Go to content

7. Sustainability and value chain analysis

This chapter places seaweed production and use within a broader sustainability and value-chain perspective. Building on the preceding chapters, which addressed nutrients, food safety, processing technologies, sensory quality and consumer acceptance, this chapter examines how seaweed cultivation and utilisation align with European sustainability objectives, environ­mental policy frameworks, and emerging blue-bioeconomy strategies. It synthesises current evidence on environmental performance, nutrient and carbon dynamics, and life cycle impacts, and discusses how these factors influence the long-term viability and credibility of the European seaweed sector. Attention is given to the distinction between conceptual environmental potential and verifiable, measurable sustainability outcomes across the value chain.

7.1. European framework for sustainable blue growth and seaweed cultivation

EU sustainable targets

The EU aims to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth through the European Green Deal (European Commission 2019), which outlines measures to mobilize public and private investment toward climate and environmental goals. The overarching target is climate neutrality by 2050 (European Commission 2018), with legally binding interim goals such as a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (EU 2021/1119). Similarly, the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (EU 2024/3019) requires member states to cut emissions of total phosphorus and nitrogen by 75% by 2025, and by up to 87.5% and 82.5%, respectively, by 2045.

Seaweeds and the blue bioeconomy

To mitigate climate change and reduce pressure on terrestrial food production, the EU increasingly recognizes the role of the oceans and promotes a transition from “blue growth” to a sustainable blue economy (European Commission 2021a). Within this framework, seaweeds are identified as renew­able biomass sources that can provide environmental and health benefits (European Commission 2022). The European Commission actively supports seaweed cultivation through the Sustainable Development of Aquaculture Strategy (European Commission 2021c), the Organic Production Action Plan (European Commission 2021b), and funding mechanisms such as the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) under the BlueInvest initiative, which has supported nearly 100 algae-focused companies (Carboni et al. 2025). Despite this momentum, European seaweed cultivation remains a nascent industry, mainly focused on at-sea farming of kelps (e.g. S. latissima, A. esculenta), with smaller pilot-scale efforts on Ulva spp. and P. palmata in land-based or IMTA systems (Barbier et al. 2020; Araújo et al. 2021). In 2022, European seaweed aquaculture produced approximately 1,040 t (wet weight) with a value of €6.3 million, of which some Nordic countries (i.e., Norway, Faroe Island, Denmark) contributed for 33% (Rebours and Sánchez López 2023).

EU water and nutrient policies

Recent EU policy discussions increasingly emphasise on carbon storage and alternative protein production from seaweed. In contrast, the potential of seaweed cultivation as a marine mitigation measure for nutrient recovery, particularly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), remains insuffi­ciently recognised. Existing key regulatory frameworks such as the Water Framework Directive (European Parliament and EU Council 2000), Nitrates Directive (European Parliament and EU Council 1991), and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Parliament and EU Council 2008) primarily conceptualise seaweed as indicators of eutrophication or symptoms of eutrophication rather than as active tools for nutrient removal. Large-scale field evidence now demonstrates that cultivated seaweeds can contribute measurably to nutrient uptake and removal, albeit at site-specific efficiencies and with clear spatial limitations (Bruhn et al. 2025). Although the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive strengthens nutrient removal requirements, it does not yet integrate marine biomass production, such as seaweed farming, into broader nutrient management or mitigation strategies. This represents a missed opportunity to link water policy objectives with emerging blue-bioeconomy solutions.

Environmental value of the seaweed sector

Within the framework of the Circular Economy Action Plan (European commission 2020) and the emerging EU Circular Economy Act, seaweeds have been increasingly highlighted as a nature-based solution with potential to support nutrient recovery, recycling and more resource-efficient food systems.  Seaweed cultivation is frequently associated with multiple environ­mental co-benefits, including uptake of dissolved nutrients, low input requirements, and compatibility with integrated multi-trophic systems. However, while the conceptual potential of the sector is well recognised, robust and comparable scientific evidence quanti­fying its net contributions, particularly with respect to long-term carbon sequestration and nitrogen and phosphorus removal at relevant spatial scales, remains limited and highly context dependent. Recent assessments emphasise that environmental benefits from seaweed cultivation depend strongly on species, cultivation density, site characteristics, hydrodynamics, and the fate of harvested biomass, and therefore cannot be assumed uniformly across production systems (Bruhn et al. 2025). Demonstrating measurable, verifiable and site-specific environmental outcomes will be essential if the seaweed sector is to credibly position itself within EU sustainability frameworks. In this regard, improved monitoring, harmonised metrics and transparent reporting of nutrient removal and carbon flows will be key to aligning seaweed production with the environmental sustainability criteria of the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities (European Parliament and EU Council 2020). While EU policy frameworks increasingly frame seaweed cultivation as a potential contributor to climate and nutrient objectives, the extent to which these ambitions can be realised depends on the underlying biogeochemical functioning of seaweed systems. Understanding the carbon and nutrient dynamics of cultivated seaweeds is therefore essential to assess their realistic mitigation potential.

7.2. Carbon and nitrogen removal potential of seaweed

The potential of seaweed cultivation to contribute to nutrient removal and climate mitigation is closely linked to its carbon and nitrogen dynamics, which vary across species, cultivation systems and environmental conditions.
The carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio of seaweeds has been used as an indicator of nutrient level in many studies (Chapman and Craigie 1977) and reflect nutrient conditions and climate adaptation throughout the growing period. C:N ratios are also fundamental for understanding many oceanic biogeochemical processes, such as nutrient flux and climate regulation (Sheppard et al. 2023). Kelp species can utilize ammonia instead of nitrate, making these seaweed good candidates for integration into an integrated multitrophic aquaculture system where predominantly ammonia-rich effluents are released from fed aquaculture (Handå et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2014). Similarly, the potential of the cosmopolitan and euryhaline genus Ulva has also been well documented for bioremediation of nutrients with high efficiency for uptake (from 40% up to 90%) resulting high biomass yield (40–100 g of DW m-2 day-1) (Neori et al. 2004; Bruhn et al. 2011; Nielsen et al. 2012; Lubsch and Timmermans 2019) with preferences for ammonium (Vandermeulen and Gordin 1990; Hernández et al. 2002). Further­more, seaweed systems, both natural ecosystems and aquaculture, have been considered potential contributors to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and climate mitigation (Duarte and Cebrián 1996). This expectation results partly from the hypothesis that seaweed productivity exceeds that of terrestrial plants (Froehlich et al. 2019; Yong et al. 2022). However, there is still non-consensus on whether seaweed systems act as net carbon sinks or sources. Evidence shows that natural ecosystems often exhibit high carbon fluxes and are generally net autotrophic, comparable to or exceeding other vegetated coastal habitats (Filbee-Dexter et al. 2023). Yet, other studies indicate that they can be net heterotrophic, functioning as CO2 sources when their productivity depends on organic carbon from external sources (Gallagher et al. 2022).

Carbon dynamics

In aquaculture, seaweeds may also act as temporary carbon stores rather than long-term sinks, since biomass is typically consumed as food or feed, leading to rapid carbon reminera­lisation (Fujita et al. 2023). Consequently, Hurd et al. (2022) advocate for a “forensic analysis” of carbon flows in seaweed systems to quantify organic carbon fluxes and storage. This is particularly important because seaweeds have short production–consumption cycles and can release substantial amounts of dissolved and particulate organic carbon, as well as very short-lived halocarbons, e.g., bromoform (CHBr3), methyl iodide (CH3I) and diiodomethane (CH2I2), which can alter the ozone layer and biogeo­chemical cycles (Stemmler et al. 2015; Keng et al. 2020). Under­standing their sources, quantifying emissions, and addressing existing knowledge gaps is therefore essential in the context of expanding seaweed aquaculture in a changing climate (Keng et al. 2020).
Although seaweeds can assimilate carbon and nutrients during growth, the environmental significance of this uptake depends on how biomass is harvested, processed and used. Evaluating the sustainability of seaweed-based products therefore requires a full value-chain perspective, which is commonly addressed through life cycle assessment (LCA).

7.3. Sustainable value-chain design

Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) play a central role in corporate sustainability, policy develop­ment, and assessing seaweeds’ contribution to the wider bio­economy. Current global sea­weed cultivation practices are associated with low emissions, typically 0.02–0.08 kg CO₂-eq. per kg wet seaweed, with key environ­mental hotspots arising during processing (particularly drying), transport, and the use of farm infrastructure such as ropes (Seghetta et al. 2016; Waqas et al. 2024; Thomas et al. 2024). Seaweed farming is therefore considered among the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) “blue foods” (Gephart et al. 2021). However, thermal drying and freezing remain major contributors to impacts (van Oirschot et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2021). Environmental performance is strongly influenced by the energy source used for drying (Error! Reference source not found.) as well as by farm scale, which affects the relative contribution of drying, transport, and storage (Koesling et al. 2021). Packaging and transport typically add 5–20 kg CO₂ eq. per tonne of fresh seaweed. Lower values correspond to short transport distances, efficient logistics, and lightweight packaging, while higher values are associated with long-distance road transport across Europe, refrigerated distribution, or more material-intensive packaging solutions (Seghetta et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2021).

Evaluating carbon storage

Non-harvested seaweed may contribute to a long-term carbon storage in the deep sea and sediments (Krause-Jensen and Duarte 2016). However, once seaweed is harvested for commercial use, the stored carbon is eventually released during product use. Food and feed have typically short lifespans. The end-of-life treatment further influences the climate impact by determining the sink (e.g. soil, marine sediment, air) and the gas composition (e.g. CO2, CH4). When evaluating seaweed as a food or feed ingredient, Hasselström and Thomas (2022) recommend limiting system boundaries to the factory gate or supermarket and excluding end-of-life impacts, assuming downstream carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics are comparable to those of other food products.
Table 12: Global warming and freshwater eutrophication potentials when using different sources of energy to produce 1 kg protein from Saccharina latissima (adapted from Koesling et al. (2021)). Abbreviations: Norway (NO), European Union (EU).
 
Fossil gas
Surplus energy
Incineration energy
NO electricity
EU electricity
Global warming Potential (kg CO2-eq)
32.1
15.7
139.2
17.9
44.0
Freshwater Eutrophication (kg P-eq.)
7.9 x 10-2
7.3 x 10-3
1.6 x 10-2
7.5 x 10-3
1.4 x 10-2

Knowledge gaps

Applying LCA to seaweed systems presents several challenges, including high variability, limited data, and methodological choices that strongly influence outcomes and hinder comparability. Addressing these issues is essential for meaningful interpretation and effective use of LCA results. Key knowledge gaps and methodological limitations in seaweed LCA research include:
  • lack of standardized methods to compare diverse production systems,
  • large variety of functional units,
  • limited ability to assess holistically cultivation impacts on local ecosystems,
  • missing impact categories for pressures such as microplastic or nanoparticle pollution, sea-use changes, spatially limited eutrophication, and consequences on the marine biodiversity  (Thomas et al. 2024),
  • insufficient data and database coverage, especially for comparing seaweed with other blue foods (Gephart et al. 2021) or terrestrial alternatives in substitution scenarios,
  • differences and uncertainties in climate-change modelling approaches, including timing of emissions (Brandão et al. 2013).
Therefore, to enable meaningful comparison of recent LCA studies on S. latissima, Thomas et al. (2024) compiled existing life cycle inventory data and recalculated key impacts (global warming and eutrophication) using a harmonised methodology.

7.4. Broader sustainability dimensions of the seaweed sector

While life cycle assessments and nutrient, carbon accounting provide essential insights into the environmental performance of seaweed production systems, they capture only part of the sustainability profile of the sector. In line with emerging EU sustainability and environmental accounting frameworks, broader dimensions, including impacts on biodiversity, economic resilience of value chains, and social and regional contributions, must also be considered. These dimensions are increasingly reflected in policy instruments such as ecosystem accounting, biodiversity strategies and circular economy frameworks, and are critical for evaluating how seaweed cultivation can contribute to a sustainable European bioeconomy. The present section therefore places seaweed production in a wider sustainability context, linking the evidence presented earlier in this chapter to biodiversity, economic and social assessment perspectives.

Biodiversity considerations

Seaweed cultivation interacts with marine ecosystems in ways that are increasingly relevant to EU biodiversity policy objectives. Under the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the forthcoming Biodiversity Act, there is a growing emphasis on assessing not only pressures on ecosystems but also nature-based solutions that may support ecosystem functioning. Cultivated seaweed farms may provide habitat structure, refuge and feeding opportunities for marine organisms, potentially contributing to local biodiversity enhancement. At the same time, farm installations can modify light availability, hydrodynamics and benthic conditions, with effects that are strongly site- and scale-dependent. To align seaweed cultivation with EU biodiversity objectives, impacts should be evaluated within established assessment frameworks such as MAES (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services) and reported through platforms such as BISE (Biodiversity Information System for Europe). These frameworks provide a basis for integrating seaweed cultivation into ecosystem assessments by linking ecological status, pressures and ecosystem services at relevant spatial scales. Applying such tools would allow biodiversity effects of seaweed farming, both positive and negative, to be systematically documented and compared across regions, supporting evidence-based spatial planning and adaptive management.

Economic sustainability of the seaweed value chain

Economic sustainability is a prerequisite for the long-term viability of the seaweed sector and for its contribution to EU circular bioeconomy objectives. As demonstrated by the LCAs and value-chain analyses discussed earlier in this chapter, seaweed cultivation is characterised by relatively low input requirements at the farming stage, while post-harvest processing, particularly drying, freezing and logistics, represents a dominant cost and environmental hotspot. Embedding seaweed production within circular economy frameworks, as promoted by the European Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan, requires optimisation across the full value chain. This includes processing infrastructure hubs, energy-efficient techno­logies, valorisation of side streams and development of higher-value food and ingredient applications. Assessing economic sustainability alongside environ­mental performance is consistent with integrated accounting approaches such as the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA; seea.un.org), which emphasises linking physical resource flows with economic value creation. Applying such approaches to seaweed systems would support more transparent evaluation of trade-offs between cost, resource efficiency and environmental performance.

Social and economic contributions

Beyond environmental and economic metrics, the seaweed sector may contribute to social sustainability, particularly in coastal and rural regions. Potential benefits include job creation, diversification of maritime livelihoods and regional value creation. However, as highlighted by the broader sustainability discussion in this chapter, these contributions are not automatic and depend on governance structures, ownership models, access to infrastructure and integration with existing coastal activities. To systematically capture these contributions, social and ecosystem-service dimensions of seaweed cultivation can be assessed using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, version 5.2), which is increasingly applied within EU environmental accounting and policy contexts. CICES provides a structured framework to classify provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services, including those relevant to food production, nutrient regulation and socio-economic benefits. Aligning seaweed assess­ments with CICES and SEEA-based approaches would allow social and economic contributions to be evaluated alongside environmental performance, supporting more holistic sustainability reporting and policy integration.

7.5. Conclusions and recommendations

Seaweed farming has the potential to support climate mitigation as well as nutrient management through several different pathways. However, not all of these pathways are currently quantifiable within existing policy and accounting frameworks. For food or feed applications, carbon storage is inherently short-lived highlighting the importance of clearly distinguishing between temporary carbon uptake and long-term climate mitigation claims. To enable the seaweed sector to contribute meaningfully to a biobased economy, there is a need to bridge knowledge gaps related to the substitution of fossil-based or high-impact products (e.g., energy, biopolymers) and to maximise the duration of biogenic carbon storage in long-lasting products (e.g., building materials). Strengthening this evidence base is essential to drive climate-beneficial innovation and support long-term carbon storage. Future sustain­ability gains are therefore likely to depend on how seaweed-derived biomass substitutes higher-impact products and how value chains are designed to maximise environmental performance.
A first estimate of the carbon sequestration and nutrient (N, P) recovery potential of Norwegian seaweed farms (Rebours & Stévant, in prep.) and the Danish model scenarios on cultivation of S. latissima as a marine measure for mitigating eutrophication (Bruhn et al. 2025) be extended to European-scale farming through integrated modelling approaches (Macias et al. 2025) and include species beyond kelps that may be better suited to warmer cultivation conditions.
For the seaweed industry to fully demonstrate its sustainability performance and report under the EU taxonomy as any other bio-based sector, further research is needed to close knowledge gaps and support climate-beneficial innovation, sustainable industry development, and long-term integration of seaweed into the European bioeconomy.
Beyond greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient flows, the sustainability performance of the seaweed sector must be evaluated within a broader framework that also considers bio­diversity impacts, economic resilience and social contributions. As discussed in this chapter, these dimensions are increasingly reflected in EU environmental and sustainability assess­ment frameworks, including ecosystem and biodiversity accounting approaches. Integrating LCA with site-specific biodiversity evaluation, value-chain economics and social impact assessment is therefore essential to provide a comprehensive and credible sustainability profile of seaweed production systems. Such integrated assessment will be critical for informing policy development, guiding responsible sector growth and supporting evidence-based sustainability claims as the European seaweed industry continues to scale.
  • Sustainability performance for seaweed-based foods: Farmed seaweed generally exhibits a low environmental footprint compared to other seafoods. However, processing steps (e.g., drying, freezing) represent major environmental hotspots and will strongly influence sustainability outcomes as production scales up.  
  • Carbon and nutrient dynamics: Seaweed assimilate carbon and nutrients during growth, but carbon storage in food and feed applications is short-lived. Claims related to long-term climate mitigation must therefore be clearly distinguished from temporary carbon uptake and supported by transparent, evidence-based sustainability assessments and accounting.
  • Nutrient recovery potential:  Cultivated seaweeds can contribute to nitrogen and phosphorus removal at local scales, especially in integrated systems, but effectiveness is highly site- and species-specific and should not be assumed uniformly.
  • Value-chain perspective: Life cycle assessments show that farm design, energy sources and processing choices are key determinants of environ­mental performance. Harmonised methods and improved data availability are needed to enable meaningful comparison across systems.
  • Policy alignment: To credibly position seaweed production within EU sustainability frameworks and taxonomy criteria, measurable, verifiable and context-specific evidence is required, particularly regarding nutrient mitigation and climate impacts.
  • Biodiversity: Seaweed cultivation may influence marine biodiversity both positively and negatively. Integrating seaweed farming into EU bio­diversity frameworks (e.g. Biodiversity Act, MAES, BISE) is essential to ensure site-specific, evidence-based assessment and responsible spatial planning.
  • Economic sustainability: While seaweed farming has a low environmental footprint at the cultivation stage, processing remains a major cost and impact hotspot. Applying circular economy principles and environmental-economic accounting approaches can support cost-efficient and resilient value-chain design.
  • Social and economic contributions: Seaweed systems may support coastal employment and regional development, but benefits depend on governance and business models. Using established frameworks such as CICES (v5.2) enables systematic assessment of ecosystem services and social value creation.