I just returned from a mission to two countries in Central Asia that are quickly developing into middle income nations. Both are “aquaculture ambitious”. One has plans to increase aquaculture from the current ~45,000 MT to 270,000 MT, and ~100,000 MT of this will be in-water cage aquaculture. Many other countries - with crowded or polluted coasts - want to develop “offshore aquaculture” (PAUSE HERE...We’ve proposed to change the lexicon from "offshore": see Buck et al. 2024, Sclodnick et al. 2024). Stroud in SeafoodSource.com published on May 16, 2025 wrote that a proposal is pending in America asking government to fund US$42 million to develop "offshore" aquaculture (in U.S. this means in "federal waters").
These proposals are admirable. The world needs an expansion of sustainable aquaculture that creates more jobs and income (especially in rural areas) without any additional environmental harm. Many would question the expansion of fed finfish aquaculture is the top priority, but let’s leave that discussion for another day.
I have some points to make to decision-makers in the "aquaculturally ambitious":
(1) In countries with little aquaculture (most of the world outside of Asia) investments in capacity building must occur at much higher levels to meet ambitious production and social/economic goals at the level of a nation-state. Funding must go not only to “R&D” but to international partnerships with aquaculturally developed countries and experienced, applied industry and academic experts, or these places will risk recreating the wheel rather than leapfrogging to the latest advances in 2025. Technology transfer and extension services are priorities.
This is not R&D. This is small r and big D (r&D).
(2) The globalization of seafood rules. Building bridges, not walls, is required. Trade barriers will not work. Trade makes more money along value chains, especially with seafood, one of the world’s most widely traded food commodities. This is especially so if most seafoods are eaten in retail venues (e.g. restaurants, hotels, etc.).
WTO agreements increase flows; trade barriers and tariffs fall.
What is capacity building in aquaculture?
It is developing - over time - cadres of knowledgeable aquaculture professionals who know not only the breadth and depth of possible land and water-based technologies and species possibilities that could fit local environments and social-ecological conditions, but also know how to solve complex governance issues, do modern spatial planning, know the in-depth engineering challenges and solutions; and then present realistic economics, risk analyses, and options for investments in production and value chains. Cognoscent local people can then sort through all of the incomer investor proposals, help decision-makers make better choices, and not be fooled or "hoodwinked" by big promises of production in unrealistically short periods of time, the promises of the many jobs created, and resulting increases in incomes/tax revenues, etc.
Failures will always happen but the human and institutional capacity to derisk has existed for over 20 years (for example, see Fletcher et al. 2004).
When in Central Asia I heard there was to be a "scientific center” created; and that aquaculture was to be included. I've heard this so many times before. In my experience, unless there are seriously experienced aquaculture advisors involved at the outset over a meaningful time in the development of aquaculture as an integral part into a new science center - these oftentimes have much larger and broader objectives - aquaculture is at risk of being sidelined, underinvested, or being controlled by environmental, agriculture and fisheries people with too many other urgent priorities. New, exciting aquaculture possibilities soon get lost after the last “parachute” consultant on mission leaves. Serious attention is not given to following the evolutionary developments of aquaculture value chains or the building of national/local partnership aquaculture extension services. “Parachute type” expert visits can be important but are not a replacement for the international involvement of colleagues on call to locals to help build their networks, make referrals and weigh in on urgent decisions.
Countries as diverse as Norway, China, Ecuador, Australia and others have made aquaculture mistakes, certainly, but they have stayed the course and made robust international partnerships and multidisciplinary and long term (10 years a minimum) investments. Other places with much smaller national aquaculture productions have prioritized capacity building in another way - by building international “small r, big D” investments in institutions. Witness the accomplishments of the Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Scotland in Thailand (Asian Institute of Technology) and Bangladesh to name just two, and Wageningen University, Netherlands, and Auburn University, USA. These national institutional investments into international institutions have had far reaching global impacts, and, in my opinion, are among the world’s greatest aquaculture capacity building stories.
Norway and China are the world’s most advanced aquaculture nations. I have had the honor/pleasure of working in both. In recent years they have developed a very important international aquaculture partnership, and it has been estimated that, together, Norway and China have invested Euro 1.2-1.7 billion in “offshore” aquaculture in 4 years.
Results of the international aquaculture partnership have been nothing short of spectacular.
The total number of patent applications in “offshore” aquaculture rose from 1,575 (2012) to 4,487 (2018) with China accounting for most of the increase.
Godfrey wrote in SeafoodSource.com on May 23, 2025 that Norway's share of China salmon market hit a 10-year high in April. As other countries try to develop marine/large lake nearshore and in exposed, energetic sites, some points are important to make. Godfrey (2025) stated:
(1) Norway's share of China's salmon market hit a 10 year high in April 2025, with a 67% market share according to the Norwegian Seafood Council’s office in China. Norway exported 44,700 MT to China in the first four months of 2025; a 33% increase compared to 2024.
(2) The main market channels were hotel, restaurant, catering (interesting abbreviation they used, HoReCa), and Japanese restaurants. Salmon marketed to HoReCa was ~85% of the Chinese market in 2023, with the remainder retail and e-commerce. However, it was noted that retail and e-commerce were crucial for "growing the consumer base and getting a higher home consumption.”
(3) For the rest of 2025 Norway plans to increase its marketing budget in China "to further strengthen Norway’s hold on the market". The Norwegian Seafood Council is currently working on a marketing program with Chinese chefs "to serve as ambassadors for Norwegian salmon.”
(4) The Norwegian Seafood Council stated that “In contrast to the general economy and retail market in China, the salmon market is performing outstandingly, driven by a combination of decreased prices on salmon from all countries." Norwegian prices are very competitive, and, "underlying growth in the Chinese market driven by both modern retail and new online channels reaching out to new consumers groups even in smaller Chinese cities.”
For the aquaculture ambitious, note these important facts:
Norway invests large sums across the salmon aquaculture value chain in extension, economics, sales, and marketing in China and other countries. Norway has an office in China. Norway will increase its marketing budget in China. Norway is making connections to tourism and culinary communities in China. Sales in China are increasing because of “decreased prices on salmon from all countries”. Norway invests globally in salmon aquaculture and controls a large share of production in Chile and other salmon producing countries (Iceland, UK, etc.), thus can control prices.
References from NYGP
Buck B.H. et al. 2024. Resolving the term “offshore aquaculture”: the importance of decoupling it from “exposed” and “distance from the coast”. Frontiers in Aquaculture, 3:1428056. doi: 10.3389/faquc.2024.1428056
Fletcher, W.J. et al. 2004. National ESD Reporting Framework: The ‘How To’ Guide for Aquaculture. Version 1.1 FRDC, Canberra, Australia.
Sclodnick, T. et al. 2024. From “open ocean” to “exposed aquaculture”: why and how we are changing the standard terminology describing “offshore aquaculture”. Frontiers in Aquaculture 3:1428187. doi: 10.3389/faquc.2024.1428187
