VERSION 5.3 · FEBRUARY 2026 · VALIDATED EU ES VALUE
Scale, Ecosystem Services, and ESG Value of No-Feed Marine Aquaculture
A quantitative analysis · Oceanfarmr · 2026
Annual Production
0Mt
bivalves + seaweed
Farm Area
0k ha
marine environment
Estimated Farms
0k
globally (revised)
ESG Value
$0.00B USD
uncompensated annually
Global ocean farming produces approximately 52 million tonnes annually, comprising 15.5 million tonnes of bivalves and 36.5 million tonnes of seaweed. This production occurs across an estimated 880,000 hectares of marine environment, cultivated by approximately 597,000 farms. The sector is dominated by North Asia, particularly China, which accounts for over 75% of total production. The revised farm count is a substantial upward correction from the previous ~92,000 estimate, driven by the inclusion of ~450,000 Indonesian seaweed smallholders and tens of thousands of additional bivalve sites across North Asia and Europe.
Beyond its contribution to global food supply, the sector generates an estimated $4.73 billion in uncompensated ecosystem services each year — including nitrogen removal, carbon sequestration, and habitat provision for wild fish stocks.
CONFIDENCE STATEMENT
Production volumes are of high confidence, based on FAO data. Farm area, farm count, and ecosystem service valuations are of medium confidence, representing derived estimates based on peer-reviewed coefficients and regional data.
Production by sector and major producing countries (2022 data, FAO)
PRODUCTION BY SECTOR (THOUSAND TONNES)
FARM AREA & COUNT BY REGION
| Region | Farms | Avg ha |
|---|---|---|
| North Asia | 57,350 | 11.7 |
| S & SE Asia | 514,000 | 0.3 |
| Europe | 10,200 | 1.9 |
| S. America | 2,150 | 4.0 |
| N. America | 4,000 | 1.7 |
| Oceania | 2,000 | 2.3 |
| Africa & ME | 7,400 | 0.4 |
| Total | ~597,100 | 1.4 |
TOP 5 BIVALVE PRODUCING COUNTRIES
| # | Country | Tonnes/yr | Primary Species |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | China | ~9,500,000 | C. gigas, R. philippinarum, mussels |
| 2 | South Korea | ~800,000 | C. gigas, mussels |
| 3 | Japan | ~600,000 | C. gigas, scallops |
| 4 | Spain | ~300,000 | Mytilus galloprovincialis |
| 5 | France | ~200,000 | C. gigas, O. edulis |
TOP 5 SEAWEED PRODUCING COUNTRIES
| # | Country | Tonnes/yr | Primary Species |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | China | ~18,500,000 | S. japonica, U. pinnatifida, P. yezoensis |
| 2 | Indonesia | ~9,100,000 | Eucheuma, Kappaphycus |
| 3 | South Korea | ~2,000,000 | S. japonica, U. pinnatifida |
| 4 | Philippines | ~1,500,000 | Eucheuma, Kappaphycus |
| 5 | Japan | ~400,000 | U. pinnatifida, P. yezoensis |
Interactive map of bivalve and seaweed farm locations by country — click any bubble to inspect
GLOBAL FARM DISTRIBUTION — INTERACTIVE MAP
Click any bubble to inspect country data. Bubble size is proportional to farm count on a log scale.
Annual uncompensated environmental value — a conservative floor estimate
TOTAL ESG VALUE BY SERVICE (USD MILLIONS)
$3.70B
As bivalves and seaweed feed, they extract nitrogen and phosphorus from the water column. When harvested, these nutrients are permanently removed, mitigating coastal eutrophication. The 140,000 tonnes of nitrogen removed annually is valued at the replacement cost of conventional wastewater treatment ($25/kg N, $10/kg P).
$156M
Two pathways are quantified. Tier 1 (high confidence): bivalve shell formation permanently sequesters ~867,000 t CO₂/yr. Tier 2 (medium confidence): oyster farming enhances the biological carbon pump, adding ~693,000 t CO₂/yr (Chen et al. 2025). Seaweed carbon is excluded pending resolution of the net sequestration debate.
$876M
The complex three-dimensional structures of bivalve farms function as artificial reefs, providing shelter and foraging grounds for juvenile fish and invertebrates. This enhances local biodiversity and supports commercial fisheries. Valued at $1,700/ha/yr across 515,497 ha of bivalve farm area (Barrett et al. 2022).
TOTAL QUANTIFIED ESG VALUE (CENTRAL ESTIMATE)
$0.00B
Per year. Conservative floor — excludes water clarity improvements, coastal protection, biodiversity enhancement, and oxygen production. Future research may allow robust quantification of these additional services.
Average annual production value and ecosystem service value by region
The analysis reveals two distinct stories. The first is that of bivalve powerhouses: large, capital-intensive farms in North Asia, Oceania, and South America generating millions in revenue and hundreds of thousands in ecosystem services.
The second is the smallholder seaweed story: hundreds of thousands of family-run micro-farms (0.3–0.5 ha) in Southeast Asia and Africa where the uncompensated ESG value they create is equivalent to 50–75% of their modest income of $2,700–$4,900 per year — a profound inequity and a major opportunity for climate finance and payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes.
PRODUCTION VALUE vs. ES VALUE PER FARM (USD '000)
PER-FARM VALUE BY REGION (ANNUAL AVERAGE)
| Region | Est. Farms | Avg ha | Prod Value/Farm | ES Value/Farm | ES as % of Prod | Count Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Asia | ~57,350 | 11.7 | $204,917 | $57,289 | 28.0% | A/B |
| South & SE Asia | ~514,000 | 0.3 | $2,720 | $1,407 | 51.7% | A/B |
| Europe | ~10,200 | 1.9 | $51,574 | $18,800²² | 36.5% | A |
| South America | ~2,150 | 4.0 | $110,512 | $49,002 | 44.3% | A |
| North America | ~4,000 | 1.7 | $46,825 | $11,743 | 25.1% | A |
| Oceania | ~2,000 | 2.3 | $63,850 | $20,317 | 31.8% | A |
| Africa & Middle East | ~7,400 | 0.4 | $4,851 | $2,370 | 48.8% | B/C |
| Global Average | 597,100 | 1.4 | $23,890 | $7,387 | 30.9% | — |
¹Ireland BIM 2023 figure represents licensed sites. The number of active operators is estimated at ~630 across oyster and mussel sectors.
²Europe ES value is based on FAO global averages. A higher-fidelity EU-focused analysis yields a scientifically-grounded valuation of €142M/yr (~€14,200/farm) for EU oyster and mussel sectors (EU Bivalve Basket Finance TAM Report v1.2). A market-based aspirational proxy implies a potential mid-case of €623M; the low-case proxy of €3/basket/yr (€187M) is directly validated by the bottom-up scientific calculation.
Environmental comparison and social dimension
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT COMPARISON
| Food System | GHG (kg CO₂e/kg) | Land (m²/kg protein) | Water (L/kg protein) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bivalves | ~1.5 | ~0 | ~0 |
| Salmon (farmed) | ~3–5 | ~3.7 | ~2,000 |
| Chicken | ~6 | ~7.1 | ~4,300 |
| Pork | ~7 | ~11 | ~5,900 |
| Beef | ~27 | ~164 | ~15,400 |
Source: Poore & Nemecek 2018; Gephart et al. 2021
SOCIAL DIMENSION
Livelihoods
6–10 million
Supported globally, primarily in rural coastal communities.
Gender Equity
Majority female
Women comprise the majority of the workforce in many developing-country seaweed farming contexts.
Food Security
High-quality protein
Provides vital micronutrients with a low environmental impact.
Cultural Heritage
Centuries of practice
Deep cultural significance in coastal communities across Asia, Europe, and the Pacific.
Natural assets that are vulnerable to a range of environmental threats
The ecosystem services described in this report are natural assets that are vulnerable to a range of environmental threats. The 2023/24 heatwaves that devastated mussel and clam harvests in Galicia, Spain, are a stark reminder of this vulnerability. Understanding these risks is critical for valuing these services appropriately and for designing resilient farming systems.
RISK SEVERITY GUIDE
| Risk Factor | Severity | Sectors Most Affected | Impact on ES Delivery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thermal Stress & Marine Heatwaves | High | Oysters, mussels, seaweed | Mass mortality events reduce nutrient removal and carbon sequestration; reproductive failure reduces recruitment. The 2023/24 Spanish mussel and Galicia harvest disruptions illustrate the scale of potential losses. |
| Pathogen Outbreaks | High | Oysters (OsHV-1), mussels | Bonamia, Marteilia, and OsHV-1 can devastate bivalve populations; farm closures eliminate ES delivery entirely in affected areas. |
| Ocean Acidification | High | All bivalves | Reduced carbonate ion availability impairs shell formation, reducing Tier 1 carbon sequestration and increasing production costs. |
| Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) | Medium | All bivalves, seaweed | HABs trigger mandatory harvest closures, interrupting nutrient removal and income; frequency is increasing with warming. |
| Storms and Gear Failure | Medium | All sectors | Infrastructure damage disrupts production and can release gear into the marine environment, creating pollution and habitat damage. |
Risk framework adapted from the Source Report (anonymous prospectus, 2025) [11], with modifications.
Data sources, coefficients, and key assumptions
PRIMARY DATA SOURCES
| Data Type | Primary Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Production Volume | FAO FishStat / SOFIA 2024 | High |
| Nutrient Coefficients | van der Schatte Olivier et al. 2020 | Medium-High |
| Carbon Coefficients | Tan et al. 2026; Chen et al. 2025 | Medium |
| Habitat Value | Barrett et al. 2022 | Medium |
KEY ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
Yield Coefficients
Farm area is derived from production using generalized yield coefficients; actual farm yields vary significantly.
Farm Count (v3.0)
Hybrid Tier A/B/C methodology. Tier A = source-confirmed (USDA, DFO, Eurofish, NZ MPI, etc.). Tier B = partial source + area-derived. Tier C = area-derived only. Global total dominated by ~450k Indonesian seaweed smallholders (Fulcrum/Submariner); uncertainty range 400k–500k.
Nutrient Coefficients
Values are based on temperate species and may not fully represent tropical variants.
Carbon Tier 2
The organic CDR multiplier is based on a single mesocosm study on one oyster species and carries significant uncertainty.
Valuation
Economic values are based on replacement cost and voluntary market prices, which may not reflect the full societal value of the services.
Global ocean farming is a multi-billion dollar industry that provides a far greater, uncompensated contribution to society through the provision of critical ecosystem services. The sector's ability to produce nutritious food with a net positive environmental impact is nearly unique in the global food system.
The most vulnerable producers — smallholder seaweed farmers in developing nations — are also the most significant providers of relative ESG value. This presents a clear and compelling opportunity for governments, investors, and corporations to develop payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes.
The integration of Chen et al. (2025) has increased the estimated climate mitigation value of the sector by 80%, raising total carbon sequestration to ~1.6 million tonnes CO₂ per year and total ESG value by approximately 15%.
NATURAL CAPITAL FRAMEWORK
TERRESTRIAL AGRICULTURE
Generates a Natural Capital Debt through soil degradation, water consumption, and GHG emissions.
OCEAN FARMING
Offers a Natural Capital Dividend — cleaner water, sequestered carbon, and enhanced biodiversity.
"Where traditional food systems generate a Natural Capital Debt, ocean farming offers a Natural Capital Dividend."