFA at their core,including organizations of fish workers,
harvesters and producers at global, regional, and national levels such as theWorld Forum of Fish harvesters and Fishworkers (WFF), the World Forum of Fisher
Peoples (WFFP), and the International Collective in support of Fish Workers (ICSF).
2. Expand capabilities through investment
in institutions and human capital, and investment in environmental protection andrestoration
Securing the future of SSFA requires
adaptive action that supports the capabilities of SSFA to deliver both market andnon-market societal benefits. Positive environmental outcomes, for example, require
engagement of SSFA actors to co-produce
knowledge, forge strategies for sustainability and climate adaptation, and participate
in and lead environmental restoration, conservation and adaptation efforts.
Governments should create space for
SSFA as they expand agricultural, and industrial aquaculture and fisheries sectors.
They should use public and private regulation and financial mechanisms to enable
SSFA actors – including Indigenous Peoples– to (re)gain control over the resources,
rights, skills and knowledge necessary for12environmentally resilient and socially equitable production and trade (including insurance, credit, and market mechanisms tobuffer against extreme events).
Governments should also allocateand enforce land, water and labor rights to
SSFA through user rights-based systems,
creation of preferential access areas,
coastal and inland land use zoning, or othermeasures. To support the roles of SSFA increating livelihoods and resilient and equitable food systems, governments should
also provide capital, through public and private financial mechanisms that empower
rather than undermine SSFA actors. In thecase of Indigenous Peoples, recognition of
their collective sovereign rights are the key
starting point.
3. Support diversification and sustainable
intensification
For many SSFA producers, it will be
crucial to find pathways for sustainable intensification or expansion of their operations or for diversification into other SSFA
products or other sources of livelihood. To
that end, governments should invest in
R&D and facilitate access to venture capitalto support innovation in species/production systems that are of high value for nutrition, livelihoods, and justice. They should
also support the development of complementary livelihoods, which are often critical to continued participation by SSFA actors, their control of the resource base andits sustainability.
Costs, trade-offs, and potential environmental and social impacts of intensification and diversification should be carefully
considered, and diversification should be
proactively designed and monitored. To
this end, efforts should be made towards
better integration of different data types
and sources and enabling the effective andtimely access and use of data by relevant
actors. Investment is needed in monitoring
systems for catch, effort, production andconsumption, and in national surveys ofengagement in SSFA which are fully gender-inclusive, and reflect intersections ofgender, age and ethnicity. Promotion of
R&D towards technological solutions todata collection, storage and communication/accessibility barriers would effectively
support these needs.
4. Secure economic and nutritional benefits
through trade policies and the development and protection of local and national
markets
Governments, in particular low-income food insecure nations, need to beable to regulate the activities of large corporate actors and trade to protect therights (e.g., labor rights, human rights, rightto food) of SSFA workers, to ensure thatterms, conditions, and revenues from trade
are transparent and fair, do not impact on
local food security, and where needed retain high nutritional value products for local consumption. Regulation should consider the potential trade-offs and linkages
between nutritional and economic value ofresources. It should establish transparent
processes, monitoring systems, and accountability mechanisms to ensure traceability and visibility of social impacts. Market-based approaches that encourage actors to add value to products through processing, marketing or certification need tocarefully consider trade-offs in economic,
social, environmental, and public healthoutcomes (see Section 1).
Governments should also explore opportunities to support “alternative” systems based on short supply chains for
products with strong local identities and lo-

13cal, decentralized production and processing. Diversity, deeply embedded inthese food systems, could be supported bypolicies mandating or incentivizing local retention of SSFA products to ensure foodself-sufficiency, for example, the development or control of local markets and school
feeding programs.

Blue foods have vital roles to play intransformation of the global food system.
In the face of growing challenges and risingdemand, governments must act now to
support and expand these roles. They
should bring blue foods into the heart oftheir food decision-making, by creating a
Ministry of Food or other governancestructures that integrate blue foods fully
into food policies, budgets and programs,
managing the terrestrial and aquatic foodsystems as a whole. They should recognize
the Right to Food and harness the nutritional diversity of blue foods in ways that
ensure the equitable distribution of blue
food production and consumption. And
they should empower and support the millions of small-scale actors in fisheries andaquaculture who produce, process, distribute and trade most of the food we eat, andcan be the key to a vibrant, sustainable,
healthy, and equitable blue food economy.
Recognizing and acting upon the potential
role of blue foods in all dimensions of foodpolicy would be a clear win for the 2021
U.N. Food Systems Summit.

1.

Bennett, A. et al. Recognize fish as
food in policy discourse and development funding. Ambio (2021)
doi:10.1007/s13280-020-01451-4.

2.

HLPE. Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition. http://www.fao.org/3/ai3844e.pdf (2014).

3.

Bennett, A. et al. Contribution ofFisheries to Food and Nutrition Security: Current Knowledge, Policy, andResearch. (2018).

4.

FAO. The State of World Fisheries
and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability
in Action.
http://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ca
9229en.pdf (2020)
doi:10.4060/ca9229en.

5.

Hicks, C. C. et al. Towards justice inblue food systems. Nature.

6.

Golden, C. D. et al. Aquatic foods fornourishing nations. Nature (in review).

7.

HLPE. Impacts of COVID-19 on foodsecurity and nutrition: developing effective policy responses to address
the hunger and malnutrition pandemic.
http://www.fao.org/3/cb1000en/cb
1000en.pdf (2020)
doi:10.4060/cb1000en.

8.

Thilsted, S. H. et al. Sustaining
healthy diets: The role of capture
fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-2015
era. Food Policy 61, 126–131 (2016).

9.

Troell, M. et al. Does aquaculture
add resilience to the global food system? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
111, 13257–13263 (2014).

14

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Béné, C. Resilience of local food systems and links to food security - A
review of some important concepts
in the context of COVID-19 andother shocks. Food Secur 1–18
(2020).
Love, D. C. et al. Emerging COVID-19
impacts, responses, and lessons forbuilding resilience in the seafood
system. Global Food Security 28,100494 (2021).
Ryckman, T., Beal, T., Nordhagen, S.,
Chimanya, K. & Matji, J. Affordabilityof nutritious foods for complementary feeding in Eastern and Southern
Africa. Nutr. Rev. 79, 35–51 (2021).
Ryckman, T., Beal, T., Nordhagen, S.,
Murira, Z. & Torlesse, H. Affordability of nutritious foods for complementary feeding in South Asia. Nutr.
Rev. 79, 52–68 (2021).
Bayley, P. B. Fish Yield from the Amazon in Brazil: Comparison with African River Yields and Management
Possibilities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
110, 351–359 (1981).

15.

Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Pauly,D., Weatherdon, L. V. & Ota, Y. A
Global Estimate of Seafood Consumption by Coastal Indigenous Peoples. PLoS One 11, e0166681 (2016).

16.

Gephart, J. A. et al. Environmental
performance of blue foods. Nature(in review).

17.

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012.
http://www.fao.org/3/i2727e/i2727
e.pdf (2012).

18.

Hilborn, R. et al. Effective fisheries
management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc. Natl.

Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 2218–2224(2020).
19.

Melnychuk, M. C. et al. Identifying
management actions that promotesustainable fisheries. Nature Sustainability 1–10 (2021).

20.

Naylor, R. L. et al. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature 591, 551–563 (2021).

21.

FAO. Impacts of climate change on
fisheries and aquaculture: Synthesisof current knowledge, adaptationand mitigation options. vol. 627(2018).

22.

Tigchelaar, M. et al. Compound climate risk threatens aquatic food system benefits. Nature Food.

23.

Golden, C. D. et al. Nutrition: Fall infish catch threatens human health.
Nature 534, 317–320 (2016).

24.

Bank, M. S., Metian, M. & Swarzenski, P. W. Defining Seafood Safety in
the Anthropocene. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 54, 8506–8508 (2020).

25.

Garrido Gamarro, E., Ryder, J.,
Elvevoll, E. O. & Olsen, R. L. Microplastics in Fish and Shellfish – A
Threat to Seafood Safety? J. Aquat.
Food Prod. Technol. 29, 417–425(2020).

26.

Ratner, B. D., Åsgård, B. & Allison, E.
H. Fishing for justice: Human rights,
development, and fisheries sector
reform. Glob. Environ. Change 27,
120–130 (2014).

27.

Lawless, S., Cohen, P. J., Mangubhai,S., Kleiber, D. & Morrison, T. H. Gender equality is diluted in commitments made to small-scale fisheries.
World Dev. 140, 105348 (2021).

28.

Gephart, J. A. & Pace, M. L. Structureand evolution of the global seafood15

trade network. Environ. Res. Lett. 10,125014 (2015).
29.

30.

Sumaila, U. R., Bellmann, C. & Tipping, A. Fishing for the future: An
overview of challenges and opportunities. Mar. Policy 69, 173–180(2016).

38.

Bogard, J. R. et al. Higher fish but
lower micronutrient intakes: Temporal changes in fish consumption
from capture fisheries and aquaculture in Bangladesh. PLoS One 12,
e0175098 (2017).

39.

Gephart, J. A. et al. Scenarios for
global aquaculture and its role in human nutrition. Rev. fish. sci. aquac.
29, 122–138 (2021).

40.

Isaacs, M. The humble sardine (small
pelagics): fish as food or fodder. Agriculture & Food Security 5, 27(2016).

41.

Gordon, A., Finegold, C., Crissman, C.
C. & Pulis, A. Fish Production, Consumption, and Trade in Sub-SaharanAfrica: A Review Analysis.
https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12348/884/WF3692.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y(2013).

42.

Kawarazuka, N. & Béné, C. The potential role of small fish species in
improving micronutrient deficiencies
in developing countries: building evidence. Public Health Nutr. 14, 1927–
1938 (2011).

Udo, I. U. & Okoko, A. C. Seafood
processing and safety: A veritable
tool for transformation and empowerment of rural women in Nigeria.
Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Foodand Environment 10, 8–17 (2014).

43.

Bogard, J. R. et al. Inclusion of Small
Indigenous Fish Improves Nutritional
Quality During the First 1000 Days.
Food Nutr. Bull. 36, 276–289 (2015).

Kaminski, A. M. et al. Fish Losses for
Whom? A Gendered Assessment of
Post-Harvest Losses in the Barotse
Floodplain Fishery, Zambia. Sustain.
Sci. Pract. Policy 12, 10091 (2020).

44.

Fakhri, M. The right to food in thecontext of international trade law
and policy. https://undocs.org/A/75/219 (2020).

FAO. FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2018/FAO annuaire. Statistiques des pêches et del’aquaculture 2018/FAO anuario. Estadísticas de pesca y acuicultura
2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4060/cb1213t(2020) doi:10.4060/cb1213t.

31.

Hicks, C. C. et al. Harnessing global
fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574, 95–98 (2019).

32.

Azam-Ali, S. et al. Marginal areasand indigenous people: Priorities forresearch and action. (2021).

33.

Hernandez, R. et al. The “quiet revolution” in the aquaculture value
chain in Bangladesh. Aquaculture
493, 456–468 (2018).

34.

Belton, B., Bush, S. R. & Little, D. C.
Not just for the wealthy: Rethinking
farmed fish consumption in the
Global South. Global Food Security
16, 85–92 (2018).

35.

36.

37.

pregnancy and foetal neurodevelopment--a systematic review of the evidence. Nutrients 7, 2001–2014(2015).

Starling, P., Charlton, K., McMahon,
A. T. & Lucas, C. Fish intake during
16

45.

Bernhardt, J. R. & O’Connor, M. I.
Aquatic biodiversity enhances multiple nutritional benefits to humans.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118,
(2021).

53.

McDonald, J. & Torrens, S. M. Governing Pacific fisheries under climatechange. in Research Handbook on
Climate Change, Oceans and Coasts(Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020).

46.

Dried small fish powder provides opportunity for child health in Myanmar. WorldFish Blog
http://blog.worldfishcenter.org/2020/11/dried-smallfish-powder-provides-opportunityfor-child-health-in-myanmar/(2020).

54.

Oremus, K. L. et al. Governance challenges for tropical nations losing fish
species due to climate change. Nature Sustainability 1–4 (2020).

55.

Cinner, J. E. et al. Building adaptive
capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 8, 117–123 (2018).

47.

Siddhnath et al. Dry Fish and Its Contribution Towards Food and Nutritional Security. Food Rev. Int. 1–29
(2020).

56.

48.

Anderson, C. M. et al. How commercial fishing effort is managed. Fish
Fish 20, 268–285 (2018).

Turner, R., McConney, P. & Monnereau, I. Climate Change Adaptation and Extreme Weather in the
Small-Scale Fisheries of Dominica.
Coast. Manage. 48, 436–455 (2020).

57.

Whitney, C. et al. “Like the plains
people losing the buffalo”: perceptions of climate change impacts,
fisheries management, and adaptation actions by Indigenous peoples incoastal British Columbia, Canada.
Ecol. Society 25, 33 (2020).

58.

Bennett, N. J. et al. The COVID-19
Pandemic, Small-Scale Fisheries andCoastal Fishing Communities. Coast.
Manage. 1–11 (2020).

59.

Campbell, S. J. et al. Immediate impact of COVID-19 across tropicalsmall-scale fishing communities.
Ocean Coast. Manag. 200, 105485(2021).

60.

Béné, C., Lawton, R. & Allison, E. H.
“Trade Matters in the Fight Against
Poverty”: Narratives, Perceptions,and (Lack of) Evidence in the Case of
Fish Trade in Africa. World Dev. 38,
933–954 (2010).

61.

Song, A. M. et al. Collateral damage?
Small-scale fisheries in the global

49.

50.

51.

52.

Niane, B. et al. Human exposure tomercury in artisanal small-scale gold
mining areas of Kedougou region,
Senegal, as a function of occupational activity and fish consumption.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 22,
7101–7111 (2015).
de Oliveira Estevo, M. et al. Immediate social and economic impacts of amajor oil spill on Brazilian coastal
fishing communities. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 164, 111984 (2021).
Gattuso, J.-P. et al. Ocean Solutions
to Address Climate Change and Its
Effects on Marine Ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science 5, 337 (2018).
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. The ocean
as a solution to climate change: Five
opportunities for action.
http://oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/HLP_Report_Ocean_Solution_Climate_Change_final.pdf (2019).

17

fight against IUU fishing. Fish Fish21, 831–843 (2020).
62.

Monnier, L. et al. Small-scale fisheries in a warming world: Exploring adaptation to climate change. (2020).

63.

Farmery, A. K. et al. Blind spots in visions of a “blue economy” could undermine the ocean’s contribution toeliminating hunger and malnutrition.
One Earth 4, 28–38 (2021).

64.

65.

66.

67.

setting and policy responses. Mar.
Policy 92, 40–47 (2018).
68.

Johnson, D. S. Category, narrative,and value in the governance ofsmall-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 30,
747–756 (2006).

69.

Cole, S. M. et al. Gender accommodative versus transformative approaches: a comparative assessment
within a post-harvest fish loss reduction intervention. Gend. Technol.
Dev. 24, 48–65 (2020).

70.

Cohen, P. et al. Securing a Just Space
for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Blue
Economy. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 171 (2019).

Coté, C. “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food
Practices and Ecological Knowledgesin Canada and the United States. Humanit. Rep. 5, 57 (2016).

71.

Pauly, D. & Zeller, D. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine
fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nat. Commun.
7, 10244 (2016).

H V Kuhnlein, A. & Receveur, O. Dietary Change and Traditional Food
Systems of Indigenous Peoples.
(2003) doi:10.1146/annurev.nu.16.070196.002221.

72.

Hawley, N. L. & McGarvey, S. T. Obesity and diabetes in Pacific Islanders:the current burden and the need forurgent action. Curr. Diab. Rep. 15, 29(2015).

Short, R. E. et al. Harnessing diversity of small-scale actors key toaquatic food futures. Nature Food(in review).

Gelcich, S., Reyes-Mendy, F., Arriagada, R. & Castillo, B. Assessing
the implementation of marine ecosystem based management into national policies: Insights from agenda

18

Food Systems Summit Briefs are prepared by researchers of Partners of the Scientific Group for the United Nations Food Systems Summit. They are made available under the responsibility of the authors. The views presented may not be attributed to the Scientific Group or to the partner organisations with which the authors areaffiliated.
This policy brief was prepared by researchers who are part of the Blue Food Assessment (BFA; https://www.bluefood.earth/), which provides a comprehensive examination of the role of aquatic foods in building healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems. The key messages and policy recommendations in this brief were derived
from several papers that are part of the BFA as well as related materials. A complete list of BFA paper abstracts
can be found at https://tinyurl.com/bfa-abstracts.
Contributors
Blue foods in food system decision making
James P. Leape, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University
Abigail Bennett, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University
Beatrice Crona, Stockholm Resilience Centre
Fabrice DeClerck, EAT Forum and One CGIAR
Jessica Fanzo, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University
Jessica A. Gephart, Dept. of Environmental Science, American University
Avinash Kishore, International Food Policy Research InstituteRosamond L. Naylor, Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University
Elizabeth R. Selig, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University
U. Rashid Sumaila, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia; School of Public Policy
and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia
Max Troell, Stockholm Resilience Centre
Blue foods to combat malnutrition
Michelle Tigchelaar, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University
Christopher D. Golden, Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthChristina C. Hicks, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University
J. Zachary Koehn, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University
Shakuntala H. Thilsted, WorldFish, CGIAR
Colette C.C. Wabnitz, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University; Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries,
University of British Columbia
Supporting small-scale actors in blue food value chains
Fiorenza Micheli, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University; Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University
Edward H. Allison, WorldFish, CGIAR
Xavier Basurto, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
Simon R. Bush, Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University
Ling Cao, School of Oceanography, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Christina C. Hicks, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University
Stefan Gelcich, Instituto Milenio en Socio-ecologia Costera & Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
David C. Little, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling
Rebecca E. Short, Stockholm Resilience Centre

For further information about the Scientiﬁc Group,
visit https://sc-fss2021.org or
contact info@sc-fss2021.org@sc_fss2021