Biosecurity policy and legislation for the global seaweed aquaculture industry

Abstract

Each year a significant proportion of global food production is lost to pests and diseases, with concerted efforts by government and industry focussed on application of effective biosecurity policies which attempt to minimise their emergence and spread. In aquaculture the volume of seaweeds produced is second only to farmed fish and red algal carrageenophytes currently represent approximately 42% of global production of all seaweeds. Despite this importance, expansion of the seaweed sector is increasingly limited by the high prevalence of recalcitrant diseases and epiphytic pests with potential to emerge and with the demonstrated propensity to spread, particularly in the absence of effective national and international biosecurity policies. Developing biosecurity policy and legislation to manage biosecurity risk in seaweed aquaculture is urgently required to limit these impacts. To understand current international biosecurity frameworks and their efficacy, existing legislative frameworks were analysed quantitatively for the content of biosecurity measures, applicability to the seaweed industry, and inclusion of risks posed by diseases, pests and non-native species. Deficiencies in existing frameworks included the following: inconsistent terminology for inclusion of cultivated seaweeds, unclear designation of implementation responsibility, insufficient evidence-based information and limited alignment of biosecurity hazards and risks. Given the global importance of the cultivation of various seaweeds in alleviating poverty in low and middle income countries, it is crucial that the relatively low-unit value of the industry (i.e. as compared with other aquatic animal sectors) should not conflate with a perceived low risk of disease or pest transfer, nor the subsequent economic and environmental impact that disease transfer may impact on receiving nations (well beyond their seaweed operations). Developing a clear basis for development of robust international biosecurity policies related to the trade in seaweeds arising from the global aquaculture industry, by first addressing the gaps highlighted in this study, will be crucial in limiting impacts of pests and diseases on this valuable industry and on natural capital in locations where seaweeds are farmed.

Exploring, harnessing and conserving marine genetic resources towards a sustainable seaweed aquaculture

“…Meta-barcoding evidence suggests the existence of a hidden diversity of pathogens that are yet to be described (Badis et al, 2019). Despite the well-documented lessons learnt from the aforementioned oyster and crustacean industries, these examples and subsequent assessments, highlight a comparative lack of biosecurity awareness and implementation in the seaweed industry at both an international (Campbell et al, 2019) and national level (Kambey et al, 2020;Mateo et al, 2020;Rusekwa et al, 2020).…”

“…Seaweeds in their current early state of domestication and with their aquatic habitat sit at the crossroads of regulatory frameworks. Within the national jurisdiction zone, seaweeds-whether cultivated or not-are regulated under the Nagoya Protocol, as their aquatic origin currently excludes them from being considered under the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) (Campbell et al, 2019). The Nagoya Protocol gives countries sovereignty over the genetic resources within their national jurisdiction.…”

“…The imbalance of knowledge between terrestrial and marine organisms is illustrated by the low proportion of functionally annotated genes in the few available genomes of marine organisms, for example, brown algae (Dittami et al, 2020) or corals (Cleves et al, 2020). Several authors have recently called for the urgent development of a suitable governance structure to protect the intellectual property of innovators, yet refraining unequitable appropriation of marine genetic resources (Blasiak et al, 2018;Vanagt et al, 2019), to guarantee the conservation of biodiversity (Diz, 2018), and if traded, to promote good biosecurity practice (Campbell et al, 2019). Amongst all marine resources, algae have a long-recognised, yet still underutilised, potential for human use and biotechnological applications (Arrieta et al, 2010).…”

“…Many other domesticated seaweed species face similar challenges, such as a narrow genetic diversity of cultivars (e.g. Guillemin et al, 2008), an increased frequency of diseases and pests (Loureiro et al, 2015), gene flow between farms and wild populations (Grulois et al, 2011), as well as limited or inadequate governance (Campbell et al, 2019). A common theme underlying many of these issues, is the management of genetic resources and the requirement to develop robust regional, national and supranational governance towards their conservation, as well as their equitable and sustainable exploitation.…”

Understanding biosecurity: knowledge, attitudes and practices of seaweed farmers in the Philippines

“…Biosecurity measures related to seaweed aquaculture, however, are absent from the literature, with the exception of Sulu et al (2004), which describes basic quarantine protocols. Campbell et al (2020) reported four biosecurity policy challenges faced by the seaweed industry globally, which should be addressed to make the industry more robust and sustainable. These challenges included (1) inconsistent terminology for the inclusion of seaweeds in regulatory frameworks, (2) limited guidance for the responsibility of implementation of biosecurity measures, (3) insufficient evidence to develop disease and pest-specific policies and (4) lack of a coherent approach to seaweed biosecurity risk management in international policies.…”