Special attention must be paid to small-scale actors and marginalised groups

From your experience co-creating aquaculture solutions with partners in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), what lessons have proved most effective for fostering locally relevant innovation?

The most important lesson is to anchor research that underpins innovation in priorities co-defined with in-country partners and to involve relevant stakeholders throughout. As a scientist at the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), working in equitable partnership with LMIC colleagues is key to co-defining research agendas responsive to these priorities, so that findings are usable in those contexts. By equitable partnership I mean shared leadership and decision-making, fair recognition and co-authorship, and investments that strengthen local laboratories and analytical capacity rather than extracting samples or data. Building capability — through training, peer exchange, and North–South and South–South collaboration — is part of the innovation pathway because it builds the skills to iterate beyond the project. When the evidence base is co-owned and capacities are strengthened, solutions are more likely to be taken up, adapted, and sustained by local actors.

Which groups tend to be excluded from innovation processes in aquatic food systems, and what barriers drive their exclusion?

Women, youth, small-scale actors, and Indigenous and coastal communities are frequently left out of innovation processes in aquatic food systems. Exclusion often stems from the absence of collaboration models that ensure equitable participation in agenda-setting, meaning their perspectives shape neither the priorities nor the way innovations are developed and applied. Barriers include regulatory and funding frameworks that are easier for larger or formal actors to navigate, with funding and credit often inaccessible to small-scale or informal actors; capacity building and training that are insufficiently adapted to low literacy, mobility constraints, or limited digital access; and governance structures that do not create safe or inclusive spaces for participation. As a result, these groups may be consulted late, if at all, reducing their ability to co-own and benefit from innovations.

Which factors shape who benefits from innovation in aquatic food systems, and what actions can help ensure that small-scale actors—as well as larger enterprises—share in those benefits?

Who benefits from innovation in aquatic food systems depends on the structures and choices shaping its development and uptake. Too often, technological and market-oriented innovations are taken up by larger, formal enterprises, which have the finance, infrastructure, and regulatory access to apply them at scale. Small-scale actors—who form the backbone of fisheries and aquaculture in many regions—are excluded when innovations are not tailored to their capacities, needs, or constraints. Gender and age also shape outcomes: women and youth often face barriers linked to norms, mobility, and access to assets, which constrain their ability to benefit even when innovations are available.

Ensuring that benefits are more evenly distributed requires deliberate choices. Innovations need to be designed with accessibility in mind—through frugal, adaptable models that small-scale actors can use, or through funding and training arrangements tailored to their realities. Equally important is embedding equity in governance, so that decisions about scaling and benefit-sharing reflect diverse voices. When these elements align, innovations can mitigate the concentration of benefits among a few actors and instead generate broader, more inclusive impacts.

Which enabling conditions are most critical for innovation in aquatic food systems?

Isolated innovations rarely yield positive results across multiple sustainability dimensions, which is why it is important to see innovation not as stand-alone fixes but as systemic processes that integrate technological, social, institutional, and policy advancements as levers for food systems transformation. For this purpose, the creation of supportive innovation ecosystems is critical to drive sustainable and equitable outcomes. By innovation ecosystems I mean the networks of actors, institutions, resources, and rules that together shape how ideas are generated, tested, and scaled. When these ecosystems function well, they create the conditions for innovation to respond to local priorities, while ensuring that benefits are distributed more fairly.

Building such ecosystems means addressing several dimensions together. Collaboration and networks are essential to connect scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and communities so that knowledge can circulate and solutions can be co-developed. Inclusivity and equity must be embedded, with women, youth, and marginalised groups involved from agenda-setting through implementation. Capacity building and training help create the human capital needed to sustain innovation pathways. Policy and governance support should provide both room for experimentation while safeguarding equity and sustainability. Finally, access to resources and funding must be designed to reach small-scale and informal actors, so that promising ideas have the opportunity to be tested and scaled.

Looking ahead, what innovations are most urgent for aquatic food systems to maximise their contribution to nutrition?

Meeting the nutrition potential of aquatic food systems requires expanding the role of aquatic foods in equitable and sustainable ways so that they contribute more directly to healthy diets, especially for vulnerable populations. This transformation must confront two grand challenges: sustainably producing more nutritious aquatic foods and ensuring equitable access to them. Addressing these challenges is not only a matter of technology, but of systemic, nutrition-sensitive approaches that respect ecological boundaries and livelihoods.

Several areas of innovation stand out. Technological innovations—such as more sustainable feeds, disease control methods, and digital tools for production and traceability—are critical for increasing supply without undermining ecosystems. Market-oriented innovations, including new distribution channels and circular economy models, can improve access and affordability while reducing waste. Institutional and governance innovations are needed to reshape decision-making structures, for example through regulatory frameworks that balance inclusivity, equity, and sustainability. Social innovations are equally important, especially participatory approaches that institutionalise the co-creation of knowledge with stakeholders and rights-holders. These approaches ensure that local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge is recognised alongside scientific expertise, and that solutions are grounded in the realities of those who depend most on aquatic foods. Across all these areas, special attention must be paid to small-scale actors and marginalised groups, whose contributions are central but whose access to resources and decision-making is often constrained. Multi-stakeholder partnerships—particularly those led by low- and middle-income countries and involving diverse knowledge systems—are essential to ensure that innovations remain equitable, context-appropriate, and sustainable.