NITI Aayog

Choose Report Type

Publications

Publication Date

Fri, 08/02/2024 - 15:06

Report Upload

Strategy for the development of Seaweed Value Chain (6.96 MB)

vertical

Agriculture & Allied sector

PDF Text

STRATEGYSTRATEGY
FOR THE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF
SEAWEED VALUE CHAINSEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
Fostering Diversified LivelihoodsFostering Diversified Livelihoods STRATEGYSTRATEGY
FOR THE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF
SEAWEED VALUE CHAINSEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
Fostering Diversified LivelihoodsFostering Diversified Livelihoods Strategy For The Development Of
Seaweed Value Chain
Fostering Diversified Livelihoods
Corporate Author: NITI Aayog
Photo Credit: ICAR-CMFRI & NIOT
Published: June 2024
ISBN Number: 978-81-967183-2-9
DR. NEELAM PATEL
(Senior Adviser, NITI Aayog)
SHRI PAREMAL BANAFARR
(Young Professional, NITI Aayog)
DR. PURVAJA RAMACHANDRAN
(Director, NCSCM)
DR. ARUP GHOSH
(Sr. Principal Scientist, CSIR-CSMCRI)
DR. JOHNSON B
(Sr. Scientist, ICAR-CMFRI)
DR. DHARANI G
(Scientist F, NIOT)
AUTHORS POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN i POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN iii POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN v POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN vii POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN ix POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN xi POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
i
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................................iv
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms...............................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter-I: The Imperative to Seaweed Development...............................................................................................5
Chapter-II: Environmental Considerations in Seaweed Cultivation...................................................................13
Chapter-III: Potential Areas for Onshore Seaweed Farming...............................................................................23
Chapter-IV: Technical and Economic Feasibility of Onshore Seaweed Farming........................................39
Chapter-V: Technical and Economic Feasibility of Offshore Seaweed Farming.........................................59
Chapter-VI: Processing Technologies for Seaweed................................................................................................69
Chapter-VII: Leading the Way through Global Best Practices............................................................................81
Chapter-VIII: Recommendations & Way Forward....................................................................................................99
Annexure-I: Basic Production Data Including Market Value and Infrastructure Cost of Different
Agarophytes.........................................................................................................................................................................110
Annexure-II: List of Sites for Seaweed Cultivation..................................................................................................113
Annexure-III: Laws Pertaining to Coral Reef Protection......................................................................................129
Annexure-IV: Expert Committee Office Memorandum........................................................................................131
References.............................................................................................................................................................................133
List of Contributors��141
TABLE OF CONTENTS POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN ii
Figure 1. Export of seaweed, 2019..................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2. Export of seaweed-based hydrocolloids, 2019........................................................................................8
Figure 3. Import of seaweed, 2019..................................................................................................................................8
Figure 4. Import of seaweed-based hydrocolloids, 2019........................................................................................9
Figure 5. Map showing the Palk Bay & Gulf of Mannar region.............................................................................15
Figure 6. GISD: India...........................................................................................................................................................20
Figure 7. GISD: Indonesia.................................................................................................................................................20
Figure 8. Screenshot of GIS-based portal showing layers incorporated.......................................................26
Figure 9. Potential area for seaweed farming in Gujarat & Diu..........................................................................27
Figure 10. Potential area for seaweed farming in Maharashtra............................................................................28
Figure 11. Potential area for seaweed farming in Goa............................................................................................29
Figure 12. Potential area for seaweed farming in Karnataka................................................................................30
Figure 13. Potential area for seaweed farming in Kerala..........................................................................................31
Figure 14. Potential area for seaweed farming in Lakshadweep.........................................................................32
Figure 15. Potential area for seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu...............................................................................33
Figure 16. Potential area for seaweed farming in Puducherry.............................................................................34
Figure 17. Potential area for seaweed farming in Andhra Pradesh.....................................................................35
Figure 18. Potential area for seaweed farming in Odisha.......................................................................................35
Figure 19. Potential area for seaweed farming in West Bengal...........................................................................36
Figure 20. Potential area for seaweed farming in Andaman & Nicobar Islands.............................................37
Figure 21. Seaweed farming techniques in Tamil Nadu...........................................................................................41
Figure 22. Maintenance of seaweed farming..............................................................................................................48
Figure 23. Management of disease in seaweed farming........................................................................................48
Figure 24. Harvesting of seaweed...................................................................................................................................49
Figure 25. Postharvest handling of seaweed..............................................................................................................49
Figure 26. G. edulis cultivation using bamboo raft technique.............................................................................50
Figure 27: Different techniques of G. dura cultivation: (a, b) raft, (c, d) bottom-net bag, (e, f)
HRT, (g, h) net bag and (i, j) net-pouch; (a, c, e, g, i) with initial seedlings,
(b, d, f, h, j) with fully grown plants before harvesting................................................................52-53
Figure 28. G. debilis (two strains) cultivated using the bamboo raft technique...........................................54
Figure 29. Bottom culture method using a cement block technique.................................................................55
Figure 30. S. filiforme cultivation. (a) seeded on rafts, and (b) ready for harvest.......................................56
Figure 31. G. pusillum cultivation using different techniques..............................................................................56
LIST OF FIGURES POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
iii
Figure 32. Aerial view of IMTA..........................................................................................................................................57
Figure 33. HDPE pipes, grid mooring buoy, raft rope buoy.................................................................................60
Figure 34. Schematic mooring pattern of 10 grids for open sea seaweed cultivation...............................61
Figure 35. General layout of the grid (120 m x 110 m) for seaweed cultivation.............................................61
Figure 36. Overview of one raft with 8 tube nets.....................................................................................................61
Figure 37. Ropes for anchor, grid and head rope for the raft.............................................................................62
Figure 38. Metallic mooring components of a grid.................................................................................................62
Figure 39. Mobilization and positioning of mooring grid......................................................................................63
Figure 40. Comparison between conventional single-stream processing and MUZE processing
for tropical red seaweed processing..........................................................................................................71
Figure 41. Percentage increase in yield of various crops by foliar application of K. alvarezii
based bio-stimulant.........................................................................................................................................74
Figure 42. Percentage increase in yield of various crops by foliar application of
G. edulis based bio-stimulant......................................................................................................................74
Figure 43. Value chain map of raw fresh seaweeds.................................................................................................89
Figure 44. Value chain map of raw dried seaweeds................................................................................................89
Figure 45. Value chain map of semi-refined and refined carrageenan............................................................90
Figure 46. Current placement of farms and what the CI is doing to standardize the farms....................91
Figure 47. Resource consumption in ethanol production equivalent to 1 kg of gasoline (oil based)..94
Figure 48. Seaweed processing and products of South Korea. (a) Processing of Pyropia to dried sheets
(21 cm x 19 cm in size, 2.5 g-wet weight). (b) Sun-dried Undaria pinnatifida. (c) Sun-dried Sargassum
fusiforme. (d) Sun-dried Saccharina japonica waiting for the auction. (e) Sun-dried Ulva prolifera. (f)
Fried with oil and salt of Pyropia. (g) Various products of Pyropia. (h) Snacks and instant salads of
seaweeds. (i) Seaweed cosmetics. ........................................................................................................................... 95 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN iv
Table 1. Potential area for seaweed farming.......................................................................................................25
Table 2. (a) Bamboo raft technique.........................................................................................................................41
Table 3. (b) Monoline technique...............................................................................................................................44
Table 4. (c) Tube net technique................................................................................................................................46
Table 5. Sea cage-based tube net technique......................................................................................................47
Table 6. Economics of K. alvarezii v/s G. edulis farming..................................................................................51
Table 7. Specification of rope and its breaking strength................................................................................62
Table 8. Specification of mooring metallic components................................................................................62
Table 9. Source and rate of the seaweed seed...................................................................................................64
Table 10. Cost of components required for grid (120 m × 110 m)..................................................................65
Table 11. Labour charges for grid preparation (120 m × 110 m).....................................................................66
Table 12. Operational cost for grid (120 m × 110 m)............................................................................................66
Table 13. Revenue and profit estimate for 10 grids (120 m ×110 m) using K. alvarezii...........................67
Table 14: SWC benefits...................................................................................................................................................72
Table 15. Seaweed polysaccharides based edible films and their applications in food packaging..76
Table 16. Government policies, strategies & program of Philippines...........................................................85
Table 17. Ethanol production from major land crops and seaweed.............................................................93
Table 18. Components and tentative budget for the proposed CoE for seaweed...............................104
Table 19. Basic production data including market value and infrastructure cost of different
agarophytes....................................................................................................................................................110
Table 20. List of sites/locations identified by ICAR-CMFRI.............................................................................113
Table 21. List of sites/locations identified by CSIR-CSMCRI..........................................................................127
LIST OF TABLES POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AND ACRONYMS
SHORT FORM FULL FORM
ASC/MSCThe Aquaculture Stewardship Council / Marine Stewardship Council
ATCAlkali - Treated Cottonii
ATCCAlkali - Treated Cottonii Chips
BFARBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
BODBiochemical Oxygen Demand
CDSCOCentral Drugs Standard Control Organization
CMFRICentral Marine Fisheries Research Institute
CMSNBECooperative Managed Seaweeds Nursery Business Enterprise
CODChemical Oxygen Demand
CRZCoastal Regulation Zone
CSIR-CSMCRI
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research- Central Salt and Marine
Chemicals Research Institute
DAREDepartment of Agricultural Research and Education
DENRDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources
DSTDepartment of Science & Technology
DSWDDepartment of Social Welfare and Development
DTIDepartment of Trade and Industry
EEZExclusive Economic Zone
ESAEcologically Sensitive Area
f, d, sf, fresh; d, dried; s, salted
FAOFood and Agriculture Organization
FOBFixed Off Bottom
GEFGlobal Environment Fund
GISGeographic Information System
GoMBRGulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve
GSSIThe Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative
ICARIndian Council of Agricultural Research POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN vi
SHORT FORM FULL FORM
IMTAIntegrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture
KCCKisan Credit Cards
KSWEKappaphycus seaweed extract
MoA&FWMinistry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare
MoBEFMinistry of Blue Economy and Fisheries
MoMAFMinistry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
MPEDAMarine Products Export Development Authority
MUZEMulti Stream Zero Effluent
NAASNational Academy of Agricultural Sciences
NCDCNational Cooperative Development Corporation
NCSCMNational Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management
NICRANational Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture
NIOTNational Institute of Ocean Technology
PM-FBYPradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
PM-KISANPradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi
PPPPublic-Private Partnership
PSLPriority Sector Lending
PUFAPolyunsaturated Fatty Acids
RCCarrageenan refined
RDSRaw Dried Seaweed
RFSRaw Fresh Seaweeds
SDGsSustainable Development Goals
SFDSocial Fund for Development
SFSPSeaweed Farmer Service Platform
SIAPSeaweeds Industry Association of the Philippines
SOFIAState of World Fisheries and Aquaculture
SRCSemi-Refined Carrageenan
SRCSemi-Refined Carrageenan
TNCThe Nature Conservancy
WWFWorld-Wide Fund for Nature POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
1
Numerous types of marine plants and macroalgae that thrive in rivers, lakes, and other bodies
of water are together referred to as “seaweed”. Over ten thousand seaweed species are found all over
the world and can be broadly classified into three groups: green (Chlorophyta), brown (Phaeophyta),
and red (Rhodophyta) seaweeds. Seaweeds are prized commercially for their bioactive metabolites,
manure, and fodder, as well as for their cell wall polysaccharides, which include agar, algin, and
carrageenan. They are used in the food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and mining industries for a wide
range of commercial purposes. Apart from their usage as raw materials in the extraction of marine
chemicals and bioactive compounds, some species of seaweed are also becoming more and more
important as nutritious foods for human consumption.
India is a fortunate nation with an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) spanning more than 2 million
square kilometers and an enormous 8,118-kilometer coastline, supporting the livelihoods of about 4
million people. Thus, the need for augmenting the fishermen’s income will never be an overstatement.
Seaweed farming is a solution that can offer a sustainable and profitable alternative for economic
stability and growth by reducing reliance on traditional fishing and diversifying coastal communities’
livelihoods. Under optimal conditions, the net revenue from one hectare (400 rafts) of dry weight might
reach up to ` 13,28,000/- per year. India at 33,345 tonnes wet weight of seaweeds per year produces
less than 1 percent of global seaweed production. The total global exports of seaweed and seaweed-
based hydrocolloids amount to USD 2.65 billion across 98 countries. Few countries dominate the
trade balance viz. China, Indonesia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Malaysia.Internationally, the trade
of seaweed and its products is on the rise and can be good for the forex accounts of India. Besides this
economic imperative, seaweed has ecological and nutritional imperatives as well. It has the potential
to address the challenge of nutritional deficiency in India. Mariculture seaweed’s estimated carbon
sequestration rates amount to 57.64 metric tons of CO
2
per hectare per year, while pond-cultured
seaweeds sequester 12.38 metric tons of CO
2
per hectare per year.
Seaweed has been in Indian waters since decades. However, certain challenges, such as lack
of awareness, research and development, and the lack of a comprehensive policy framework, need to
be addressed to develop the sector. This document presents a comprehensive framework addressing
environmental concerns, laying out the economic feasibility, and identifying the potential sites that
are conducive to the cultivation of seaweed. The methodology adopted for identifying these sites is
most scientific, considering the factors conducive to the growth of seaweed as well as the ecological
sensitivity of the areas. The document discusses methods and economics of on-shore and off-shore
cultivation of prominent commercially significant species of seaweed, along with best practices of
cultivation, governance, product development and harvesting followed globally.
The strategy is an outcome of rigorous stakeholder consultations wherein the reviews and
comments of stakeholders were discussed and deliberated upon to finally bring it into this shape. It
touches upon the entire value chain of the sector, from quality seed availability to different cultivation
practices, processing technologies, marketing and exports of products, certification, regulatory
mechanisms, and laws pertaining to environmental safeguards.
The inception of task on drafting this document happened with the conducting of rounds
of consultative meetings with the stakeholders in the value chain of seaweed that included national
level organizations viz. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research- Central Salt and Marine Chemicals
Research Institute (CSIR-CSMCRI), Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute (ICAR-CMFRI), National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM),
National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Marine Products Export Development Authority
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 2
(MPEDA), Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), key industries in the sector,
coastal state and union territory governments, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal
Husbandry and Dairying, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, researchers
from universities as well as independent international experts in the sector. Multiple rounds of these
consultations took place over a period of a year, during which deliberations were made to systematically
study the value chain, its challenges, and curate a way forward for the seaweed vaue chain.
A detailed and conclusive report was submitted by ICAR-CMFRI (as nodal agency), jointly
with CSIR-CSMCRI and NCSCM with the study of existing research in seaweed cultivation, with a
scientific analysis based on data from global experiences. The inputs from the report are incorporated
as part of this strategy. The report was drafted on the following pointers:
i. The impact of exotic species versus indigenous species of seaweed on biodiversity,
ii. The impact of cultivation of exotic and native species of seaweed on coral reef,
iii. Selection of commercially viableseaweed species taking into account itsecological
neutrality.
The inception of seaweed value chain developmentrequires suitable sites across the coastline
of India for the cultivation of seaweed be identified. Thereby a detailed report titled, “Potential Areas
for Seaweed Farming along the Indian Coast” was jointly submitted by NCSCM, CSIR-CSMCRI and
ICAR-CMFRI. A total of 333 sites were identified by ICAR-CMFRI, out of which trial and farming
activities were carried out in 78 sites. A total of 51 sites were identified by CSIR-CSMCRI, out of which
trial/farming activities are carried out at all the sites. The sites identified by ICAR-CMFRI and CSIR-
CSMCRI were categorized into green zones (>1 km from CRZ-IA), amber zones (up to 1 km from CRZ-
IA), and blue zones (within CRZ-IA and ESA), with 24,707 hectares identified as suitable for seaweed
farming, including 3,999.37 hectares classified as green zones, 14,076.77 hectares as amber zones, and
6,631 hectares as blue zones. A GIS-based portal for viewing the mapped seaweed cultivation sites
has been developed. Bringing 24,707 hectares under seaweed cultivation, nearly 7.51 lakh tonnes of
Kappaphycus alvareziior 28.1 lakh tonnes of Gracilaria edulis production is possible amounting to a
revenue potential of over ` 5000 crores for either species.
Similarly, NIOT had submitted a detailed report to NITI Aayog, titled as “ Technical and
Economic Feasibility of Offshore Farming of Seaweed in Indian EEZ.” The inputs from the report are
incorporated as part of this strategy. They include the estimation of area available for offshore farming,
methodology for deployment, investment analysis and management practices for seaweed farm.
An expert committee chaired by the Hon’ble Member (S&T), NITI Aayog Dr. V K Saraswat was
constituted to review this document in its draft form. The expert committee (Annexure-IV) included
members from union ministries, research organizations, senior officers from the governments of the
states and UTs, the Aqua Stewardship Council, key industries, etc. Inputs received were incorporated
to bring this document into its current and final form. It was ensured that the process of stakeholder
consultation was carried out at every step to develop a consensus.
Based on all above, recommendations are laid out at the end of this document to pave the way
forward for holistic development of sector. Major recommendations laid out mainly correspond to the
following domains:
(i) Regulatory and governance
a) Amendment in the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 to include seaweed cultivation and its
value chain under the allocation of business rules of the Department of Fisheries, Ministry
of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, GoI. Similarly, Exports and certification of
seaweed and its products be allocated to MPEDA.
b) Constitution of a National Steering Committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary,
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, GoI for
untapping the seaweed potential, and effectively managing associated environmental,
economic, and interstate issues.
c) Constitution of national-level technical committee for the import of seaweed seeds POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
3
and planting material under the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal
Husbandry & Dairying, GoI.
d) Inclusion of seaweed related credit in Priority Sector Lending (PSL) by RBI as seaweed is
a tool to combat and deal with climate change.
e) The development of standards for various categories of seaweed products maybe done;
edible products by FSSAI, pharmaceutical products by Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization (CDSCO), biostimulants by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare
(MoA&FW), animal feed by the Department of Animal Husbandary (MoFAH&D).
(ii) Social security and financial support
a) Comprehensive risk cover through insurance for crop, seaweed infrastructure and life of
seaweed farmer maybe developed by the Department of Fisheries (GoI).
b) Financial support for seaweed cultivation maybe provided by broadening the ambit of PM-
FBY, PM-KISAN and Kisan Credit Card (KCC).
c) Mobilization of seaweed farmers through SHGs, FFPOs, JLGs, etc. to strengthen their
ability to access institutional credit facilities.
(iii) Incentivising investments and ease of doing business
a) Enhancing investment in processing and supply chain infrastructure in coastal regions
through FDI and PPP.
b) Promoting ease of doing business through development of dynamic data portal and
decision support tools with geo-tagging of all sites suitable for seaweed cultivation.
c) Development of market infrastructure and inclusion of seaweed and its products in e-NAM
and agriculture mandis.
(iv) Infrastructure and institutions
a) Establishment of seed banks in all the maritime states and UTs to ensure the availability of
quality seed material immediately after the end of monsoon.
b) Creation of logistics and primary processing centers at cluster level.
c) Creation of aggregation and marketing centers at district level with facilities for
standardization and aggregation, storage, marketplaces and digital trade platforms.
d) Setting up of Centres of Excellence (CoE) for seaweed to support coastal states/UTs from
capacity building of farmers, enterprenuers and startups, seed availability, multiplication,
cultivation, harvesting, post-harvest handling, processing, marketing, domestic and
international trading of seaweed as well as further research and development in the value
chain.
(v) Skill development and research
a) Certificate and diploma courses through various national and state level organizations
(public and private) for skill development, creating new sustainable opportunities and
generate employment prospects.
b) Research for development of new seaweed-based bioethanol, animal fodder,
pharmaceutical, neutraceutical products may be initiated by research organizations.
c) Study and framework on carbon credits from seaweed maybe initiated to incentivize and
monetize the carbon credits so generated in seaweed cultivation.
If the recommendations in this strategy are implemented, it will certainly prove promising, which could
reveal the new face of coastal India to the economy. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 4 THE IMPERATIVE TO
SEAWEED DEVELOPMENTCHAPTER-I POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 6
1.1 Introduction
This strategy document presents a comprehensive framework that aims to capitalize on
India’s extensive coastline of 8,118 km and an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covering more than
two million square kilometres, for the development of sustainable seaweed mariculture. It provides
a strategic approach to leverage coastal resources, achieve economic viability, and address multiple
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The framework focuses on promoting food security, fostering
innovation and infrastructure development, mitigating climate change, protecting marine ecosystems,
and encouraging sustainable land use. The framework seeks to develop the seaweed value chain by
addressing challenges and vulnerabilities, ensuring a prosperous and sustainable future.
1.2 Seaweed and its Significance
Numerous types of marine plants and macroalgae that thrive in rivers, lakes, and other bodies
of water are together referred to as “seaweed”. Over ten thousand seaweed species are found all over
the world and can be broadly classified into three groups: green (Chlorophyta), brown (Phaeophyta),
and red (Rhodophyta) seaweeds. In addition to being rich in vitamins, minerals, and fibre, seaweed
can also be rather appetizing. The Japanese have been encasing raw fish, sticky rice, and other items
in a seaweed called nori for at least 1,500 years. A delicious sushi roll is the end product. Therefore,
seaweed farming is the cultivation and harvesting of marine plants and algae in bodies of water.
Seaweeds are nutrient-rich, possess medicinal properties, including anti-inflammatory
and anti-microbial effectsand have potential in cancer treatment. Seaweeds have wide-ranging
applications in manufacturing, serving as effective binding agents in preparing commercial products
such as toothpaste and fruit jelly, as well as popular softeners in organic cosmetics and skincare items.
Seaweed farming has emerged as a pivotal industry, providing a sustainable and renewable source
of these versatile marine plants and algae, supporting various sectors while meeting the increasing
global demand for seaweed-based products.
Seaweeds are prized commercially for their bioactive metabolites, manure, and fodder,
as well as for their cell wall polysaccharides, which include agar, algin, and carrageenan. They are
used in the food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and mining industries for a wide range of commercial
purposes. Apart from their usage as raw materials in the extraction of marine chemicals and bioactive
compounds, some species of seaweed are also becoming more and more important as nutritious
foods for human consumption. Seaweeds are an important source of crop bio-stimulants that can
enhance agricultural crop productivity and quality, besides warding off. They also can be used to
make animal feed additives.
1.3 Production – Global and Indian Scenario
Over the past five decades, global seaweed production has undergone a significant
transformation and aquaculture has played a pivotal role. In 1969, wild collection and cultivation
accounted for 50 percent of the world’s 2.2 million tonnes of seaweed production. However, by 2019,
while wild collection remained at 1.1 million tonnes, cultivation skyrocketed to 34.7 million tonnes,
representing 97 percent of the total global seaweed production. This shift towards cultivation has
led to a notable regional disparity, with Asia, particularly Eastern and South-eastern Asia, dominating
global seaweed production by contributing 97.4 percent through cultivation (FAO, 2021). Conversely,
the Americas and Europe lag, relying primarily on wild collection, which accounted for only 1.4
percent and 0.8 percent of total production, respectively. Africa and Oceania, despite their modest
global shares, relied on cultivation as their primary source, contributing 81.3 percent and 85.3 percent
in seaweed production, respectively. The seaweed industry has experienced remarkable growth
and expanded beyond its traditional applications in the food and medicine sectors. The industry
is projected to continue its growth trajectory, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.3
percent from 2022 to 2030. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
7
In India, presently, nearly 33,345 tonnes wet weight of seaweeds per year is being harvested
from natural seaweed beds (species of Sargassum, Turbinaria, Gracilaria and Gelidiella) by 5,000
families in Tamil Nadu (FRAD, CMFRI, 2022). India, which has an annual revenue of about ₹ 200
crores, provides less than 1 percent of the world’s seaweed production. Among the global seaweed
production through farming, Kappaphycus alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum contribute to 27.8
percent of the total production (FAO, 2022).
1.4 Exports and Imports
The global trade in seaweed can be seen as trade of seaweed and seaweed-based processed
products. Global trade in seaweed has seen significant expansion, with an annual valuation ofUSD
6 billion, primarily driven by the food sector, contributing 85 percent to the industry’s overall value.
In 2021, the commercial seaweed market reached a noteworthy milestone with a valuation of USD
9.9 billion. Few countries dominate the trade balance viz. China, Indonesia, Philippines, Republic of
Korea, Malaysia etc.
1.4.1 Exports
The total global exports of seaweed and seaweed-based hydrocolloids amount to USD 2.65
billion across 98 countries. This breaks down to roughly USD 909 million of seaweeds and another
USD 1.74 billion of seaweed-based hydrocolloids. This is well elaborated by the United Nations
Comtrade database (2021) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Export of seaweed, 2019
Source: United Nations Comtrade database (2021)
The Republic of Korea tops the exports of seaweed with a share of over 30 percent, whereas
the top share for seaweed-based hydrocolloids is bagged by China with roughly the same share
(Figure 2). POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 8
Figure 2. Export of seaweed-based hydrocolloids, 2019
Source: United Nations Comtrade database (2021)
1.4.2 Imports
The UN Comtrade database (2021) lays out that 128 countries import seaweed and seaweed-
based hydrocolloids valued at nearly USD 2.9 billion. Out of these, USD 1.26 billion come from seaweed
and the rest from seaweed-based hydrocolloids. Similar to exports, the import profile of the globe is
also dominated by a few countries (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Figure 3. Import of seaweed, 2019
Source: United Nations Comtrade database (2021)
Import of seaweed POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
9
Figure 4. Import of seaweed-based hydrocolloids, 2019
Source: United Nations Comtrade database (2021)
1.5 The Need for a Targeted Strategy
It is already clear from the above figures that India stands very much under-tapped regarding
seaweed production (less than one percent) and trade. Therefore, it’s the need of the hour to have a
targeted strategy for the development of the seaweed value chain in India. Coastal communities in India
are currently grappling with the adverse impacts of climate change, including extreme temperatures,
changing precipitation patterns, rising sea-levels, coastal flooding, erosion, and heightened risks of
drought. These challenges have significantly affected the productivity of fisheries, coastal agriculture
and aquaculture.
Besides, another major challenge is lack of quality seeds. The hurdles in importing germplasm
and wet seed materials are among the major challenges in promoting seaweed cultivation. Continuous
vegetative propagation using the existing seaweed strains of Kappaphycus alvarezii for decades has
resulted in the loss of vigour of germplasm. Additionally, the asexual propagation has made the
seedlings prone to environmental stress, disease, and epiphyses, leading to a decline in the yield of
seaweed. The loss of vigour has resulted in a drastic reduction in yield, from 1:7 in previous years to 1:4
at present. In this regard, the potential states and UTs like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Karnataka, Goa, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu have informed that an increase in
seaweed production requires good-quality seaweed material to the seaweed farmers.
To address these pressing issues, it is essential to adopt unique, sustainable, and utilitarian
practices and traditions that can bring about a substantial positive change in the well-being of coastal
communities. In this context, the cultivation and value chain of seaweed emerges as a promising
component that can significantly contribute to achieving socio-economic and ecological goals. There
are economic as well as ecological imperatives that press for this need, which are discussed below.
1.5.1 Ecological Imperative: Enhancing Climate Change Resilience
Seaweed farming represents a climate-resilient form of aquaculture that offers numerous
benefits. Seaweed cultivation is advantageous as it requires no land, freshwater, or fertilizers. It
provides sustainable and diverse livelihood optionsalong with employment generation to coastal
communities. Moreover, seaweed farming mitigates the adverse effects of oceanic eutrophication
and acidification while promoting a healthy ecosystem by oxygenating seawater. Seaweed farming
plays a role in carbon sequestration. They release carbon, which can be either buried in sediments
Import of seaweed-based hydrocolloids POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 10
or exported to the deep sea, effectively acting as a sink for CO
2
. Mariculture seaweed’s estimated
carbon sequestration rates amount to 57.64 tonnes CO
2
per hectare per year, while pond-cultured
seaweeds sequester 12.38 tonnes CO
2
per hectare per year. Globally, seaweed production reached 35.1
million tonnes of wet weight, with a first sale value estimated at 16.5 billion USD in 2022 (FAO, 2022).
Seaweed cultivation demonstrates remarkable adaptability to changing environmental conditions,
making it a resilient alternative for coastal communities contending with climate change impacts.
Seaweeds can thrive in diverse temperatures and require minimal freshwater inputs, reducing the
strain on limited freshwater resources.
Specifically, K. alvarezii has been estimated to sequester 19 kg of CO
2
per day per tonne of
dry weight, or equivalently 760 kg of CO
2
per day per tonne of dry weight per hectare (Johnson et
al., 2023a). Furthermore, seaweeds enhance water quality by effectively absorbing excess nutrients,
thus improving marine environments. They also serve as essential habitats and protect a wide range
of marine biodiversity, fostering the preservation of various species and their ecological interactions.
Besides, seaweed-based bio-stimulants have numerous applications in climate change. For
instance, in plant and ratoon crops, the bio stimulant derived from Kappaphycus seaweed extract
(KSWE) applied at 5 percent concentration increased cane productivity by 12.5 and 8 percent,
respectively. When used at a 5 percent concentration, the KSWE can reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by at least 2.06 kg CO
2
equivalents per tonne of cane produced (Singh et al., 2018). Additionally, it
has been claimed that cattle greenhouse gas emissions can be decreased by using bio-stimulants
derived from seaweed.
1.5.1 Economic Imperative
Seaweed cultivation diversifies marine production, doubles fish farmer’s income, reduces
reliance on traditional fishing, and diversifies coastal communities’ livelihoods. Seaweed farming
offers a sustainable and profitable alternative for economic stability and growth. For example,
Kappaphycus alvarezii farming has crop duration of 45-60 days, allowing for multiple harvests per
year. Farmers can make ` 16/-per kg of fresh seaweed and ` 70/-per kg of dried seaweed with an
average dry weight of 10 percent. Under optimal conditions, the net revenue from one hectare (400
rafts) in dry weight might reach up to ` 13,28,000/- per year. A family of two persons can handle
around 45 rafts, providing income opportunities.
Besides, seaweed and its products trade can also be good for India’s forex accounts.Demand
for seaweed-derived products, including biofuels, fertilizers, and food additives, presents income
diversification and expansion opportunities.
1.5.2 Nutritional Imperative
Seaweeds, commonly called sea vegetables, are highly regarded for their nutritional value,
and have gained popularity as a source of nutraceutical supplements due to their numerous health
benefits. They provide vital minerals like calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and potassium along with a
wide range of vitamins like A, B1, B12, C, D, E, niacin, folic acid, pantothenic acid, and riboflavin. They
also contain essential amino acids that are needed for metabolism and general health. Seaweeds
are particularly valuable as they provide approximately 54 trace elements crucial for the proper
physiological functioning of the human body. These essential elements are present in colloidal,
chelated, and balanced forms, ensuring their bioavailability. Seaweeds contain biologically active
compounds like carotenoids, phlorotannin, fucoidan, and alginic acid, associated with preventive
effects against various diseases, including inflammation, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, and
cardiovascular ailments. This has the potential to address the challenge of nutritional deficiency in
India. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
11
Thus, the strategy for seaweed cultivation is guided by the 3Es: Ecology, Economy, and Equity.
It prioritizes ecological considerations to ensure the sustainable management of seaweed resources
and protect marine ecosystems. Additionally, the strategy is focused on promoting economic
development by creating avenues for seaweed farmers to generate higher incomes through market-
oriented approaches. Finally, social equity should be a key objective, to provide equal opportunities
and benefits for all stakeholders involved in seaweed cultivation, including coastal communities
and marginalized groups. By incorporating these principles, the framework will foster the growth of
seaweed cultivation while safeguarding the environment and promoting social and economic equity. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 12 ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS IN
SEAWEED CULTIVATIONCHAPTER-II POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 14
2.1 Background
India’s primary seaweed cultivation methods involve vegetative propagation using fragments
from mother plants ordifferent types of spores. Commercial seaweed farming in the country employs
three techniques: floating bamboo rafts, lines, and tube nets. While K. alvarezii farming is predominantly
carried out on the Tamil Nadu coast, experimental farming has been conducted in several other states
and Union Territories. The introduction of K. alvarezii was initiated in 1984 when a fragment of the
algae, then known as K. striatum, was brought from Japan. Seaweed cultivation in India has significant
socio-economic implications, particularly for women in the Gulf of Mannar region. Agar and alginates
industries, dependent on natural seaweed resources, have been traditionally important for livelihoods,
with approximately 5,000 women relying on seaweed collection in this region. However, the rising
economic value of K. alvarezii has led to an increase in its commercial cultivation.
2.2 Environmental Assessments Related to Seaweed Farming
2.2.1 Geography of the Environmental Study
Palk Bay
The Palk Bay (named after Robert Palk, Governor of Madras Presidency from 1755 to 1763) is
the sea area, which is bounded on the north and west by the coastline of the State of Tamil Nadu in
India, on the south by the Pamban Island of India, the Adam’s or Rama Bridge (a chain of shoals) and
Mannar island of Sri Lanka and on the east by the northeast coastline and the Jaffna peninsula of Sri
Lanka. The Bay is 137 km long and 64-137 km wide. Although it is commonly referred to as Palk Bay,
it is not typically a bay but a strait, thatconnects the Bay of Bengal to the northeast with the Gulf of
Mannar to the south. The northern part of the Bay that opens to the Bay of Bengal is called the Palk
Strait (Krishnan et al., 2016).
Gulf of Munnar
The Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve (GoMBR) was the first in South and Southeast
Asia, running south from Rameswaram to Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu, India, situated between
Longitudes 78°08 E to 79°30 E and along Latitudes 8°35 N to 9°25 N. This Marine Biosphere Reserve
encompasses a chain of 21 islands (two islands have sunk) and adjoining coral reefs off the coasts of
the Ramanathapuram and the Tuticorin districts, forming the core zone, the Marine National Park. The
surrounding seascape of the Marine National Park and a 10 km strip of the coastal landscape covering
a total area of 10,500 square km, in the Ramanathapuram, Tuticorin, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari
Districts form the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve. The Gulf of Mannar has drawn the attention of
conservationists even before the initiation of the Man and Biosphere program (MAB) by UNESCO in
1971. With its rich biodiversity of about 4223 species of various flora and fauna, part of this Gulf of
Mannar was declared a Marine National Park in 1986 by the Government of Tamil Nadu and later as
the first Marine Biosphere Reserve of India in 1989 by the Government of India. It has luxuriant growth
of corals. The reefs are of narrow fringing types, located 150 to 300 m from islands and patch reefs
rising from depths of 2 to 9 m and extending up to 2 km long, with a width of 50m. The Islands of
GoM are divided into four groups: Mandapam, Keelakarai, Vembar and Thoothukkudi, considering the
Islands’ proximity to the respective locations(Figure 5). POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
15
Figure 5. Map showing the Palk Bay & Gulf of Mannar region
The Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve is one of the major coral reef-forming regions along
the mainland coast of India. The discontinuous barrier extends over 140 km from Tuticorin to Pamban,
known as the “Mannar Barrier”, which possesses a chain of 21 Islands along the length with fringing
reefs around them. Diverse scientific organizations well studied the occurrence, species diversity
and coral cover of Indian coral reefs. Still, the intervention of various threats on the reefs along the
Gulf of Mannar, southeast coast, has been studied and reported. Institutes like NCSCM, ICAR-CMFRI,
CSIR-CSMCRI, and other agencies have studied and documented the impact of seaweed cultivation
on biodiversity.
2.2.2 Kappaphycus alvarezii Cultivation in Gulf of Mannar
(i) Studies by CSIR-CSMCRI
CSIR-CSMCRI conducted a research study from 2018 to 2019 to investigate the native diversity
of seaweeds in the intertidal regions of 19 Islands in the Gulf of Mannar. The study was carried out in
four monthly intervals and encompassed three seasons: the post-monsoon season (January - March),
the summer season (April - June), and the monsoon season (South-West monsoon during July -
September and North-East monsoon during October - December). The data collected during the
study was divided into two categories based on the proximity to cultivation sites. The first category
included islands located 2-8 km away from cultivation sites, while the second category consisted of
islands located 30-70 km away. The analysis revealed the occurrence of 113 seaweed species near
cultivation sites and 122 species far from cultivation sites. Interestingly, significant differences were
observed only in terms of percentage cover (F = 6.505; p = 0.013) and species richness (F = 10.312;
p = 0.002) between the two groups of islands.The Simpson diversity and Shannon Weaver indices,
which are measures of species diversity, varied from 0.870 to 0.884 and 2.554 to 2.707, respectively.
However, no significant differences were recorded between the two island groups regarding these
diversity indices (p > 0.05).
The establishment of commercial cultivation of Kappaphycus alvarezii in the Gulf of Mannar
Islands has no adverse effects on the native seaweed species (Veeragurunathanet al., 2021). The
observed changes in diversity patterns can be attributed to spatial and temporal differences rather POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 16
than being explicitly linked to commercial farming activities. The study provides evidence that the
commercial cultivation of K. alvarezii does not negatively impact the diversity of native seaweed
species in the Gulf of Mannar Islands.
A Bray-Curtis similarity index of 95 percent indicated the homogenous distribution of
seaweed diversity. Dictyota dichotoma, Halimeda gracilis, Padina pavonica, Sargassum polycystum,
and Turbinaria ornata were identified as the most commonly occurring species in both groups of
islands. These results further reinforce the conclusion that the commercial farming of K. alvarezii
does not affect the diversity of native seaweeds in the Gulf of Mannar Islands. Hence, the study
unequivocally confirms that cultivating K. alvarezii for commercial purposes has no adverse impact
on the native seaweed diversity in the Gulf of Mannar Islands (CSIR-CSMCRI). The change in diversity
patterns is related to the spatial and temporal differences and thus could not be explicitly linked to
commercial farming activities.
According to surveys conducted by the CSIR-CSMCRI, 137 seaweed species were recorded
across 21 islands in the Gulf of Mannar. Among these, 48 species belonged to the green seaweed
category, 48 species were red seaweeds, and 41 species were classified as brown seaweeds. The
diversity indices indicated a high level of seaweed diversity in all the islands, except for Manaliputti
Island, suggesting a healthy seaweed ecosystem. Krusadai Island stood out with a notably higher
percentage of seaweed cover, reaching 84 percent. The islands of Vembar and Kilakkarai exhibited the
highest recorded diversity compared to other island groups. Among the recorded species, Halophila
ovalis was the only seagrass observed at Krusadai Island.
Dominant species of seaweed along Krusadai Island included Halimeda gracilis, Caulerpa
cupressoides, Hypnea valentiae, Lobophora variegata, Stoechospermum marigatum, and Gelidiella
acerosa. The study revealed that the diversity of green seaweeds was generally higher than that of
red and brown seaweeds at all the locations investigated. The alga found on dead corals was observed
to be in the vegetative stage, with no reproductive structures. In terms of genera, Caulerpa exhibited
the highest number of species with a total of 18, followed by Sargassum with 14 species, Dictyotawith
7 species, Gracilaria with 6 species, Hypnea with 6 species, and Turbinaria with 4 species.
CSIR-CSMCRI survey reports revealed that the seaweeds namely Acanthophora spicifera,
Boergessni aforebessii, Caulerpa peltata, C. racemosa, C. sertularioides, Chaetomorpha crassa,
Dictyota dichotoma, Hypnea valentiae, Padina gymnospora, P. pavonica, P. tetrastromatica, Sargassum
polycystum, S. tenerrimum, S. wightii, Turbinaria ornata and Ulva reticulata are more dominant than
Kappaphycus alvarezii in the Gulf of Mannar region (Mandal et al., 2010; Veeragurunathan et al.,
2021). Diversity data was collected for islands located near cultivation sites (2-8 kilometers away)
and those far from cultivation sites (30-70 kilometers away). The survey revealed 113 seaweed species
near cultivation sites and 122 species far from cultivation sites. Notably, significant differences were
observed only in percentage cover (F = 6.505; p = 0.013) and species richness (F = 10.312; p = 0.002)
between the two groups of islands.
Although the occurrence of K. alvarezii in Indian waters has been a topic of debate, existing
literature strongly supports its presence in India. The earliest recorded instance dates back to the
nineteenth century (Silva et al., 1996), and subsequent reports have identified its occurrence in Port
Okha (Krishnamurthy and Joshi, 1970, referred to as Eucheuma spinosum) and Red Skin Island in the
Andaman Sea (Rao and Rao, 1999), as Kappaphycus cottonii).
Based on extensive peer-reviewed publications, K. alvarezii is considered native to Indian
waters. There is no reported evidence of this species being invasive in any part of the world. The
study by Conklin and Smith (2005) specifically investigated the potential invasion of Kappaphycus
spp. on coral reefs in Kane’ohe Bay, Hawaii.It is important to note that the aforementioned study did
not explicitly label K. alvarezii as an invasive species. While non-farmed populations of K. alvarezii
have been reported near commercial sites in certain regions globally, and the occurrence of such POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
17
populations in India should not be classified as an invasion. Therefore, it is essential to differentiate
between the natural establishment of K. alvarezii populations and the invasive behaviour of certain
species in different ecosystems.
(ii) Studies by ICAR-CMFRI
Recent studies conducted by ICAR-CMFRI focused on the distribution and diversity of marine
algae in the Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar region. The study was carried out between October and
December 2021. ICAR-CMFRI examined five specific locations in the Gulf of Mannar viz. - Mandapam,
Seeniappa Dargha, Krusadai Island, Nochyurani, and Puthumadam. The findings revealed the presence
of 53 distinct species that belong to 28 genera. The dominant group was Chlorophyta, comprising 22
(41 percent) species, followed by Rhodophyta with 19 species (35 percent) and Phaeophyta with 12
species (22 percent). Notably, the highest species diversity was recorded at the Nochyurani station,
with 32 species, followed closely by Puthumadam station with 31 species, Krusadai Island station
with 30 species, and Mandapam station with 23 species. Conversely, the station at Seeniappa-Dargha
exhibited the lowest seaweed diversity, with only 15 species identified. Chlorophyta displayed the
greatest diversity among the selected stations in the Gulf of Mannar, with a total of 28 seaweed
genera observed. Among these genera, Caulerpa (6 species) contributed the highest number of
species, followed by Gracilaria (5 species) and Halimenia (4 species). Additionally, three species of
seaweeds were observed from the genera Padina, Sargassum, Hypnea, and Ulva, while a single species
was identified from the genera Enteromorpha, Halimeda, Valonia, Valoniopsis, Lyngbya, Turbinaria,
Stochospermum, Acanthophora, Amphiroa, Scinaia, Laurencia, Sarconima, and Portieria.The field
surveys conducted in the Gulf of Mannar region revealed that the seaweed species belonging to
various genera exhibited varying levels of species abundance. At the Nochyurani station, the 32
seaweed species belonged to the genera Caluerpa, Sargassum, Gelidiella, Enteromorpha, Valoniopsis,
Padina, Lyngbya, and Stochospermum. The seaweed species recorded at Puthumadam station (31
species) belonged to genera Caluerpa, Sargassum, Dictyota, Chaetomorpha, Cladophora, Grateloupia,
Enteromorpha, Valoniopsis, Padina, and Lyngbya. The seaweed species recorded at Krusadai Island
station (30 species) belonged to the genera Halimeda, Caluerpa, Gracilaria, Lyngbya, Turbinaria,
Hypnea, Lobophora, Scinaia, Laurencia, Sarconima, Sargassum, Portieria, Padina, Valonia, Ulva and
Scinaia. At the Mandapam station, 23 seaweed species identified belonged to the genera Acanthophora,
Caulerpa, Chaetomorpha, Cladophora, Dictyota, Gracilaria, Gratillobia, Halimenia, Hypnea, Lyngbya,
Laurencia, and Padina, while at Seniappa-Dharga station which registered, 15 seaweed species
belonged to the genera Acanthophora, Caulerpa, Chaetomorpha, Cladophora, Dictyota, Gracilaria,
Halimenia, Hypnea, Lobophora, Lyngbya, Laurencia, Padina, Codium, Stochospermum and Turbinaria.
The Nochyurani station demonstrated the highest diversity of seaweeds from the Chlorophyta and
Rhodophyta groups, while the Puthumadam station displayed the highest diversity of Phaeophyta
seaweeds. During the surveys, the ICAR-CMFRI did not find any presence of K. alvarezii in the seaweed
beds.
2.3 Studies Pertaining to Coral Reefs
A study by Kasinathan and Sandhya (2005) revealed that anthropogenic impacts such as
sedimentation, illegal coral mining, fishing, and pollution pose increasing threats to the coral reefs
in the Gulf of Mannar. The study highlighted the significant destruction of coral populations on the
southern side of Pullivasal Island and the northern sides of Manauli and Hare Islands. Illegal coral
mining emerged as the primary cause of reef disappearance in these areas, with observable bleaching
phenomena in genera like Montipora and Echinopora. The ecological succession process observed in
the aftermath of reef degradation showcased the dominance of echinoderms and seaweeds over the
once-vibrant coral reefs of Pullivasal Island. Notably, prominent seaweed species such as Sargassum
spp., Caulerpa spp., and Turbinaria spp. were found to be present on the dead corals. Additionally,
excessive sedimentation was noted on some live coral patches, and extensive stretches of dead
corals were observed in and around Manauli, Hare, and Appa islands. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 18
During investigations on Manauli Island, the presence of black band disease affecting Montipora
sp. of corals was noted. Black band disease is characterized by a distinct microbial assemblage forming
a band that progressively moves across healthy coral colonies, actively causing the destruction of
coral tissue and leaving behind the exposed coral skeleton. The phenomenon of coral-algal phase
shift, observed in coral reefs, is attributed to a gradual increase in stress resulting from the depletion
of herbivory (due to overfishing) or an elevation in nutrient levels (caused by pollution). In a study
conducted by Sandhya et al. (2005), an average live coral cover of 54.9 percent was recorded, with
a total of 35 species of hard corals identified along the transects. The study also documented an
average bleached coral cover of 15.3 percent and a dead coral cover of 18.7 percent, resulting in an
average Mortality Index of 0.22 for the reef. Among the coral species, Acropora formosa exhibited an
“abundant” category, displaying the highest relative abundance percentage of 15.4 percent. However,
the dominance of a single species was found to be absent.
(i) Studies by ICAR-CMFRI
According to ICAR-CMFRI (2016) findings, the Tuticorin Major Harbour reef was classified
as “fair,” as the linear scale of live coral cover measured 29.81 percent. Within the transect area, the
relative abundance of live corals was primarily dominated by Merulinidae (74.22 percent), Poritidae
(13.51 percent), Dendrophyllidae (11.85 percent), and Acroporidae (0.42 percent). The overall coral
mortality index was determined as 0.7019, indicating an unhealthy state of the reef. Regarding specific
coral families, Dendrophyllids were predominantly represented by Turbinaria peltata, while Acropora
muricata and Montipora digitata were the dominant species among Acroporids. Merulinids were
largely represented by Goniastrea retiformis and Favites abdita, whereas Porites lutea dominated
among Poritids. Acroporids were the main component of dead corals, while Merulinids primarily
dominated dead corals with algae.
Also, the ICAR-CMFRI, through its periodical survey and studies in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk
Bay viz., biodiversity and benthic community structure of Velapertumuni Reef, Palk Bay, (Sukumaran
et al., 2005), Krusadai Island, Gulf of Mannar (Sukumaran et al., 2008a), Kilakarai group of islands
(Sukumaran et al., 2007) and Fringing Reef in Palk Bay (Sukumaran et al., 2008b) could not find any
settlement of K. alvarezii in seaweed/coral beds.
(ii) Studies by NCSCM
Analysis of temporal change (2005 to 2014) in the extent of algae showed that all islands
except Pullivasal and Poomarichan Islands recorded a significant increase in the extent of coverage
of algae, primarily due to the extensive spread of native seaweeds viz., Caulerpa spp., Ulva spp.,
Halimeda spp. and Turbinaria spp. The reefs in Koswari and Van Islands were extensively covered
by native seaweeds like Halimeda gracilis and Caulerpa taxifolia to the extent of 70-80 percent in
specific.
NCSCM has conclusively reported that in the Gulf of Mannar survey, K. alvarezii was detected
from Shingle and Krusadai islands, whereas no trace of the algae was found in Pullivasal and
Poomarichan islands. In Mulli Island, K. alvarezii was found to be growing over the plate corals. The
red alga was not found in any of the other islands other than the ones mentioned above. The presence
of K. alvarezii in Shingle, Krusadai and Mulli, an island in the Keelakkarai Group of islands in GoM, was
to the extent of 1.1, 0.572 and 0.00025 hectare, accounting for 2.12, 0.35 and 0.00022 percent of the
total reef areas, respectively. In the study, colonies of K. alvarezii were recorded from the northern
side of Shingle Island but not from the region previously reported by Edward and Bhatt (2012). The
previously recorded region was found to be covered by various native seaweeds. In Krusadai Island,
the K. alvarezii colonies were observed from all the previously recorded sites and the reef slope region
of the Island, in the channel between Krusadai and the Rameswaram Island. K. alvarezii colonies were
not recorded from the reefs of Pullivasal and Poomarichan during the current study, including the
areas where they were reported earlier by Edward and Bhatt (2012). There were nine established POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
19
algal colonies, with an average size of 29.9±6.47 cm, in the reefs of Mulli Island. Chandrasekaran et al.
(2008) observed that the alga prefers the live corals as a substrate over the dead corals. In the study,
it was observed that 68.57 percent of the branching corals with K. alvarezii were dead, implying that
they are the most vulnerable life forms to the spread of this alga. The NCSCM came to the conclusion
that the algal fragments from the site in Krusadai Island where experimental culture was conducted
from 1990 to 2005 were the “primary source” of the spread of K. alvarezii in Krusadai Island based
on published reports on the sequence of events related to K. alvarezii farming since its introduction
in GoM. These pieces may have served as the “source” for additional southward dispersion along
the island of Krusadai to the neighbouring islands of Pullivasal, Shingle, and Poomarichan. This red
alga is said to be invasive, and its large-scale commercial cultivation site is thought to be a possible
source (Ask et al., 2001). However, K. alvarezii has not spread over the corals/ coral reefs in Palk Bay,
a region where the cultivation has been underway for over ten years, including areas predominantly
occupied by the branching corals (Olaikuda region with Acropora spp.). This observation led NCSCM
to conclude that the seaweed fragments from the farming sites in Palk Bay might not be the primary
source for the reported K. alvarezii invasion in the Gulf of Mannar.
The published reports on the sequence of events related to K. alvarezii farming since its
introduction in GoM led NCSCM to conclude that the ‘primary source’ of the spread of K. alvarezii
in Krusadai Island was the algal fragments from the site in Krusadai island, where experimental
culture was underway during 1990-2005. These fragments became the ‘source’ for further spreading
southwards along the Island of Krusadai to the nearby islands of Shingle, Pullivasal and Poomarichan.
Manual removal of K. alvarezii from corals poses the threat of secondary spreading (Conklin and Smith,
2005). The random and casual removal by untrained personnel could also result in the dispersal of
vegetative fragments within and outside the aﬀected reef area, leading to the unintentional spread
of the weed (Kamalakannan et al., 2014). The forest department has mediated concerted e ﬀorts to
remove the algae from the infested areas manually. Unintentional or intentional human-mediated
transfer might also be responsible for the introduction/spread of alga in the islands. Humans are
considered important vectors for the spread of invasive species (Chivers and Leung, 2012). Mulli
Island, in Keelakarai group of islands, which had established thalli of K. alvarezii, is located over
25 km away from Krusadai Island. However, the islands between Mulli and Krusadai, viz., Pullivasal,
Poomarichan, Manoli, Manoliputti and Hare Islands, did not have the thalli of the invasive alga. The
vegetative fragments of the alga cannot survive in deep water and will not be able to spread long
distances or between islands (Russell, 1983; Smith et al., 2002). The sea around these Islands is more
than 10 m deep and would limit the possibility of drift, settlement and spread of the alga. Thus, the
presence of K. alvarezii in Mulli Island may not be attributed to the transport of fragments and their
spread through water currents. The collection of seaweeds from the islands already invaded by the
species and their transport through non-impacted islands could also spread this seaweed.
2.4 Global View
As per the global invasive species database, Kappaphycus spp.is (i) native of the Philippines
(ii) alien and established in Indonesia (iii) alien and established in India. Cultivating native species
does not pose a threat or attract any legal provisions. Exotic seaweed species can behave invasively
if introduced to a new region having conducive biotic and abiotic conditions. Additionally, it must
possess a number of properties to be classified as an invasive seaweed species. These traits are
frequently opportunistic and include a quick rate of growth, a dynamic life cycle, and a high rate of
recruitment, as well as physiology, size, and fitness. However, because of their complexity, the inherent
mechanisms linked to the effectiveness of the biological invasion are still poorly understood. These
factors make macroalgal marine invaders a hazard to estuarine and coastal ecosystems, especially
when introduced in ecologically sensitive areas. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 20
It may also be noted that Kappaphycus spp is reported as invasive in global data base and
not K. alvarezii (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Given that several species of Kappaphycus arepresent across
the globe, such generalized generic mention should not be taken as an alibi to mean K. alvarezii.
Moreover, K. alvarezii has been cultivated in India for over 20 years and may not still be called an
alien/exotic species. It may be noted that the green revolution was also based on crops that were
non-native, but it favourably changed the agricultural scenario of India. Likewise, there are several
instances where other crops were introduced in India and were farmed thereafter. Kappaphycus
alvarezii which was introduced to the Indian coastal waters many years ago and has since been
domesticated is considered ecologically safe.
Figure 6. GISD: India
Figure 7. GISD: Indonesia
2.5 Conclusive Summary of the Environmental Studies by Different
Research Institutes
NCSCM, Chennai commented that the occurrence of K. alvarezii could also be attributed to
human-mediated transfer in Mulli Island and their transport through non-impacted islands can cause
secondary spread. The maximum spread of K. alvarezii (6 km) in the coral area was reported in Hawaii POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
21
islands by alga spread over the reefs as far as 6 km after about 25 years of introduction (Rodgers and
Cox, 1999) and 1 km distance in Fiji Islands (Ask et al., 2003). In India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, K.
alvarezii did not reach the sporulation stage and never released spores. The life history of K. alvarezii
is isomorphic, tri-phasic life cycle and needs all three phases, male, female and tetrasporphyte to
complete the life history before they produce spores. Krishnan et al. (2021) reported that quantitative
data pertaining to the affected parts of the reef by K. alvarezii and its spread in Mulli Island was
negligible (0.00022 percent of reef area).
Surveys conducted by ICAR-CMFRI along the Indian coasts could not find any settlement
of K. alvarezii in seaweed/coral beds. From the impact assessment of K. alvarezii cultivation on the
marine environment being attempted since 1983 from the Hawaii Islands to the recent studies by
CSIR-CSMCRI in Indian waters also could not observe the occurrence/establishment of non-farmed
populations of K. alvarezii (Kaladharan et al., 2019).
Further, K. alvarezii reported areas other than Krusadai and Valai Island did not remain the
same. After 13 years of K. alvarezii occurrence reports, most attachment/occurrence of K. alvarezii
were not traced in adjacent islands, namely, Pullivasal and Poomarichan islands. Most of the published
information on the occurrence of K. alvarezii in the Gulf of Mannar islands is through newspapers and
non-peer-reviewed report/publications. In some studies, there is no technical information such as
geographical co-ordinates, extent and areas of survey, quantity, etc., in their communications and
have erroneous statistical interpretations.
Based on a conceptual model proposed by Colautti and MacIsaac (2004), it was concluded that
the determinants, viz., propagule pressure, physiochemical requirements of the species and community
interactions, act on exotic species to make them invasive. Therefore, it appears that the establishment
of K. alvarezii at Krusadai Island is restricted at stage three (localized and numerically rare), as all the
determinants, viz. seawater temperature, turbidity or seawater transparency, andpropagule pressure
(due to high grazing pressure),are acting negatively. The observed occurrence of K. alvarezii on corals
at Krusadai Island could merely be accidental, and its confinement over a relatively small area might
be due to a combination of factors, particularly those mentioned above. The macro-algae forming
dense beds in Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar were represented by Halimeda spp., Caulerpa spp.,
and Ulva reticulate spp.K. alvarezii was not found in any part of the reefs in Palk Bay, viz., Mandapam
and Rameshwaram Island, despite 20 years of continued commercial cultivation.
The term invasive is gradation depending on human perception of the magnitude. The
invasion process model depicts the discrete stages an invasive species passes through, which include
transport, establishment, spread and impact (Julie et al., 2007). The overall analysis revealed that
there are two schools of thoughts, one is K. alvarezii, is not in the spread/invasive stage in Palk
Bay and the Gulf of Mannar region, it is merely an establishment in negligible areas. Whereas other
thought it is in invasive stage and affects the sensitive benthic flora and fauna.
However, research institutes strictly discouragehuman-based activity in the core zone of
the marine protected area and any ecologically sensitive areas as notified in the CRZ guidelines.
K. alvarezii has been brought to India following proper quarantine protocols, has been cultivated in
India for nearly 20 years, has now been naturalized, and thus may not still be called an alien/exotic
species. The scenario of Indian agriculture has been favorably changed due to many such exotic crops
that were brought and farmed thereafter. It may also be noted that Kappaphycus spp. is reported
as invasive in the global data base and not Kappaphycus alvarezii in the Global Invasive species
database. Given that several species of Kappaphycus are present across the globe, such generalized
generic mention should not be taken as an alibi to mean K. alvarezii non-native crops. Likewise, there
are several instances where other crops were introduced in India and were farmed thereafter. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 22 CHAPTER-III POTENTIAL AREAS FOR
ONSHORE SEAWEED FARMING POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 24
3.1 Background
Seaweed farming holds significant commercial value due to its polysaccharides, bio-stimulants,
and bioactive compounds, making it a valuable resource for various industries. To fully harness India’s
potential for seaweed farming, it is crucial to prioritize sustainable cultivation practices, technological
advancements, and efficient utilization of the identified sites. The challenge lies in identifying suitable
sites for seaweed farming. Research institutes conducted site selection surveys based on several
criteria: proximity to the shoreline, intertidal and sub-tidal zones, previous farming activity, current
and tidal exchange, wave action, water quality parameters, and absence of silt deposits and freshwater
runoff. Additionally, sites were chosen to avoid hindering existing fishing and allied activities.Feasible
locations for seaweed cultivation along the Indian coastline and an inventory of the possible areas
that are not prone to environmental concerns of coral reef damage will be an integral component of
seaweed value chain development in the country.
The sites identified by MoEF&CC-NCSCM, ICAR-CMFRI and CSIR-CSMCRI were categorized
into green zones (>1 km from CRZ-IA), amber zones (up to 1 km from CRZ-IA), and blue zones (within
CRZ-IA and ESA), with 24,707 hectares identified as suitable for seaweed farming, including 3,999.37
hectares classified as green zones, 14,076.77 hectares as amber zones, and 6,631 hectares as blue
zones.
3.2 Methodology
The criteria for identifying the potential (onshore) seaweed farming siteshave been based on
the suitability of the site for the cultivation of seaweed and the availability of the site free from any
environmental concerns. The criteria adopted are given as follows:
i. Nearshore areas within 1000 m distance from the lowest low tide line.
ii. Intertidal and sub-tidal zones with a rocky or sandy bottom.
iii. Previous existence of seaweed farming activity.
iv. Seaweed collection from natural seaweed beds.
v. Sheltered areas with adequate current and tidal exchange.
vi. Areas with moderate wave action.
vii. Areas free from silt deposits.
viii. Optimum basic water quality parameters considered:
• Salinity (28-38 ppt),
• Sea surface temperature (26-31°C),
• pH (6.5-8.5) and transparency (2-6 m),
• Minimum water depth.
ix. Areas away from fishing harbour/landing centre.
x. No hindrance to existing fishing, fishing spaceand other allied activities.
xi. Accessibility for inputs, transportation, marketing, watch and ward.
xii. Areas away from freshwater runoff and domestic or agro-industrial effluents discharge.
xiii. Apart from these, cyclones effect (for example in state of Odisha) maybe taken into
consideration.
MoEF&CC-NCSCM has completed the preparation of maps of potential seaweed cultivation
sites along the entire coast of India based on the inputs provided by ICAR-CMFRI and CSIR-CSMCRI.
MoEF&CC-NCSCM mapped all the sites provided by both institutions and has added value with the
thematic layers for- POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
25
i. CRZ-IA areas,
ii. Areas at least 1km away from sensitive ecosystems,
iii. Shoreline change map,
iv. Structures on the coast and
v. Village boundary.
On a precautionary note, an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) has been incorporated into the
identified sites. Based on the presence and the vicinity of CRZ-IA, the potential seaweed farming
sites were categorized into three Zones:
a. Green zones: sites located > 1 km from CRZ-IA. These sites are suitable for farming as they
are more than 1 km away from sensitive ecosystems.
b. Amber Zones: sites located from the seaward side of CRZ-IA up to 1 km. These are locations
with sensitive ecosystems close to the CRZ-IA area. Caution should be exercised while
undertaking farming of seaweeds.
c. Blue Zones: Sites within CRZ-IA- ESA.
3.3. Output
A total of 333 sites were identified by ICAR-CMFRI, out of which trial / farming activities had
beencarried out in 78 sites. A total of 51 sites were identified by CSIR-CSMCRI, out of which trial /
farming activities are carried out in all the sites. It maybe noted here that the sites and area identified
below is not exhaustive. Potential sites and area have been identified statewise/union territorywise
(Table 1).
Table 1. Potential area for seaweed farming
1
State / Union
Territory
ICAR-CMFRICSIR-CSMCRI
Area
(In hectares)
No. of sites
Area
(In hectares)
No. of sites
Andhra Pradesh 1332.0037233
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands
--16.57
Diu404.472--
Goa119.1948.7543
Gujarat10582.13 131227
Karnataka1273.38116.673
Kerala79.6777.861
Lakshadweep212.8011--
Maharashtra2715.9010155.413
Odisha1483.7614--
Puducherry382.5323--
Tamil Nadu5217.24 19611524
West Bengal448.845--
Total24,251.90 333455.1951
1
District-wise and site-wise details is enclosed in Annexure-II. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 26
3.4 GIS Based Portal for the Mapped Seaweed Cultivation Sites
A GIS-based portal for viewing the mapped seaweed cultivation sites has been developed.
It is possible to include or exclude one or more of the following layers on the portal for viewing. A
screenshot of the layers provided is given below in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Screenshot of GIS-based portal showing layers incorporated
The portal could be accessed at the following link:
https://gisportal.ncscm.res.in/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=de0da170e52c44e996d -
36f5cf5e1e0fa POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
27
The state wise potential area for seaweed farming is shown from Figures 9 to 20.
Figure 9. Potential area for seaweed farming in Gujarat & Diu POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 28
Figure 10. Potential area for seaweed farming in Maharashtra POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
29
Figure 11. Potential area for seaweed farming in Goa POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 30
Figure 12. Potential area for seaweed farming in Karnataka POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
31
Figure 13. Potential area for seaweed farming in Kerala POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 32
Figure 14. Potential area for seaweed farming in Lakshadweep POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
33
Figure 15. Potential area for seaweed farming in Tamil Nadu POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 34
Figure 16. Potential area for seaweed farming in Puducherry POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
35
Figure 17. Potential area for seaweed farming in Andhra Pradesh
Figure 18. Potential area for seaweed farming in Odisha POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 36
Figure 19. Potential area for seaweed farming in West Bengal POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
37
Figure 20. Potential area for seaweed farming in Andaman & Nicobar Islands POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 38 CHAPTER-IV TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY OF ONSHORE
SEAWEED FARMING POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 40
4.1 Introduction
The primary focus currently in India is cultivating Kappaphycus alvarezii (K. alvarezii), a red
algae species that produce carrageenan, a commercially important polysaccharide and bio-stimulant
(Trivedi et al., 2023). While cultivation technologies for other seaweed species have been developed,
K. alvarezii is favoured due to its higher yield and market price. However, the current dry seaweed
production has declined from a peak yield of 1,500 tonnes to 400-500 tonnes per year. Efforts are
underway to develop seed banks and quality planting material through tissue culture and improve
genetic traits for enhanced farming. Various farming technologies have been developed, including
floating rafts, net-tubes, long-lines, and cage-based integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems.
In Lakshadweep, Gracilaria edulis (G. edulis) farming has been gaining momentum in recent
years. Different seaweed species have different characteristics consequently other valuations in the
market. Similarly, they have additional yield and harvesting cycles. Therefore, it becomes imperative
to understand their economics before venturing into cultivation. In this chapter, we discuss in detail
the economics of two important seaweed species namely K. alvarezii and G. edulis (Source: CSIR-
CSMCRI and ICAR-CMFRI).
4.2 Kappaphycus alvarezii
One of the most significant commercial sources of carrageenans, which are gel-forming,
viscosifying polysaccharides, is the red algae species K. alvarezii. This alga can grow up to 2 metres
long and is green or yellow in colour. It grows quite quickly, doubling its biomass within 15 days
of culture. Carrageenan is utilised as a gelling, thickening, and stabilising agent in a wide range of
commercial applications, including frozen desserts, chocolate milk, cottage cheese, whipped cream,
instant goods, yoghurt, jellies, pet foods, and sauces. Carrageenan is also employed in medicinal
formulations, cosmetics, and industrial uses such as mining. CSIR-CSMCRI pioneered the cultivation
of K. alvarezii in India, heralding an era of commercial seaweed farming in India.
Production has increased significantly from 21 tonnes (dry) in 2001 to 1490 tonnes (dry)
in 2013, with a buying value ranging from `4.5 to `35 per kg (dry) besides 7,65,000 man-days of
employment and an annual turnover of roughly `2 billion, India is quickly developing as a significant
production centre in Southeast Asia for K. alvarezii production (Mantri et al., 2017). The socioeconomic
benefits of using this seaweed are tremendous.
4.2.1 Kappaphycus alvarezii Farming Techniques
Along the Tamil Nadu coast, bamboo rafts and monoline seaweed farming techniques
are widely used. In coastal states such as Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, the tube-net technique is
suitable. When the tube-net technique is combined with open sea cage farming, as in the case of
Integrated Multi-Tropic Aquaculture (IMTA), seaweed grows at a faster rate than it does in a tube-
net monoculture. Tube-net technique has overwhelmingly favourable socio-economic advantages
as it incorporates the idea of resource integration and maximum utilization, benefitting fisher folks.
Harvesting species such as Eucheuma spp., Gracilaria spp., Kappaphycus spp., and Porphyra spp.
has been demonstrated to benefit diverse communities. The various seaweed farming techniques
adopted in Tamil Nadu are shown in Figure 21. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
41
Bamboo RaftMonolineTube-net

In calm and shallow places,
the floating bamboo raft
technique (12 feet x 12 feet
bamboo poles) is ideal.
In moderate wave action,
shallow depth, less presence
of herbivorous fishes, the
monoline technique is ideal.
The tube net technique is
being adopted in places with
higher wave actions.
Figure 21.Seaweed farming techniques in Tamil Nadu
4.2.2 Good Management Practices in Seaweed Farming
In order to maximise the productivity and production, ICAR-CMFRI and CSIR-CSMCRI have
developed various good management practices for the different techniques of cultivation. They are
elaborated below (Table 2 to 4).
Table 2. (a) Bamboo raft technique
Hollow bamboo poles of 3-4” diameter for
a 3.6 m x 3.6 m main frame and 1.2 m x 1.2
m diagonals must be chosen and attached
using 4 mm rope.
Bamboos with natural holes, fissures, and
soon must be rejected. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 42
3 mm or 3.5 mm polypropylene twisted
rope can be cut into 20 bits each ranging
in length from 4.0 - 4.5 m for seeding.
Cut the long braider into 20 pieces (for
20 plantation ropes) so that 400 pieces
of HDPE braider with a length of 25 cm
each can be made.
HDPE fishing nets that have been damaged
must be rejected.
Damaged ropes have to be rejected.
Each braider should be twined at 15
cm intervals (on the 4.5 m length
polypropylene twisted plantation rope).
This allows 0.5 m on either side for
fastening on the pole.
Damaged braiders have to be rejected. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
43
To keep seaweeds from grazing, a used
HDPE fishing net 4 m x 4 m must be fastened
to the raft bottom using 2 mm rope.
Unhealthy seeds should be rejected.
Seeding should be done on the beach or
on land, ideally in the shade.
Seed material should not be placed in open
places which are exposed to direct sunlight,
rain, temperature, and humidity fluctuations.
This would impact the quality of seed material.
A cluster of five rafts is connected by 6
mm rope. The cluster is positioned at near
shore region having depth of 1.0 - 1.5 m.
This is done using a 30 kg anchor tied with
12-14 mm rope.
400 rafts of 12 feet x 12 feet size are
excellent forone hectare of land. This
allows for adequate space between the
rafts for proper seawater circulation,
maintenance, and other farm operations. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 44
Seedlings brought from other districts/
states should be placed in a clean net bag
and stored at the bottom of the sea (1-2 m
depth) for a few days before planting.
Casuarina/eucalyptus poles of 3-4” diameter
and 10 feet length, free of natural holes,
fissures, and so on, should be chosen.
Total of 150-200 g of seaweed fragments are
tied at 15 cm intervals throughout the length
of the rope. A total of 20 seaweed fragments
are linked together in a single rope, and 20
of these ropes are strung together in a raft.
Seed needed for this is 60-80 kg.
Poles with natural holes, fissures, and other
damage should be refused.
Source: Johnson et al., 2023a
(b) Monoline technique
Based on the location, the dimensions of monoline units will vary. Procedure followed in
Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu is depicted below in Table 3.
Table 3. (b) Monoline technique
Four casuarina poles of above dimensions
are placed at 10-20 feet intervals in each
corner for one unit.
The seaweed seedling rope is linked on
two sides with 6 mm rope. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
45
Total of 150-200 g of seaweed fragments are
tied at 15 cm intervals throughout the length
of the rope (6.75 m).
Each rope has floats tied to it to increase its
floatability.
The total seed consumption per monoline
unit is 60-80 kg.
A single rope is made up of 40 seaweed bits.
The monoline is oriented parallel to the
water movement or beach. This protects
seaweeds and casuarina poles. It also
reduces the attachment of floating debris.
One segment (120 feet long and 20 feet
wide) equals ten monoline units (in terms
of production, one monoline unit equals
one raft).
Source: Johnson et al., 2023a POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 46
Tube nets (25 m length, 10 cm diameter) can
be produced from HDPE food grade nets (1.5
cm mesh size).
Damaged nets should be rejected.
The tube nets are held floating in the water column
below the surface. Sufficient number and size of
floats are placed at regular intervals. Anchor stones
(about 30 kg) are used at each end to hold the
tube nets steady in the water column; if required,
additional anchors can be fixed in between.
A 15 kg fresh weight seed material is put into the
tubes using a 1.0 - 1.5 m long plastic pipe that
acts as a funnel or hopper. For efficient seeding,
the pipe diameter should be slightly smaller than
that of the tube net. The plastic pipe is inserted
into the tube net and the entire tube is pulled
down, so that the mouth of the plastic pipe
stands out of the tube. The tube net is carefully
pushed down from the bottom of the plastic pipe,
so that seedling material is placed into the tube
sequentially, with no gaps between the seedlings.
This technique is repeated until the entire tube
net has been seeded with algal biomass. The
tube nets are closed at both ends with rope to
prevent material being lost.
Table 4. (c) Tube net technique
(d) Sea cage-based tube net technique
First activity involves site selection and installation of sea cage by stocking it up with marine
finfish species. Preparation of the tube net for installing in the cage should be done using fishing nets
of square mesh (10 mm) of 5 m length and 12-15 cm diameter. An average 1000 g of good quality
seed material can be placed in each net-tube. PVC pipe cut-outs are placed at regularintervals of 45
cm for maintaining the firmnessof the tube net structure. The ends of the tube nets should be tied to
the cage rings to hold the structure steady in thewater column. A total of 5 tube nets of 5 m length
for one sea cage of diameter 6 m can be installed. The process is depicted in Table 5. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
47
Table 5. Sea cage-based tube net technique
Selection of seaweed planting material.
Tube-net preparation in process.
Tube-net preparation in process.
Tying of the ends of tube net to the cage ring.
4.2.3 Maintenance of Seaweed Farming
Maintenance plays a crucial role in ehancing productivity of seaweed farms. Adoption of best
possible practices in maintenance (Figure 22) is crucial at every stage of the seaweed life cycle. The
following practices for maintenance of seaweed farming are suggested.
• Seaweeds need a gentle care.
• Daily visit to the farm is necessary.
• Broken-off,missedseedlingsshouldbereplaced periodically.Sediments attached to the plants
and ropes have to be removed regularly.
• Broken and drifted plants have to be removed periodically from the farming site.
• Damaged bamboo/casuarina poles have to be replaced periodically.
• After 1 - 2 years of culture period, the unusable bamboo poles, ropes, braiders, nets should be
disposed properly. They should not be left in the sea or at the shore. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 48
Figure 22. Maintenance of seaweed farming
Management of Disease
“Ice-ice” is the only disease reported in seaweed farming (Figure 23).It is caused probably
due to abiotic stress like low salinity, high temperature and low light intensity.

Figure 23. Management of disease in seaweed farming POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
49
Management of Epiphytism
Epiphytism is the attachment of undesirable seaweeds to the cultured species which usually
occur at theonset of monsoon brought by change in water temperature, trade wind and water current.
The branches will show the symptoms of whitening and eventually disintegrate which may result in
crop loss. If this is observed, entire crop has to be harvested and farming has to be restarted with new
seedlings. The drifted seaweeds compete for space, nutrient and sunlight with the cultured species.
Other seaweeds attached to the cultured species have to be removed periodically.
4.2.4 Postharvest Handling
Seaweeds are ready to be harvested in 45 days (Figure 24). T o avoid contamination by
sand/silt, collected seaweeds must be dried on raised drying platforms.Impurities such as stones,
shells, and other foreign matter can be cleansed when drying. During rainy seasons, harvested and
dried seaweeds must be covered with tarpaulin sheets. After drying, seaweeds can be put in sacks
and stored in a clean, dry environment. Seaweeds (either dry or wet) are shipped to industries for
commercial uses (Figure 25).
Figure 24. Harvesting of seaweed

Figure 25. Postharvest handling of seaweed
4.3 Gracilaria edulis
Gracilaria edulis (G. edulis) is commonly used in the manufacturing of food-grade agar.
To increase biomass production, G. edulis cultivation was carried out using floating raft technique
(Figure 26). Research was conducted to study the seasonality of growth, growth rate differences POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 50
in different locations, subtidal (off-shore) and intertidal (near-shore) cultivation, and the seasonal
occurrence of epiphytes. January-February had the lowest biomass (1.50±0.1 kg fresh weight per m
2
)
and daily growth rate (DGR) (2.60±0.1 percent per day), which were substantially different (P<0.001)
from other maximum growth periods. The biomass varied from 1.6 - 2.6 kg fresh weight per m
2
. DGR
(3.6-5.9 percent per day) was more at Ervadi but not substantially different (P>0.05). Cultivation
in the subtidal zone produced considerably more biomass (12.50±0.9 kg fresh weight per m
2
) and
DGR (7.40±0.4 percent per day) than cultivation in the intertidal region (4.4±0.4 percent per day).
G. edulis growth has been found to be hampered by epiphytes. In April and August, a maximum of
15 epiphytic algae were found, and a minimum of 7 in February. The results show that G. edulis can
be successfully cultivated for 8 months of the year, with maximum growth rates from November to
December (Ganesan et al., 2011). Cultivation in the subtidal zone, harvest after 60 days of growth,
and weeding of epiphytic algae on a regular basis all boosted productivity. The ICAR-CMFRI has
been conducting seaweed farming trials on several Lakshadweep islands from August, 2020 as part
of the ICAR-sponsored National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) project. The
Lakshadweep administration chose bamboo, a natural material, for scaled-up demonstration farming
of G. edulis.
Figure 26. G. edulis cultivation using bamboo raft technique
4.4 Economics of Cultivation: K. alvarezii v/s G. edulis
The crop life of K. alvarezii is 45-60 days, four to six crops or cycles (6 to 9 months) can be
harvested annually. In 45 days, a 150 g seedling grows to 500 to 1000 g. Seed required for one raft (12
feetx 12 feet)and tubenet (25 m length) is 60 kg and 15 kg, respectively. The harvested seaweed has
an average dry weight percentage of 10 percent. Farmers currently receive ` 16/- for fresh seaweed
and ` 70/- for dried seaweed, respectively.
G.edulis farming takes 45 days to complete, five to six cycles (9 months) can be harvested
annually. In 45 days, 50 g seedling can grow to 500 to 1500 g. Seed requirement for one raft (12 feet
x 12 feet size) is 20 kg. The harvested seaweed has an average dry weight percentage of 15 percent.
Farmers receive ` 20/- per kg of dried seaweed. The economics of K. alvarezii (Aquaculture 2022; 551:
737912) and G. edulis (Aquaculture International 2022; 30: 1505-1525) farming are compared below
in the Table 6. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
51
Table 6. Economics of K. alvarezii v/s G. edulis farming
S. No.ComponentsK. alvarezii G. edulis
1.
Gross seaweed production (wet weight
in kg per raft per year)
1,000 kg2,000 kg
2. Number of crops per year45
3.
Seaweed to be retained for usage as
seed material in next year
240 kg100 kg
4.
Net seaweed production (wet weight
in kg per raft per year)
(1 minus 3)
760 kg1900 kg
5. Dry weight proportion
10 percent of wet
weight
15 percent of wet
weight
6. Weight of dry seaweed76 kg285 kg
7. Price of dry seaweedweight per kg ` 70` 20
8.
Total revenue generated per year per
raft
` 5,320` 5,700
9.
Annual total cost of production (in-
cluding capital costs) per raft
` 2,000` 2,578
10.
Net revenue per raft per year
(8 minus 9)
` 3,320` 3,122
11.
Total net revenue in dry weight per
year
45 x ` 3,320
= ` 1,49,400/-
(for 45 rafts)
25 x ` 3,122
= ` 78,050/-
(for 25 rafts)
12.
Net revenue from one hectare (400
rafts) in dry weight per year
` 13,28,000/- ` 12,48,000/-
Source: ICAR-CMFRI
Native species (Gracilaria) are economically attractive, if biomass processed is used
fordeveloping multiple products. The yield for K. alvarezii, G. edulis and G. debilis is 16.7-27.7, 3.75
and 7.5 kg per square metre of raft, respectively. Thus, it is apparent that the volume of the feedstock
obtained per unit area, say one hectare is much higher for K. alvarezii than other species. Thus,
economic feasibility is several folds high for K. alvarezii. The labour involved per unit area for both
K. alvarezii and Gracilaria (agarophytes) is similar. Thus, if a higher price is offered to agarophyte
seaweeds, it would make more people opt for it.
4.5 Cultivation of Other Seaweed Species
As discussed in the previous sections of this chapter, the production, profits, revenue
and applications from seaweed differ significantly due to their characteristics. About 180 species
ofGracilaria occur in the world, of which 32 species are reported from India. Among these, six species,
namely Gracilariacrassa, Gracilaria corticata, Gracilaria dura, Gracilaria edulis, Gracilaria fergusonii,
and Gracilaria foliifera, have the potential for agar production (Krishnamurthy, 1991). It becomes
imperative to understand the significance of cultivating native promising seaweed species. They are
discussed in brief below. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 52
4.5.1 Gracilaria dura
Gracilaria dura (G. dura) has the potential to be a commercially viable source of agarose and
agar in India. As a source of agarose with gel strength of 2200 g per cm
2
, a gelling temperature of
30°C, and a sulphate concentration of 0.15 percent, G. dura is of great interest (Kavale et al., 2022).
The west coast of India is the only area where G. dura is found. Experimental cultivation of G. dura
was started along the southeast coast of India using tubenet, bottom-net, net-bag, net pouch (net
techniques) and bamboo raft techniques (Figure 27). The tubenet technique produced the maximum
biomass (1.764 kg fresh weight per m
2
, DGR of 3.748 ± 0.91 percent), followed by the floating bamboo
raft (1.05 kg fresh weight per m
2
, DGR of 2.61 ± 0.45 percent) and bottom-net bag (0.904 kg fresh
weight per m
2
, DGR of 3.17 ± 1.71 percent) techniques (Veeragurunathan et al., 2015).
The net techniques had higherestimated revenues (USD 529 per month per hectare) than the
other techniques studied, owing to the minimal manpower demand, ease of maintenance, reduced
seedling loss, and rapid growth rate. The tube-net technique was recently used in an initial cultivation
effort for G. dura along the Simar, Gujarat coast in northwest India. Seed material (10 kg fresh) was
uniformly loaded in 25 m tubenets produced from fishing nets, sealed at both ends with polypropylene
rope, and transplanted in rows to shallow coastal waters with anchor supports and floats. G. dura
grew at a DGR of 2-3 percent, yielding 30-35 kg of fresh biomass in 40-45 days. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
53
Figure 27: Different techniques of G. dura cultivation: (a, b) raft, (c, d) bottom-net
bag, (e, f) HRT, (g, h) net-bag and (i, j) net-pouch; (a, c, e, g, i) with initial seedlings,
(b, d, f, h, j) with fully grown plants before harvesting
4.5.2 Gracilaria debilis
Gracilaria debilis (G. debilis) is a commercially important red alga used in the manufacturing of
medicinal agar. CSIR-CSMCRI cultivated G. debilis using floating bamboo raft technique along India’s
southeastern coast. Biomass yield, growth rate, and agar properties from each harvest, followed
by bench-scale agar characterisation and economics was assessed (Figure 28). The first harvest
(November-December) in both year-1 (11.02±2.08 kg fresh weight per m
2
) and year-2 (7.17±3.95 kg
fresh weight per m
2
) yielded higher biomass and DGR (3.59±0.4 percent and 4.17±0.96 percent in
year-1 and year-2, respectively).
During the monsoon season (July-August), biomass yield and DGR were at their lowest level.
There was no discernible trend in the yield and gel strength of the extracted agar, which were 14-32.6
percent and 300-866 g per cm
2
, respectively. This study confirmed that year-round production of
G. debilis utilising the raft culture technique with six harvest cycles per year is achievable in Indian
waters. A single operator’s annual income was estimated to be USD 141, with a break-even point per
acre achievable in 126 days (Veeragurunathan et al., 2019). POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 54
Figure 28. G. debilis (two strains) cultivated using the bamboo raft technique.
4.5.3 Hypnea musciformis
Hypnea musciformis (H. musciformis) is a native carrageenophyte that produces kappa-
carrageenan. Natural beds of H. musciformis can be found along the shorelines of various islands
in the Gulf of Mannar. Krusadai Island’s lagoon waters were chosen for pilot-scale cultivation of H.
musciformis using the monoline method. Actively growing apical sections of H. musciformis weighing
2-2.5 g (fresh weight) and measuring 5 cm in length were put between the braids of 20 m long
coconut husk coir ropes. The ropes were secured to wooden pegs and buoyed by plastic floats. A
total of 2000 m of coir ropes were seeded and planted in ten plots, each with ten ropes 20 m long.
Hypnea was picked every 25 days till it reached a length of 30-35 cm. Thalli was trimmed, allowing
fragments to sprout. Harvests ranged from 250 to 300 g fresh weight per metre of rope. A total
biomass of 38-40 tonnes per hectare per year (fresh weight) was obtained from fifteen harvests
every year (Ganesan et al., 2006).
4.5.4 Gelidiella acerosa
Gelidiella acerosa (G. acerosa) is the preferred source of raw material for the production of
pharmaceutical and bacteriological grade agar with a gel strength varying from 850 to 2200 g per cm
2

(Ganesan et al., 2015). Indian agar processors produce an average of 100 tonnes of pharmacological-
grade agar from G. acerosa. Long-line ropes, single rope floating, coral stone culture, and concrete
stonewere some of the techniques initially used. They resulted in low biomass yields and were difficult
to manage in terms of planting, monitoring and harvest practices. Therefore, it became necessary to
develop improved techniques that could yield higher biomass with easier cultivation operations. The POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
55
bamboo raft technique successfully used for the commercial cultivation of K. alvarezii was adopted
for G. acerosa, yielding significantly higher harvested biomass than previous techniques. The bottom
culture technique was developed to enhance the bamboo raft method by tying approximately 2
g of seedlings to nylon thread, which was wound around the stones (15-70 cm
2
area and 100-200
g weight) and hung 5 cm below the polypropylene ropes (3 mm diameter) (Ganesan et al. , 2009)
(Figure 29).
The polypropylene ropes were tied across the 1.5 m x 1.5 m bamboo frames. The algal thalli
were oriented upwards by the dangling ropes. Ten polypropylene ropes per square raft (2 m x 2 m)
were used to link eight infected stones to each rope. Each raft received 160 g fresh biomass, which
equated to 71 g fresh weight per m
2
. Harvesting included cutting erect thalli while leaving the basal
sections on the stones to grow further. The stone-modified raft technique resulted in three harvests
per year, with each harvest yielding 8-15 kg fresh weight per raft (Ganesan et al., 2011).
Figure 29. Bottom culture method using a cement block technique.
4.5.5 Sarconema filiforme
Sarconema filiforme (S. filiforme) is primarily utilised in the manufacture of carrageenan.
For the first time, the CSIR-CSMCRI reported suceessful cultivation of the red alga S. filiforme and
carrageenan content harvest at a 25-day growth period using floating rafts along the southeast
coastof India (Figure 30) (Ganesan et al., 2014).
During the study, maximum biomass density (2.28±0.03 kg fresh weight per m
2
) and DGR
(11.63±0.06 percent) were observed from August-September each year, and these values were
significantly different. Harvesting at the end of the 25-day culture period resulted in the maximum
biomass (4.24±0.95 kg fresh weight per m
2
). In contrast, plants harvested after 20 days had a greater
DGR (13.20±0.20 percent), which was significantly different from plants harvested after 30 days.
Biomass density (2.22-6.46 kg fresh weight per m
2
) and DGR (5.0-10.91 percent) was significantly
higher at Ervadi than at Thonithurai (P<0.001). A presence of hybrid lambda and iota carrageenan
was observed using physico-chemical, infrared, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectral studies of
extracted carrageenan. The farmed material produced more carrageenan than the wild stock of S.
filiforme from Indian rivers. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 56

Figure 30. S. filiforme cultivation (a) seeded on rafts, and (b) ready for harvest
4.5.6 Gelidium pusillum
Gelidium pusillum (G. pusillum) is mostly utilised in the preparation of agar. Three types of
techniques were used to cultivate G. pusillum for increasing biomass output and generating agar with
high gel strengthon the southeast coast of India. The net bag technique produced highest biomass
yield (0.465 kg fresh weight per m
2
) while the net pouch technique produced the lowest biomass
yield (0.144 kg fresh weight per m
2
). Similarly, the DGR in the net bag technique (1.05 percent) was
higher than in the raft (0.679 percent) and net pouch (0.56 percent). Furthermore, the net bag
technique yielded the highest quality agar (high gel strength: 2100 gper cm
2
in 1.5 percent gel; gelling
temperature: 35°C; ash content: ≤ 1 percent; sulphate content: 0.34 percent), which is critical for
better quality agar applications. G. pusillum cultivation techniques are depicted which is primarily
employed in the manufacturing of agar (Veeragurunathan et al., 2018) (Figure 31).
Figure 31. G. pusillum cultivation using different techniques
Besides this, the basic production data including market value and infrastructure cost of
different agarophytes is given in Annexure-I. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
57
4.6 Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture
The ICAR-CMFRI has developed and standardised systems for seed production and open sea
cage farming of marine finfish and shellfish. As sea cage farming expands,the organic and inorganic
load in the water is expected to increase, which can lead to illnesses. Bio-mitigation and improved
biomass production can be done by merging together distinct groups of aquatic species with diverse
feeding patterns. This is called as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA), and it has recently
attracted global attention. Successful trials wereconducted by integrating seaweed with sea cage
farming of marine finfishes/shellfishes (Figure 32) in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh. This
has also resulted in increased seaweed production with fish, which has helped fishers’ livelihoods, and
contributed to earn more carbon credits.
IMTA was demonstrated during 2014-17 at Munaikadu, Palk Bay (Tamil Nadu). A total of 16
bamboo rafts (12 feetx 12 feet) containing 60 kg seaweed in each raft was integrated for four cycles
(45 days per cycle) alongside one of the cobia farming cages. The rafts were positioned in a semi-
circular pattern, 15 feet away from the cage to allow the seaweed to absorb the dissolved inorganic
and organic nutrient wastes that travel along the water current from the cage. A total of 20 cages of
6 m diameter can be connected with 320 bamboo rafts (12 feet x12 feet) @ 16 bamboo rafts per cage
in one hectare of space.
Seaweed rafts connected with cobia farming cages had a higher average production of 390
kg per raft through IMTA, while non-integrated rafts had a yield of 250 kg per raft. The integration
with cobia cage farming resulted in an enhanced output of 140 kg of seaweed per raft (56 percent
additional yield). The integration of seaweed rafts with cobia cages resulted in an increased net
income of ` 62,720/-.
Carbon dioxide (CO
2
) sequestration rate (per unit mass of K. alvarezii seaweed per day per 16
rafts per 4 crops) in the integrated and non-integrated rafts was equal to 47.4 kg and 30.4 kg CO
2
per
day per tonne of dry weight, respectively. As a result, merging 16 seaweed rafts (4 cycles) with one
cobia farming cage (per crop) resulted in an additional 17.0 kg CO
2
per day per tonne of dry weight
credit (55 percent sequestration rate).
ICAR-CMFRI has developed IMTA technology for commercial cultivation of G. edulis, G.
acerosa and Ulva lactuca.
Figure 32. Aerial view of IMTA POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 58 CHAPTER-V TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY OF OFFSHORE
SEAWEED FARMING POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 60
5.1 Background
The techniques for seaweed cultivation were initially developed in China during the 1950s,
using line and rope culture methods for brown seaweeds. Ideally, coastal areas with minimal silt and
turbidity, optimal salinity and temperature conditions, are suitable for cultivation. Rope methods are
suitable for areas with low wave action, while tube net methods are preferable in areas with moderate
wave action. The use for tube nets offers multiple support points for seaweed in rough water and
thus minimizes biomass loss during rough conditions. The farm structure needs to be rope based
anchored rather than bamboo rafts. National Institute of Ocean Technology- Atal Centre for Ocean
Science and Technology for Islands (NIOT-ACOSTI), in collaboration with CSMCRI and A&N Fisheries
Dept., has initiated large-scale seaweed cultivation in the Andaman region in offshore conditions.
India should deploy offshore seaweed cultivation into its waters.
5.2 Estimation of Suitable Area for Seaweed Farming in Indian EEZ
Geospatial analysis was carried out utilizing 5 critical parameters (water depth, sea surface
current, wave height, cost, distance) and 5 essential parameters (sea surface temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and phosphate. The essential environmental parameters required for
cultivating seaweed were converted into thematic layers using Geographical Information System
(GIS) tool. Weights of relative importance were assigned to each layer and integrated through overlay
analysis to develop a final model. NIOT estimated area suitable for seaweed farming as 14259 km
2
in
the water depth of 1 to 5 m for traditional scale farming, 100426 km
2
in the water depth of 5 to 25 m
for community-scale farming and 94825 km
2
in the depth of 25 to 50 m for industrial scale farming.
5.3 Model for Large-scale Offshore Seaweed Farming
To address the need for a more robust culture system to overcome the challenges confronted
in offshore environments, NIOT is being involved in demonstrating seaweed culture in rafts, tube nets,
and monoline systems in A&N Islands. NIOT has proposed a culture model with a suitable mooring
pattern for rough sea conditions.
5.3.1 Seaweed Farming Grid and Mooring Components
The major components of the seaweed grid system are HDPE pipes and grid buoys (Figure
33). The floating HDPE pipes and buoys are filled with styrofoam to retain the buoyancy and ingression
of the water in the event of a minor crack. The mooring components are important parts of the
seaweed grid system, which provide stability for positioning the grid systems to withstand the open
sea conditions. The proposed culture plan has 10 grids of dimensions 120 m x 110 m (Figure 34 and
35). Each grid contains 18 rafts,each holding 8 tube nets (each 100 m in length) with a 10 cm diameter
(mesh size 3.5 cm) (Figure 36).
HDPE pipesGrid mooring buoyRaft rope buoy
Figure 33. HDPE pipes, grid mooring buoy, raft rope buoy POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
61
Figure 34. Schematic mooring pattern of 10 grids for open sea seaweed cultivation
Figure 35. General layout of the grid (120 m x 110 m) for seaweed cultivation
Figure 36. Overview of one raft with 8 tube nets POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 62
Nets made up of HDPE of 1.5 mm thickness with varied mesh sizes of 3.5 cm may be utilized
for the culture of seaweeds to reduce the grazing by herbivores fishes. The non-metallic mooring
components comprise various sizes of polypropylene ropes used for primary head ropes, grid ropes
and anchor ropes (Table 7 and Figure 37).
Table 7. Specifications of rope and its breaking strength
S.
No.
Specifications of rope
Min. breaking
strength (tonne)
1.Head rope: polypropylene diameter 14 mm (3 strands); 11.1 m per kg 3.0
2.Grid rope: polypropylene diameter 44 mm (8 strands); 1.13m per kg 24.6
3.Anchor rope: polypropylene diameter 48 mm (8 strands); 0.96 m per kg 28.6
Primary head ropeGrid RopeAnchor Rope
Figure 37. Ropes for anchor, grid and head for the raft
The metallic mooring components comprises MS Anchor (Samson Type), studded chains,
collectors, shackles, thimbles (Figure 38). The MS anchor can be fabricated locally close to the de-
ployment, and all other metallic components are available at the local market of major cities of India.
The detailed specifications of mooring metallic components are also given (Table 8).
Omega shackle Thimble Collector ring Studded chain
MS Anchor (Samson
Type)
Figure 38. Metallic mooring components of a grid
Table 8. Specification of mooring metallic components
S. No. ComponentSpecification
1.
Anchor
(Samson Type)
MS, weight 250 kg;thickness 25 mm diameter; detachable balancing rod
length of 2 m (weight 20 kg)
2. Studded chain
Grade-U2/ U3; ISO-1704; 32 mm; break load capacity - 58.3 tonnes; 22 kg
per meter
3. Collector ring
MS, 40 mm thickness; 60 cm inner diameter; weight-25 kg; sand
blasted; hot dip galvanizes; break load capacity-89.6 tonne
4. Bow shackle
Size-1.5 inch; break load capacity - 17 tonne; weight - 9.5 kg, forged
alloy; anchor shackle with bolt and SS pin
5. Thimble
Weight: 1.7-2.0 kg; hot dip galvanized; heavy duty stub-end reinforced;
suitable for 44 mm pp rope POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
63
5.3.2 Grid Fabrication and Deployment
The grid fabrication shall be carried out on the beaches of the proposed deployment sites.
The mooring grid preparation procedure is as follows-
• A grid buoy (330 L buoyancy) is connected to all collector rings using a 48 mm PP rope (8
strands, breaking load 28.6 tonnes), enabling to position of the grid at the desired depth of
10 m (the length of the anchor rope will vary according to the depth of the site) (Figure 39).
The mooring grids are dragged from the beach to the pre-selected deployment location
using a country boat and mechanized trawlers. The 120 m × 110 m subsurface grid will be
positioned with multipoint point mooring by connecting all peripheral collector rings to the
anchor system (MS 250 kg, with 5 m stud link chain 32 mm thickness, and D shackle 32 mm
thickness). Using a mechanised trawler, the anchor ropes are tensioned to stretch the grid to
a desired shape.
• Each grid contains 18 rafts,each raft holding 8 tube nets (each 100 m length) with a 10 cm
diameter (mesh size 3.5 cm). Each raft is connected with the head rope (14 mm T) of a raft.
• Each raft protects culture tubes from seaweed-browsing fishes with the help of an anti-
browsing net (3.5 cm mesh size and 1.5 mm T) by connecting to the raft’s peripheral rope (12
mm T).
(a) Preparation and moving of mooring grid (b) Positioning of mooring grid
Figure 39. Mobilization and positioning of mooring grid
5.3.3 Seaweed Planting Material
The availability of a local species of commercially important seaweed seed is one of the major
bottlenecks in the large-scale expansion of the seaweed culture in India. Research institutes such as
ICAR-CMFRI and CSIR-CSMCRI have developed lab technologies for seaweed seed production. The
source and rate for few species of seaweed seed is given below (Table 9). Although the technology
is available for several commercially important seaweed species, the consistent production of many
seaweed seeds is limited to Kappaphycus sp. and Gracilaria species.
Planting material has to be either procured from a seed bank or harvested through the wild
collection. The seaweed materials may be preserved using following methods (i) tank filled with
seawater having provision for aerator (land-based system), (ii) tube net or raft method, (iii) small
cage submerged in sea water, (iv) storage in gunny bags, covering during sunny days, followed by
frequent spraying of seawater onto it. Proper aeration and humidity should be ensured. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 64
Table 9. Source and rate of the seaweed seed
S. No.Name of the seaweed species
Wild
collection
Seed rate,
₹ per kg
Market value,
₹ per kg
1. K. alvareziiNo 14.00110.00
2. G. edulisYes 5.0040.00
3. G. duraYes--
4. G. salicorniaYes--
Source: NIOT
5.3.4 Disease Management
Regular observation of seaweed is highly important. Less growth, change in color, and
shedding of leaves are initial signs of the disease and parasite infection. Generally, infectious diseases
are caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites. During Kappaphycus sp. cultivation, seaweed
is prone to ice-ice disease and epiphytic filamentous algae. In the case of Gracilaria sp., red rot,
white spot, green spot, white blight, rotten thallus syndrome, diatom blooms, twisted frond, blister,
and pin- hole diseases frequently happened in seaweed cultivation conditions in Asia (Ward et al.,
2019). Different acid treatment strategies for a few seconds are often used to control the spread of
disease and pest outbreaks in seaweed aquaculture. Other methods, such as repositioning cultivation
ropes to expose to sunlight and favorable salinity, may reduce the disease’s spread. Currently, pest
epiphytes are removed by hand.
5.3.5 Harvesting and Marketing
The grown seaweeds in the tube nets may be removed entirely by using twin hull Catamaran
type boat with the harvesting machine. The seaweed grown in the raft grid can be harvested by lifting
a tube net and collecting it appropriately. The seaweed has to be harvested in the early hours of the
day and kept for sun drying for some time to remove the water. Periodical and partial harvesting can
also be planned based on market demand.
5.4 Economic Feasibility Study
The proposed seaweed cultivation in the open sea method requires grid and mooring
components. Expenditure such as grid components, grid fabrication, culture operation, boat hiring,
seeding, harvesting machine, water monitoring equipment and labour wages need to be accounted
for (Table 10 and 11). The pricing has been calculated based on the present market rates. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
65
Table 10. Cost of components required for grid (120 m × 110 m)
S.No ParticularsUnit
Qty./
grid
Unit cost
(₹)
Cost/
grid (₹)
Cost / 10
grid (₹)
1
Primary cylindrical float (HDPE,
ᴓ 200 mm, 6 mm, PN6) (18 x 2)
Nos. 36 5700 205200 2052000
2
Secondary cylindrical
float(HDPE, ᴓ 110 mm, 6 mm,
PN 6) (33 x18)
Nos. 594 2100 1247400 12474000
3 Anchor Samson Type (MS, 250 kg) Nos. 2.6 25000 65000 650000
4
Anchor chain studded (MS 36
mm, 3 m)
Nos. 2.6 9000 23400 234000
5 D and Bow shackle (MS 38 mm) Nos. 5.2 2200 11440 114400
6 Thimble for anchor rope (48 mm) Nos. 2.6 2200 5720 57200
7 Grid Buoy (HDPE, 330 LTR) Nos. 2.2 30000 66000 660000
8 Seeding, harvesting machine Nos. 12500000 250000 2500000
9
Katamaran (barge) to mount
seeding, harvesting machine
Nos. 11000000 100000 1000000
Depreciation for 90 cultures (15 years x 6 cycles) ₹ 19,74,1601,76,89,600
10 Anchor rope (52 mm, 24.8 T) Kg. 75 180 13500 135000
11
Collector ring (MS ᴓ 600 mm,
40 mm)
Nos. 2.2 6000 13200 132000
12Grid buoy rope (PP 44 mm, 24T) Kg. 14 180 2520 25200
13Grid rope 44 mm (PP 44 mm, 24T) Kg. 464 180 83520 835200
14
Head rope to raft -from the grid
to raft (PP 14 mm, 3 T)
Kg. 52 180 9360 93600
15
Head rope for anti-browsing net
(PP 12 mm, 2.2 T)
Kg. 140 180 25200 252000
16 Supporting rope (PP 6 mm, 0.6T) Kg. 20 180 3600 36000
17
Net and tube preparation (mesh
3.5 cm & 1 mm T)
Kg. 510 500 255000 2550000
18
Anti-browsing net (HDPE, 35
mm mesh, 1.5 mm thickness)
Kg. 750 500 375000 3750000
20
Peripheral raft buoy (Doughnut
shape 1.5 litre capacity)
Nos. 1188 120 142560 1425600
21
Tarpaulin sheet (200 gsm 50
feet x 50 feet)
Nos. 5 15000 75000 750000
22
Snorkel set with fin for raft
observation
Nos. 20 5000 100000 1000000
23
Miscellaneous for stitching
ropeand needles
Nos. 1 20000 20000 200000
Depreciation for 30 cultures (5 years x 6 cycles)11,18,4601,11,84,600 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 66
During grid preparation, the following expenditure is needed to be spent on hiring manpower
and boat for preparation, mobilization, and deployment of grid and rafts.
Table 11. Labour charges for grid preparation (120 m × 110 m)
S. NoParticularsUnit
Req.
Qty.
Unit cost
(₹)
Cost per
grid (₹)
Cost per 10
grid (₹)
1
Labour charge for unloading from
truck
Nos. 10 1000 10000 100000
2
Hiring of crane for unloading
anchor and ropes
Nos. 1 5000 5000 50000
3 Watch and ward charges Nos. 20 500 10000 50000
4
Hiring of trawlers for grid
deployment
Nos. 1 25000 25000 250000
5 Hiring of beach landing craft Nos. 5 3000 15000 150000
6
Hiring of skilled labor during grid
and raft deployment
Nos. 20 1000 20000 200000
7
Hiring of labour for tube and
anti-browsing net fabrication
(8L/D×18R×2G)
Nos. 100 1000 100000 1000000
Total1,85,000 18,00,000
The operational cost includes the expenditure on procurement of seaweeds planting material,
transportation, hiring of labour and boat for daily maintenance, storeroom and expenditures on
harvest (Table 12).
Table 12. Operational cost for grid (120 m × 110 m)
S. No Particulars UnitQty.
Unit cost
(₹)
Cost/grid
(₹)
Cost /10 grid
(₹)
1
Seaweed planting material (30
kg x 8 tube net x 18 rafts)
kg 4320 14 60480 604800
2
Labour for daily maintenance
(4 labour x 45 days)
Nos. 180 500 90000 900000
3
Boat for maintenance (hiring
charges)
Nos. 45 1500 67500 675000
4
Supervisor (1 supervisor for 2
grid and for 45days @₹800/
day)
Nos. 0.5 36000 18000 180000
5
Hiring of storeroom₹ 5000/
month
Nos. 1 10000 10000 100000
6 Harvest boatNos. 12 3000 36000 360000
7 Labour for drying and packing Nos. 30 800 24000 240000
Total3,05,980 30,59,800 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
67
The cost-benefit analysis for initiating culture is calculated using the standard formula for the
deployment of the raft grid system. The capital investment in the raft grid system will last for about
8 years and expenditure will further reduce if the number of rafts is increased at the same location
due to the reduction of anchors and other related mooring components. In the case, entrepreneurs
use their boats and security, the operational cost will be less, and the profit margin will increase
proportionally. The revenue and profit estimate for 10 grids (120 m x 110 m) for K. alvarezii is given in
the Table 13.
Table 13. Revenue and profit estimate for 10 grids (120 m x 110 m) using K. alvarezii
S. No. Particulars Grid (₹)
6 cultures/year
(₹)
30 cultures/5 yrs
(₹)
10 grids/5 yrs
(₹)
Capital investment
1
Cost of grid mooring
components
19,74,1601,97,41,600
2 Cost for grid fabrication1,85,00018,50,000
3
Cost of raft net and
rope components
11,18,4601,11,84,600
Total 32,77,6203,27,76,200
Operational cost
4
Seeding, maintenance
and harvest
3,05,980 18,35,880 91,79,400 91,79,4000
Economics of the culture operation (K. alvarezii)
5
Gross income (25920
kg- fresh/grid/culture)
(5184 kg dry @₹ 110/ kg)
(1+2)
5,70,240 34,21,440 1,71,07,200 17,10,72,000
6
Income after deduction
of operation cost (5-4)
2,64,260 1585560 79,27,800 7,92,78,000
7
Depreciation cost of grid
& mooring and fabrication
for 90 cultures (15 years x
6 cycles)
23,991 1,43,944 7,19,720 71,97,200
8
Depreciation for rope
&net components for
30 cultures (5 years x 6
cycles)
37,282 2,23,692 11,18,460 111,84,600
Net income (6 - 7 + 8) 2,02,987 12,17,924 60,89,620 6,08,96,200 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 68 CHAPTER-VI PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
FOR SEAWEED POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 70
6.1 Introduction
The most widely cultivated tropical red seaweeds are of the genera Kappaphycus, Eucheuma,
and Gracilaria. They are used as raw materials for hydrocolloid manufacturing. Marine hydrocolloid
applications have manifested market growth at of 2 percent per annum over the past two decades
(Suryanarayan et al., 2018). As the industry evolves,technology has evolved from conventional single
stream processing to Multi-Stream Zero-Effluent (MUZE) processing to produce plant bio-stimulant
products from seaweeds.
6.2 Comparison Between Single Stream and MUZE Processing
The traditional approach to extracting hydrocolloids from red seaweed has led to the waste
of non-hydrocolloid components. However, with the growing adoption of MUZE processing, tropical
red seaweed biomass is now being utilized to produce a diverse array of products, minimising waste.
A comparative discussion between the conventional single stream processing approach and MUZE
processing is given below (Figure 40).
Both single-stream and MUZE processing methods involve starting with fresh seaweed.
However, in single-stream processing, the seaweeds are typically dried in sunlight, packed, and
transported to remote factories for additional processing. On the other hand, MUZE processing
begins near the farm sites, where live seaweeds undergo initial processing stages, thus facilitating
value addition in proximity to the farming communities.
In the single-stream processing method, the initial step involves cooking the raw, dried
seaweeds in an alkali solution. This is followed by a series of processes that include recovery and
dehydration. Refined hydrocolloids are typically dissolved, clarified, and extracted by precipitating
them in alcohol or potassium prior to drying. Semi-refined hydrocolloids, on the other hand, are
maintained in a gel-like state throughout the processing and are dried after undergoing a washing
step. Once the hydrocolloids are produced through single-stream processing, they are milled into
powder form and then blended into ingredient solutions to create final products. In MUZE processing,
the initial step typically involves extracting juice from seaweed and separating it from the seaweed
pulp. This is achieved using equipment commonly found in the fruit and vegetable juice industries. The
extracted juice is often concentrated under reduced pressure to minimize the transportation of low-
solids liquid and to preserve the bioactive components present. Additionally, the juice may undergo
fractionation to recover specific bioactive components like growth promoters and phycobiliproteins.
The remaining pulp can be further processed, either in a wet or dry state, to produce hydrocolloids or
other products such as ingredients for animal feed, employing various methods. Both the juice and
pulp can then undergo a wide range of additional processing options. For instance, the juice, which is
abundant in potassium compounds, can serve as a plant bio-stimulant or source for potash fertilizer.
In single-stream processing, water vapor is produced along with other solid wastes and
liquid effluents. A significant amount of freshwater is often consumed throughout the processing
in production of semi-refined carrageenan (SRC), which is the most widely produced carrageenan
variant. The production of each tonne of SRC can generate several tonnes of alkaline wastewater with
high chloride content, as well as high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen
demand (COD). Waste solids arising from the clarification process of both wastewater and refined
carrageenan leadto substantial production of waste filter cake. However, in a well-designed MUZE
processing system, the primary waste generated is typically water vapor, which is expelled during
the liquid concentration and drying stages. The freshwater obtained during the juice concentration
process can be recycled back into the processing system or can be marketed and sold as a separate
product. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
71
MUZE processing for red seaweeds yields intermediate products in the form of juice and
dried pulp. These products serve as the foundation for subsequent processing, yielding a diverse
range of final products. These include hydrocolloids, food and feed ingredients, agricultural bio-
stimulants, renewable chemicals, biofuels, and as a by-product of juice concentration, freshwater is
also generated.
Raw materials
Cultivated
tropical
red
seaweeds.
Single-
stream
processing
Multi-stream,
zero- efﬂuent
(MUZE)
processing
• Hydrocolloids
•
Hydrocolloids
• Food and feed
    ingredients
• Agricultural
    biostimulants
• Renewable chemicals
• Biofuels
• Fresh wa ter
    Hydrocolloids
• Waste solids

• Liquid efﬂuent

• Water vapor
• Water vapor
Processes Products Wastes
A
B
Figure 40. Comparison between conventional single-stream processing and MUZE
processing for tropical red seaweed processing.
6.3 MUZE Products from Seaweeds
6.3.1 Sea Vegetables as Human Food
Seaweeds have been consumed by coastal communities since pre-historic times. In Japan and
China, seaweed has been consumed as food since the fourth century and the sixth century, respectively
(McHugh, 2003). Seaweeds are used in the traditional Japanese cuisine “shojin ryori” for flavour
and it is also used as seasoning condiments in a variety of dishes (Tsuji, 1980; Fujii, 2005). Kombu,
wakame and nori accounted for more than 10 percent of the Japanese seaweed diet until recently
(Griffin, 2015). Seaweeds are also consumed traditionally in many Asian countries like Indonesia, the
Philippines, South Korea, North Korea, and Malaysia (Ganesan et al., 2019). Recently, the consumption
of seaweeds has gained wide attention in the Americas and Europe due to their functional properties
and introduction of Asian cuisine (Bocanegra et al., 2009). In India, direct consumption of seaweed
in scarce. However, Gracilaria and Acanthophora spp. are used in preparing porridge in Kerala and
Tamil Nadu (Dhargakar, 2014). Juice of Ulva species is used In India for preparing Halva in southern
parts of Tamil Nadu (Subba Rao et al., 2009, 2016). Seaweeds are considered as a food supplement
for the 21
st
century due to the presence of bioactive compounds, macro and micro-nutrients in them.
Hydrocolloids derived from tropical red seaweeds have established themselves as essential
food ingredients in global markets. Multiple companies across different countries globally produce
liquid and solid seaweed-based soil and water conditioners (SWC) for agricultural purposes. SWCs
have various benefits on both plants and animals (Table 14). The agricultural SWC market holds
significant potential for the utilization of extracts from tropical red seaweeds. The majority of
SWC products are manufactured using cold-water (CW) brown seaweeds ( Phaeophyta) found in
temperate zones. These brown seaweeds include kelp genera such as Laminaria, Saccharina, Ecklonia
and Durvillea, as well as rockweed genera like Ascophyllum and Fucus. These species have long been
utilized as animal feed additives, dating back many decades. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 72
Table 14. SWC benefits
Benefits on Productivity, quality and quantity Diseases, parasites and pest control
Plants
1. Increase in productivity.
2. Improved seed germination
3. Early ﬂowering and fruiting
4. Enhanced macronutrient uptake.
5. Improved appearance, nutritional
quality, and uniformity.
6. Increased shelf life of harvestable
material (e.g., fruits and seeds)
1. Enhanced disease, insect, and pest
resistance.
2. Improved vigor, root development,
and chlorophyll synthesis.
3. Adjuvant action in pesticide
formulations.
4. Alleviation of bacterial and fungal
infections / infestations.
Animals
1. Enhanced weight gains.
2. Improved milk production
(mammals) and egg production
(poultry).
3. Improved fat deposition, carcass
quality, and shelf life
1. Improved gastrointestinal health
associated with favorable changes in
gastrointestinal ﬂora.
2. Increased disease resistance.
3. Reduced microbial shedding during
shipment and slaughter.
Both plants
and animals
1. Reduced mortality.
2. Retarded senescence.
3. Increased fecundity.
4. Healthy and robust appearance.
1. Upregulation of immune system
genes.
2. Suppression of pathogen bioﬁlm
production and quorum sensing.
3. Increased resistance to abiotic stress
(e.g., temperature and salinity).
4. Benefits on symbiotic, symbiotic and
prebiotic microﬂora.
6.3.2 Nutraceuticals
Seaweeds are gaining enormous attention in the nutraceutical industries due to their
protective capabilities against various chronic diseases. The nutraceuticals market in India has been
growing at a compounded annual growth rate of 20 percent for the past three years (ICAR-CMFRI ,
2022), especially in the segments of functional food products, antioxidants, and immunity boosters.
By the end of 2025, the Indian nutraceutical market is projected to have grown from an estimated
USD 4 billion to USD 18 billion (Yadav & Mehta Malik, 2020). With increasing health awareness and
the shift towards preventative health care, this segment can prove promising for seaweed processing
in India. Recent efforts by the government in the regulatory protocols on nutraceutical products have
resulted in the rapid growth of this segment.
Nutraceuticals have also been defined as “concentrated, isolated, or purified” pharmacologically
bioactive molecules. Nutraceuticals portray a distinctive intersection of pharmaceutical and food
products and will continue to have great attraction because they are naturally derived concentrated
pharmacologically active compound(s), and therefore are intended to function as “natural drugs”.
Nutraceuticals are clearly not drugs. Unlike synthetic drugs, they are potential pharmacologically
active substances which are derived from natural sources and concentrated by using green
extractionorpurification techniques. The purification process eliminates the unnecessary components
in the products and increases the quantities of the intended pharmacophore(s), which are specifically
active against particular diseases. This apparently leads to greater pharmacological activities
of nutraceutical products. Over the last few years, the use of seaweeds for the development of
nutraceutical products has attracted interest from the pharmaceutical industries. Seaweeds are often
termed as the “wonder herbs of the ocean” on account of their potential pharmaceutical properties.
Evaluation of target biological activities against different lifestyle and metabolic disease models is
done by ICAR-CMFRI. It has made a library of such molecules with bioactive potential with therapeutic
properties.Various seaweed-based nutraceutical products developed by ICAR-CMFRI are as follows: POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
73
a. Anti-diabetic nutraceutical to combat type-2 diabetes
b. Anti-arthritic nutraceutical joint pain/arthritis
c. Anti-hypercholesterolemic nutraceutical to combat dyslipidemia
d. Anti-hypothyroidism nutraceutical to combat hypothyroid disorder
e. Anti-hypertensive nutraceutical to combat hypertension
f. Anti-osteoporotic nutraceutical to combat osteoporosis
g. Nutraceutical to improve innate immune system
h. Nutraceutical to combat non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
i. Extract to boost immunity and combating post-covid symptoms
6.3.3 Cosmetics
Seaweeds are often used as ingredients in the production of cosmetics. They are used either
as additives (contributing to the organoleptic properties), or for stabilization and preservation of the
products or as active ingredients (that fulfil the cosmetic function and activity) (Bedoux et al., 2014).
The bioactive compounds present in seaweed whichcan be used as active ingredients in cosmetic
products arephenolic compounds, polysaccharides, pigments, Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA),
sterols, proteins, etc., (Pereira, 2018; Salehi et al., 2019). Seaweeds are also a major source of vitamins
(A, B, C, D, and E) which are extensively used in skincare products (Jesumani et al., 2019).
Phlorotannins, the most important phenolic compound, is well known for its anti-melanogenesis
and anti-ageing properties (Norzagaray-Valenzuela et al., 2017). Polysaccharides are used in cosmetics
as a gelling agent, viscosity adjuster, thickener, and emulsifier. Polysaccharideshydrate the skin and
potentially protect it from wrinkles (Kanlayavattanakul and Lourith, 2014). The natural pigments found
in seaweeds have attracted attention of cosmetologists. Xanthophyll is used as a colour source for
the cosmetics (Mathew and Ravishankar, 2022). Since seaweed contains a large number of different
fatty acids, it provides a promising source of raw PUFAs for cosmetics production (Khotimchenko et
al., 2002). Several fatty acids restore the permeability barrier and prevent scaly dermatitis and skin
dehydration (Servel et al., 1994). Some of the PUFAs, such as linoleic acid and arachidonic acid are
necessary for growth and protection of the skin (Mansour et al., 1999). It was also suggested that
a lack of these fatty acids leads to cutaneous problems such as alopecia, peeling of the epidermis
and eczema. Seaweeds have amino acids, such as alanine, proline, arginine, serine, histidine, and
tyrosine. Palmaria and Porphyra have the maximum amount of arginine, which is considered a natural
moisturizing factor that can be used in cosmetic products (Jesumani et al., 2019).
6.3.4 Bio-stimulants for Agriculture
The sap derived from fresh K. alvarezii as well as G. edulis are effective biostimulants. Multi-
crop trials by CSIR-CSMCRI in collaboration with 43 state agricultural universities and ICAR institutes
revealed that the bio-stimulant usage level of 2-15 percent resulted in an increased crop production
by 37 percent (Mantri et al., 2022; Bhushan et al., 2023) (Figure 41 and 42). Pan-India trials also reveal
that Kappaphycusbio-stimulant improves the yield of pulses and oilseeds. Especially for soyabean
and blackgram, the yield increased by over 20 percent.
Studies at molecular level through transcriptome analysis of roots and shoots of maize
indicate that it is capable of ameliorating soil moisture-stress (Suryanarayan et al., 2018). It can also
reduce the diminution in crop yield under stress (Trivedi et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2022a). Itstimulates
soil microbes, thus enhancing mineral cycling of soil nutrients and making them more available to
plants (Trivedi et al., 2022b). The soil microbes under moisture stress conditions were found to be
maintained at par in normal irrigated conditions when Kapppahycus sap was applied. Studies show
that G. edulis and K. alvarezii are effective in reducing the usage of chemical fertilizers by at least 25
percent in crops (Singh et al., 2018, 2023). POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 74
The seaweed-bio-stimulants derived from Kapppahycus and Sargassum spp. were found
to contain several bioactive compounds such as phytohormones (indole-acetic acid,cytokinins,
gibberellins), macro and micronutrientswhich can show bioactivity at extremely lower concentrations
(some at even nano-molar levels) (Vaghela et al., 2022, 2023a, b). It also contains quaternary
ammonium compounds (e.g., glycine betaine, choline chloride)enabling plants to withstand abiotic
stresses like drought. Kappaphycus alvarezii as well as Sargassum based bio-stimulants imparts
tolerance to soil fungal pathogens, thus warding off biotic stress (Suryanarayan et al., 2018).
The seaweed-based bio-stimulants have an extremely low carbon footprintof 73 and 119 kg
CO
2
equivalents per kiloliter of G. edulis and K. alvarezii based bio-stimulants, respectively (Ghosh et
al., 2015; Anand et al., 2018). Unlike traditional commercial fertilizers such as urea, muriate of potash,
and diammonium phosphate, which have high carbon footprints (3253, 1435, and 515 CO
2
equivalents
per tonne respectively), the integration of seaweed-based bio-stimulants with(reduced) chemical
fertilizer application in sugarcane and rice has conserved 12 and 35 kg CO
2
equivalents per tonne
respectively (Ayyakkalai et al., 2024). This is promising in mitigating global climate change.
Rice (N=38), 18.70%
Maize (N=23), 23.50%
Greengram (N=21), 26%
Blackgram (N=21), 36.90%
Sesame (N=11), 26.80%
Soyabean (N=16), 36.80%
Fodder (N=4), 13.10%
Sugarcane (N=14), 16.70%
Potato (N=23), 16.90%Rice (N=34), 13%Maize (N=16), 22%Greengram (N=19), 14%Blackgram (N=22), 20%Sesame (N=13), 19%Soyabean (N=14), 22%Fodder (N=4), 16%Sugarcane (N=18), 13%Potato (N=24), 14%
Percentage crop yield improvements over and above
recommeded fertilizers by K. alvarezii sap in agro crop trials
Percentage crop yield improvements over recommended
pratices in large area ﬁeld trails/FLDs by K-sap trials
Figure 41. Percentage increase in yield of various crops by foliar application of
K.alvarezii based bio-stimulant
Rice (N=40), 15.70%
Maize (N=23), 19.20%Greengram (N=18), 27.70%
Blackgram (N=20), 30.80%
Sesame (N=10), 32.60%Soyabean (N=17), 33.10%
Fodder (N=3), 10.20%
Sugarcane (N=12), 14.90%Potato (N=23), 14.20%
Figure 42. Percentage increase in yield of various crops by foliar application of G.
edulis based bio-stimulant POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
75
6.3.5 Dairy and Animal Husbandry
Seaweeds are rich sources of choline, glycine, betaine, nutrients along with biologically active
compounds such as fucoidan, betaine, and glucans which are known to enhance immunity in animals.
Polyphenols in the seaweed exhibit antioxidant and Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) scavenging
activity. Seaweed formulations were developed to harness the active ingredients for improving
productivity, improved rumen function, boost immunity, and all-around health of animals (cattle and
poultry).
Livestock production, particularly ruminants, contributes to 7.1 gigatonnes CO
2
equivalents
annually,accounting for approximately 14.5 percent of the global anthropogenic GHG emissions
globally. Feed additives used in CH4 mitigation can either modify the rumen environment or
directly inhibit methanogenesis resulting in lower enteric CH4 production. Some red seaweeds
are anti-methanogenic, particularly the genus Asparagopsis, due to their capacity to synthesize
and encapsulate halogenated CH4 analogues, such as bromoform and dibromochloromethane,
within specialized gland cells as a natural defence mechanism. In a screening process, to identify
CH4 reduction potential of select macroalgae in Australia, Asparagopsis taxiformis was demonstrated
to be the most promising species with a 98.9 percent reduction of CH4 when applied at 17 percent
OM in vitro (Roque et al., 2020).
CSIR-CSMCRI in collaboration with ICAR Institutes (IVRI, CARI, and NDRI) and CSIR-IITR,
recently developed novel seaweed-based animal feed additive formulations to enhance productivity
of animals, improving the quality of animal products and boosting immunity. The seaweed-based
formulations were found to bestow the following properties:
a. Improved performance of poultry (especially breast) and cattle
b. Better immuno-responsiveness (cellular mediated and HA titre) in poultry and cattle
c. Gut health (microbial & structural) in poultry
d. Physio-biochemical characteristics of poultry meat
e. Higher egg production and advancement in egg- laying age
f. Higher calcium and iron content in milk
g. Better calcium retention leads to reduced chances of milk fever
h. Reduced methane emission and higher energy use efficiency in ruminants
i. Higher daily growth rate in cross bred calves
6.3.6 Food Packaging
Global plastic waste reached a staggering 29.1 million tons, with over 99 percent of this waste
originating from petroleum-based plastics (Nandy et al., 2022). In view of this, the market value
of biodegradable plastic materials has recently experienced significant growth. In 2021, the global
market value of biodegradable plastics reached approximately USD 8 billion. Projections indicate
that this value is expected to triple by 2026, reaching around USD 23.3 billion (Market Value of
Biodegradable Plastics Worldwide, 2026).
Seaweed-based polysaccharides could be a potential solution to meet the high demand
for renewable materials. These polysaccharides, sourced from marine environments, have garnered
attention for their diverse applications in biopackaging, food, biomedical, and agriculture sectors.
They possess advantageous properties such as strong gelling ability, recyclability, thermal stability, and
non-toxicity. Seaweed polysaccharides can undergo degradation through both enzymatic and non-
enzymatic processes. However, one of the key challenges in utilising biopolymers, including seaweed-
based polysaccharides, for packaging purposes is their relatively limited mechanical strength and
barrier properties compared to non-biodegradable alternatives. There are three types of seaweed
polysaccharides viz. agar, alginate, and carrageenan. They are commonly used as film-forming materials
as compared to other seaweed polysaccharides like lam- inarin, fucoidan, and funoran. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 76
Polysaccharides such as alginate, carrageenan and agar isolated from seaweeds have been
commonly used as precursors for edible film production (Mostafavi and Zaeim, 2020). The film-
forming biopolymers derived from seaweeds are non-toxic, easily degradable and biocompatible
and show high rigidity and low deformability (Doh, 2020). The bioplastic films from seaweed exhibit
relatively low water vapour barrier properties and mechanical strength in comparison to conventional
non-renewable polymers. Hence, seaweed is generally mixed with other components to improve
the properties of seaweed films. The edible film from seaweeds can be used as sachets, pouches,
wrappers, interleaves for seasoning cube and chocolates,frozen foods, etc. It can also be used as
material for edible logo in bakery products. Edible film is also used in the pharmaceutical industry as
functional strips. It can also be used in cosmetic and toiletries industries as a facial mask and bag for
pre-portioned detergent (Siah et al., 2015).
Alginate-based, carrageenan/furcellaran based and agar-based edible films have various
applications in food packaging. By varying the additional compounds added to them, their properties
and applications can be found in Table 15.
Table 15. Seaweed polysaccharides based edible films and their applications in food
packaging
S.
No.
Additional componentsProperties
Food
applications
Primary material: Alginate-based edible films
1 Alginates (food grade)
Improve the quality and increases the
shelf-life of button mushroom
Button
mushrooms
2 CaCl
2
Improved mechanical and water-
resistant properties, decreased WVPT
-
3 Glycerol/sorbitolImproves the mechanical properties -
4 Potassium sorbateRelease the active substances -
5
Sago starch, lemon grass oil
and glycerol
Improved flexibility, tensile strength,
and antimicrobial properties
-
6 Silver nanoparticles
Extend the shelf-life of fruits and
vegetables
Carrot & pear
7
Silver-montmorillonite
nanoparticles
Preserved the fresh-cut carrot from
dehydration and microbial spoilage;
extends the shelf-life
Fresh cut carrot
8 Gelatin
Retained the freshness of the fruit and
also improved the appearance and
attractiveness of the fruit
Apple
9 Acetylated monoglyceride Decreases respiratory activities Apple pieces
10Chitosan, pullulan
Retained the quality and extended
shelf-life.
Strawberry
11Carrageenan
Higher tensile strength, elongation, and
elasticity; lower water loss; maintained
freshness and greenishness
Pear
12MethylcelluloseImproved the shelf-life of fresh-cut Peach
13
Galbanum gum/CaCl
2
/
Ziziphora persica
Prevented microbial growthChicken fillet POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
77
S.
No.
Additional componentsProperties
Food
applications
14
Wheyprotein/CaCl
2
(EC)/
lactoperoxidase enzyme
whey proteinisolate/Ginger
extract
Enhanced antimicrobial properties.
Improved antimicrobial properties
against E. coli and S. aureus.
Chicken thighs
meat, cheese
15
Starch/Stearic acid/
tocopherols
Improved moisture barrier properties
and decreased lipid oxidation
Ground beef
Patties
16Whey proteinExtend the shelf-life of fish Kilka fish
Primary material: Carrageenan-based edible films
1 Durian starch/carvacrol films
Antimicrobial activities against S. aureus
bacteria
2 Chitosan
Antimicrobial activities against B. subtilis
and B. cereus, transparency
3 Pectin/mica flakes
Improved barrier properties,
hydrophobicity and WVP
4
Arrowroot starch/iota
carrageenan
Improved mechanical and barrier
properties and extended the shelf-life
of tomatoes
Cherry
tomatoes
5
Arrowroot starch/iota
carrageenan/Kyoho skin
extract
Increased tensile strength, UV barrier
ability and low water wettability. Acted
as halochromic indicator for monitoring
the freshness of the shrimp
Shrimp
6
Honey and bee pollen
phenolic compounds
Increased physical properties, higher
antibacterial and antioxidant properties
on beef
Beef
7 Egg white protein
Improved mechanical properties and
reduced WVPT and OP
Oil packaging
8 Palm oilExtend the shelf-life of apple slices Apple slices
Primary material: Furcellaran-based edible films
1 Germinated fenugreek seeds
Enhanced antimicrobial properties and
extended the shelf-life
Chicken breast
2
Chitosan/antimicrobial
peptides
Improved antimicrobial properties
Smoked pork
ham and pork
loin
3
CMC/gelatin hydrolysate/
lingonberry extract
Improved antimicrobial and antioxidant
properties, extended the shelf-life of
cherry tomatoes
Cherry
tomatoes
4 Soybean bran extract
Enhanced the thermal and antioxidant
properties Extended the shelf-life of
butter
Butter
5 Tea ground waste and CMC Extended the shelf-life of salmon filletsSalmon fillets
Primary material: Agar-based edible films
1 Soy protein isolate Improved water barrier properties -
2 Silver nanoparticles
Improved hydrophobicity, thermal
stability, antimicrobial and water barrier
properties
- POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 78
S.
No.
Additional componentsProperties
Food
applications
3 Titanium oxide
Improved tensile strength, water vapor
and UV barrier properties
-
4
Green tea extract and
probiotic strains
Extended shelf-life of fish and improved
antimicrobial properties
Fish fillets
5
Gelatin, Cloisite Na and
thymol
Acted against microbial growth Chicken breast
6
Fish protein hydrolysate and
clove essential oil
Inhibited the growth of H
2
S-producing
microbes
Flounder fillets
7
Alginate, collagen, silver
nanoparticles and grapefruit
seed extract
Inhibited the greening of potatoes Potatoes
8
ZnO nanoparticles,
cinnamon essential oil and
nisin
Prevent the growth of microorganisms
during the storage
Minced fish
9
k - carrageenan, konjac
glucomannan blend and
Cloisite 30B
Antimicrobial and antifogging propertiesSpinach
10ZnO nanoparticlesExtend the shelf-life or grapes Green grapes
6.3.7 Biofuels
Seaweeds are potentially significant future sources of sustainable biofuels. Seaweeds
fall under third-generation feedstock category. They are advantageous due to high carbohydrate
content, absence or low lignin content, higher photosynthetic efficiency than terrestrial biomass. Their
potential biomass yield per unit area is often higher than that of terrestrial plants, does not directly
compete with human food supply, does not compete for arable land, does not require freshwater,
does not require fertilizer, and the potential to obtain high-added value products alongside.
Due to higher carbohydrate content, green seaweeds such as Ulva lactuca and Enteromorpha
intestinalis are considered as viable feedstocks for the production of bioethanol. The carbohydrates
are converted to bioethanol by appropriate microorganisms such as yeast or bacteria (Ramachandra
and Hebbale, 2020). The techniques or pathways used generally in the fermentation of seaweed are
separate hydrolysis, fermentation and simultaneous sacchariﬁcation and fermentation (Offei et al.,
2018). The yield of bioethanol in red algae varies from 4-43 percent (Andhikawati et al., 2020).
To prepare for fermentation, the seaweed biomass undergoes a process where SWC juice is
extracted, and the remaining pulp is subjected to saccharification. This saccharification step involves
treating the pulp with 0.9 N sulfuric acid at a temperature of 100°C. At a bench scale of 16 kg, this
process yields approximately 30 percent in terms of saccharification. Next, the hydrolysate resulting
from saccharification is neutralized using lime and undergoes desalination through electrodialysis.
After this preparation, the hydrolysate is ready for fermentation in the presence of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae, a type of yeast commonly used in ethanol production. During fermentation, about 80
percent of the reducing sugars present in the hydrolysate are converted into ethanol. The ethanol
produced through this process has been successfully utilized as fuel for a petrol vehicle. Furthermore,
additional fermentation trials using marine yeast called Candida sp. have demonstrated its ability to
function in high-salinity conditions and produce ethanol without requiring a desalting process. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
79
A combination of heterogeneous catalysed hydrolysis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae
fermentation can be employed to produce bioethanol from Kappaphycus biomass, specifically
from a species known as Eucheuma cottonii. Their focus was on utilization of macroalgal biomass
as an alternative source to lignocellulosic materials for bioethanol production. Fermentation of the
hydrolysate produced 0.33 grams per grams of bioethanol yield with an effciency of 65 percent (Tan
et al.,2013).
6.3.8 Medical Textiles
Natural fibres, especially polysaccharides, are a promising material for producing wound
dressing products. Products based on alginate, a linear unbranched polysaccharide extracted from
brown seaweed, are currently the most popular dressing products used in wound management since
it has numerous advantages over traditional cotton-based products. The bandages based on alginate
endow easy solubility and reduced wound curing rate than cellulose-based bandages. Alginate is
reported to have a high absorbency of exudates. It has gel-forming property. When alginate dressing
comes into contact with the wound exudates, it absorbs the exudates and provides a desirable
wound moist environment and allows the adequate exchange of water vapour and oxygen which is
crucial for wound healing. The gelling property of alginate also aids in painless removal of dressings.
Alginate can absorb fluid 15 to 20 times its weight; hence alginate dressings can be used for moderate
to heavy exudates (Qin, 2008). POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 80 CHAPTER-VII LEADING THE WAY THROUGH
GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 82
7.1 Best Practices in Governance Models: The Success of Indonesia
Indonesia is a major producer of seaweed, particularly Gracilaria, Kappaphycus and Eucheuma.
To reap long-term benefits from seaweed cultivation in Indonesia, the necessary support was given
through policies, research, and value chain diversification. The change in the policy and governance
model adopted by Indonesia increased their productivity through quality assurance.The Ministry
of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MoMAF), Indonesia recognized their vast potential for mariculture
development and nominated seaweed as one of its top three priority commodities for aquaculture
development from 2021 to 2024. The plan was to expand seaweed farming in eastern Indonesia.
The various governance models of the carrageenan seaweed supply chain include direct, modular,
market, and relational models. During the “direct governance” period, the “big three” transnational
firms of Marine, Colloids, Auby, and CP controlled the purchasing of seaweed. The second phase of
“modular governance” took place when suppliers started to play a bigger role in the supply chain.
The third stage of “market governance” began when it became impossible to integrate and defend
farming as it expanded throughout Indonesia.
In 2008, seaweed farming supported an estimated 20,000 part-time farming families with an
average annual income of USD 5,000. By 2017, it rose to 267,800 people in their seaweed industry,
according to MoMAF. By 2018, 346,320 marine aquaculture producers were active in the country.In
2017, there were sixteen carrageenan processors in Indonesia, all of which were domestically operated.
7.1.1 Governance
a) PERPRES (Peraturan Presiden, Presidential Regulation) no. 33/2019: Road map
of seaweed industry
Provision of high-quality seaweed seeds derived from tissue culture and non-tissue
culture nurseries/seaweed gardens
Facilitating labor/manpower implementation in the seaweed development region
for cultivation and post-harvest.
Support for the provision of cultivation and post-harvest seaweed facilities and
infrastructure in the cultivation development area
Facilitating access to funding for micro and small-scale agricultural enterprises and
seaweed processing industries through groups/cooperatives.
b) Law no. 7/2016: Protection and empowerment of fishermen, fish farmers and
salt farmers
Legal guarantee to protect and to empower small-scale fishery communities (0.5-5
hectare) to overcome problems, including threats of disease, contamination, brood
stock, seeds, feed and fertilizers, conflicts of coastal land use / land status (land
tenure), climate change and also problems of facilities and infrastructure, marketing
of products and access to finance. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
83
c) Law no. 1/2014: Management of coastal areas and small islands (amendment to
law No. 27/2007)
This law ensures the state’s jurisdiction and duty for coastal zone and small island
management in the form of control over third parties (individual or private) via a
licencing mechanism. Giving approval to other parties does not diminish the state’s
right to formulate policies, make plans, carry out administration, manage, and
supervise.
Provides rights to communities including customary law community units as well as
traditional rights in the principle of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia.
d) Law no. 23/2014: Local government
Authority of the provincial government to manage marine natural resources except
oil and natural gas. Administratively, the province has the authority to manage the sea
to 12 nautical mile limit. However, the limitation of 12 nautical miles does not apply for
small-scale fishermen to fishing activities.
e) Law no. 45/2009: Fishery (amendment to law no. 31/2004)
Includes several areas, such as financing and capital assistance for smallholder
fishermen and aquaculture farmers, education and training for improving the skills
of fishermen and farmers, development of joint business groups and cooperatives,
empowerment of women, and facilitation of partnerships between fishermen and
small-scale fish farmers with other stakeholders in the industry & allows small-scale
fishermen and aquaculture farmers to carry out their activities in all Indonesian
fisheries management areas and to prioritize activities in conservation areas within
sustainable fisheries zones, subject to applicable regulations.
7.1.2 Quality Assurance through Certification
A focus was given to quality assurance and certification systems. Purchasers of seaweed
had the option of seeking sustainable or organic certification. A buyer can choose from a variety
of sustainable seaweed certification programs. This was done by adoption of various standards for
seaweed quality assurance which are described as follows:
i. The Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI) employed guidance from the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) to benchmark and acknowledge sustainability certification
schemes.
ii. The Friend of the Sea-Seaweed Standard delineates specifications for management systems,
legal compliance, environmental impact assessments, social responsibility, and traceability.
This standard pertains to both farmed and wild seaweed and is especially pertinent to the
environmental and social concerns present in Indonesia. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 84
iii. The Assure Quality Standard required a sustainable management plan, biomass estimation,
seaweed production records, and recycling of gear.
7.2 Best Practices in Cooperative Modelling and Product
Diversification: Lessons from Philippines
Philippines is a major player in the seaweed industry, ranking third behind China and Indonesia.
Seaweed industry contributes 60 to 70 percent to theireconomy. Seaweed cultivation is taken up as
family business by those located in economically impoverished regions. It supports approximately one
million people and over 1,70,950 jobs in allied fields. Seaweed farming techniques in the Philippines
range from traditional fixed off-bottom (FOB) method to more sophisticated installations such as
hanging long lines, single raft longlines, multiple rafts longline, and spider web approaches, offering
flexibility and potential for expansion with varying levels of investment and durability. Seaweed was
processed and sold in various forms such as raw fresh seaweed, seaweed chips, seaweed noodles, raw
dried seaweed, and carrageenan, which were used in industrial applications. The raw fresh seaweed
was the most basic form, while seaweed chips and noodles were popular value-added products.
Raw dried seaweed was dried after harvesting, and Carrageenan was extracted from it to produce
semi-refined or refined products. Additionally, seaweed was also used as an ingredient in animal feed
and fertilizers for crops. The National Seaweed Technology Development Centre achieved significant
growth in vegetables by using seaweed drippings and dried seaweed as fertilizers.
7.2.1 BFAR’s Cooperative Model
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) has launched a system with 10 seaweed
farmer cooperatives in the provinces of Palawan, Albay, Sorsogon, Bohol, Dinagat Province, and
Surigao del Sur to build and run seaweed nurseries as a business. Cooperative Managed Seaweeds
Nursery Business Enterprise (CMSNBE) is the name of the prototype project. Cooperative revenues
are distributed to shareholders, farmers, and the community, encouraging inclusion and shared
prosperity. BFAR was to identify the top 20 seaweed producing municipalities in the country and
form sustainable cooperatives to execute the Pareto Principle, which is widely applied in corporate
business and even government today. The following assistance was extended to them until they were
able to operate independently:
• Development of human resources through training in governance and business management,
which was provided by accreditedtraining institutions.
• Financial support (this is the incubation stage) for the cooperatives to execute their strategic
plans.
• Establishing a cooperative consortium from among the BFAR partner cooperatives and
providing necessary operational support. Support was also provided to engage in missionary
seaweeds that could be proessed into products like food, fertiliser, and feeds with the goal of
achieving national food security.
• Establishment of partnerships between cooperative consortium and organisations or
companies that allowed creating and developing goods made from seaweeds for use as food,
fertiliser, and feeds.
• BFAR connected the cooperatives and provided finance from the Land Bank of the Philippines
(till three years or when the cooperative becomes a sustainable business enterprise being
able to obtain conventional bank financing).
• Supported the establishment of seaweed farms in offshore areas for carbon capture and
reducing eutrophication of marine waters.
• Established a link between the cooperatives and the MLGUs (Municipal Local Government
Units) to allocate 50 hectares or more in the municipal waters for the establishment of
cooperative farms. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
85
7.2.2 Government Policies, Strategies and Programs
The government of Phillipines focussed on adoption of targeted policies for various
stakeholders in the value chain so as to ensure success (Table 16).
Table 16. Government policies, strategies & programs of Philippines
Objectives/
Targets
Strategies / Policies / Programs
Issues / Constraints
being addressed
Key result Areas
Increase
seaweed
production
by 2
percent per
year for
five years
(2022-
2026).
1) In conjunction with the commercial
sector, improve and maintain
existing BFAR Seaweed Culture
Laboratories (SCL).
2) Establishment of a cutting-edge
seaweed culture laboratory
1) Current cultivars
having low
productivity and
production.
2) Insufficient
availability of
seaweed propagules
in the off-season
and the destruction
of seaweed
farms as a result
of unfavourable
weather conditions.
BFAR SCLs have
been improved/
maintained in
conjunction with the
business sector.
Created a cutting-
edge facility.
Establishment of a satellite seaweed
land-based nursery/seedling bank
(seaweed phonics) in collaboration
with cooperatives (Sorsogon, Bohol,
and Hinatuan) and the private sector.
1) Inadequate supply
of good quality
seaweed propagules.
2) Low productivity
and production of
present cultivars.
Established satellite
seaweed land-
based nursery/
seedling bank
(seaweed phonics)
in partnership with
cooperatives and in
collaboration with
the private sector.
Seaweed nurseries are being
established and maintained in
conjunction with the private sector,
BFAR management and cooperative
management.
1) Inadequate supply of
good quality seaweed
propagules.
2) Low productivity and
production of present
cultivars.
3) Limited drying facilities
inconsistent quality of
dried seaweed.
1) Established and
maintained BFAR/
cooperatives
managed seaweed
nurseries.
2) Provided
propagules.
3) Provided hanging
type solar dryers.
Provide
access to
financial
resources
to farmers
(credit
support)
1) Examine possible credit programs for
seaweed farmers.
2) Seminars are used to disseminate
information about available credit
programs for seaweed farmers.
3) Recommend to ACPC that the Central
Bank designate significant seaweed
producing areas as Micro-Financing
Organizations (MFO).
Lack of capital and
access to financial
resources
Capital provided to
seaweed farmers
1) Conduct a financial literacy orientation
seminar for seaweed farmers.
2) Reproduction of educational and
informational materials.
3) Assist with the preparation of
documentary needs and processes.
Lack of information
on available loan
assistance from
financing institutions
Created awareness
on available loans
from financing
institutions.
1) Making payment arrangements.
2) Create non-collateral, easy-to-repay
loans for seaweed farmers.
3) Conduct scientific study on
appropriate loan terms, interest rates,
and repayment plans, as well as the
viability of the unique loan programme.
Created awareness/
consciousness on the
importance of financial
management.
Microfinancing made
available to seaweed
farmers in major
seaweed producing
regions. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 86
Objectives/
Targets
Strategies / Policies / Programs
Issues / Constraints
being addressed
Key result Areas
Improve
linkages of
seaweed
farmers to
major local
markets
1) Intensify the organisation
of Seaweed farmers into a
cooperative in order to meet the
demands of seaweed processors.
2) Formation offederations from the
seaweed cooperatives.
1) Presence of several
‘tiers’ in the trading
chain.
2) Presence of ‘fly-by-
night’ traders.
1) Layers of traders
were minimized.
2) Fly-by-night
traders controlled
Organization of convention,
symposium.
1) There is no direct
connection between
farmers and
processors.
2) Poor or
unsatisfactory
business or
collaboration with
seaweed farmers.
1) Farmers and
buyers/processors
had direct
communication.
2) Enhanced
business
partnerships with
farmers.
1) Meet investors, particularly for
the recently developed seaweed
applications that have a market.
2) Providing warehouse to
cooperatives.
1) Low adherence
to the demands
and criteria of the
market.
2) Few facilities for
drying and storing.
3) The dried seaweed’s
quality is uneven and
subpar.
4) Seaweed growers’
meagre earnings.
5) Absence of storage
to group their
produce.
1) Improved market
demand for
seaweed products
(RDS).
2) Secure
cooperatives
market through
a Memorandum
of Understanding
with direct
buyers.
3) Farmers saved a
large amount of
RDS.
4) Higher volume,
higher RDS
pricing, better
income, and
improved/
maintained RDS
quality. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
87
Objectives/
Targets
Strategies / Policies / Programs
Issues / Constraints
being addressed
Key result Areas
Capacitate
seaweed
farmers and
farmer’s
organization
1) Regular attendance oftrainers’ and
fisherfolks’ trainings/seminars/
workshops
2) Training for seaweed production
and processing -NC II
1) Noncompliance
with biosecurity and
appropriate farming
practices.
2) Exposure to seasonal
weather disruptions
and the effects of
climate change.
3) Seaweed pests and
illnesses (ice-ice) are
common.
4) In field farming,
indiscriminate,
improper
application, and
discharge of artificial
fertilizer.
Trainers and farmers
followed GAqP,
PNS on seaweed
production and
processing, which
reduced the impact
of CC and the
incidence of pests,
epiphytes, ice-ice,
and improper use of
chemical fertilizer.
Establishment of training and
assessment centers for seaweed
production - NC II and Seaweed
processing- NC II in Luzon, Visayas,
and Mindanao under the agriculture
career system
1) Increasing
competition from
other seaweed
producers.
2) In terms of
market potential
for carrageenan
seaweed,
competition with
other countries
exists, dwindling
pool of qualified
technical specialists.
1) Farmers’
competitiveness
in comparison to
other countries.
2) Exposure to
advanced
technology
countries.
1) Students will be able to attend
training and assessments thanks to
a TESDA scholarship.
2) Graduates having a National
Certificate II will be used as
resource individuals by BFAR
during trainings. They will also be
given the tools and supplies they
need to start their own business.
Encourage young
generations to work in
the seaweed sector.
1) Additional
knowledge/
technology was
acquired.
2) Networking
with local and
international
institutions has
been established.
Cross-country/regional visits to
successful seaweed areas/farmers, as
well as knowledge and best practices
exchange
Collaboration on
funding and grants
with international
institutions and
agencies e.g., GCRF-
UKRI, WWF-GEF.
Access to the
knowledge of
farmers who are
experts in seaweed
technology.
Collaboration and networking
with the national and international
seaweed community and those
working on the conservation of
marine resources.
Declining pool of
competent technical
experts. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 88
Objectives/
Targets
Strategies / Policies / Programs
Issues / Constraints
being addressed
Key result Areas
Promote
community-
based
value-
added
products
and fresh
seaweeds
for food
and
nutrition
security
1) Supply of processing equipment,
materials, and tools
2) Product development, production,
and marketing of seaweed-based
products
3) Technical support with seaweed-
based product packaging and
labelling
1) Inadequate
understanding of
the developmental
elements of seaweed
processing.
2) Technical instruction
and assistance have
a limited reach and
quality.
1) Beneficiaries
identified.
2) Beneficiaries
(coops) were
trained.
3) Provided start-
up processing
equipment/
materials/tools.
4) Commercialized
seaweed-based
products
1) Product marketing
2) Participation in trade shows
3) Connect to the market by hosting
an annual inventors-investors
forum.
Limited promotion of
seaweed products.
1) Technical support
in the packaging
and labelling of
seaweed-based
goods.
2) Participation in
trade shows.
3) Creation of forum
for inventors.
1) Establishment & operation of
VLSPFCarrageenan, agar, alginate,
and other phycocolloids extraction
2) Monitoring and evaluation of the
processing facilities’ status
Limited technical staff
to work on seaweed
applications.
1) Established and
running VLSPF.
2) Status of
processing
facilities was
monitored and
appraised.
1) Development of new seaweed
application (R&D)
2) Examination of the generated
products
3) Transfer of technology
4) Production and dissemination
of IEC materials for developed
products
1) Carrageenan R&D
as an organic food
additive has a limited
budget.
2) Alternative uses for
seaweeds in feeds
and fertilizers.
3) Promotion of new
seaweed products is
limited.
1) New seaweed
applications
created.
2) IEC materials
about the items
developed were
created and
distributed carts
for seaweed
products.
7.2.3 Product Diversification and Linkages
Key enablers along the various seaweeds value chains include national agencies such
as DA-BFAR, DTI, Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the local
government units, SIAP, NGOs, SUCs. The entire ecosystem of the country targetedly focused on
inclusion of all stakeholders in value chain and orient them with mutual, backward and forward
linkages so as to serve the different forms of seaweed sold in the market viz. raw fresh seaweed, raw
dried seaweed and semi-refined and refined carrageenan.
The most basic form of seaweed, i.e. raw fresh seaweed value chain (Figure 43) was linked to
its key stakeholders viz. the BFAR, farmers, traders, seedlings contractors, etc. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
89
FUNCTIONS
ACTIVITES
OPERATORS
ENABLERSBFAR, LGUs, NGOs, DSWD, SUCs, SIAP
BFAR/LGU
Suppliers
(Seedings & Fa rm
Implements)
Farmers/
Hardware
Shops/Agri-vet
Stores/Fishing
Supplies Store
Farmers’ Associations/Cooperatives
Farmers
Provision of
seedings, farm
implements, and
training
Farm
establishment
tying, Planning,
Maintenance and
Harvest
Cleaning,
Packing
Purchase of RFS,
Transporting/
Distribution
Small local buyers/
Wet market vendors
Seedlings
Contractor
Small local buyers/
Wet market vendors
Seedlings
Contractor
PRODUCTION POST-HARVEST TRADINGEND SA LEINPUT PROVISION
Doestic
Market (Wet
Market and
Sigapid
Farms)
BFAR, LG Us
Domestic
Market (Wet
Market and
Sigapid
Farms)
BFAR, LG Us
Figure 43. Value chain map of raw fresh seaweeds
The raw dried seaweed value chain map (Figure 44) is divided into four key sections: Input
provision, production, post-harvest, and trading. In the RFS value chain, the activities in the input
provision and production phases of the chain are identical. Yet, the post-harvest and trading segments
engage in other crucial activities. The traders’ collection of dried seaweeds is largely sourced from
foreign nations. Despite the availability of significantly less expensive Indonesian seaweeds, Philippine
RDS continues to be the chosen seaweed by other nations because of its quality. BFAR offices that
require dried seaweed for their livelihood projects are currently receiving a small quantity of supplies.
FUNCTIONS
ACTIVITES
OPERATORS
ENABLERSBFAR, LGUs, NGOs, DSWD, SUCs, SIAP
BFAR/LGU
Suppliers
(Seedlings & Farm
Implements)
Farmers/
Hardware
Shops/Agri-vet
Stores/Fishing
Supplies Store
Farmers’ Associations/Cooperatives
Farmers’ Associations/Cooperatives
Farmers
Provision of
seedings, farm
implements, and
training
Farm
establishment
tying, Planning,
Maintenance and
Harvest
Cleaning, Drying,
Packing
Purchase of RDS,
Quality Check,
Drying, Collecting/
Consolidating
Packing, Valing
Storing, Transporting/
Distribution
Traders
(Brgu/Island,
Muncipal.
Provincial,
Exporters)
Traders (B, M, P, E)
Traders (B, M, P, E)
Exporters
Exporters
Exporters
PRODUCTION
POST-HARVEST
(DRYING)
TRADINGEND SA LEINPUT PROVISION
Doestic
Market (Wet
Market and
Sigapid
Farms)
BFAR, LG Us
Export
Market
(RDS
Importe rs)
BFAR
BFAR, LG Us,
NGOs, SIAP
Figure 44. Value chain map of raw dried seaweeds POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 90
The manufacturing of semi-refined (SRC) and refined carrageenan is thought to involve a
longer value chain map (Figure 45) as a result of the conversion of dried seaweeds to carrageenan
(RC). The RDS value chain is most similar to the four segments. The extended marketing and pro -
cessing activities of the chain include additional duties such as the procurement, quality inspection,
and management of dried seaweeds, the conversion of dried seaweeds into carrageenan, packaging,
distribution, and marketing of carrageenan. Despite the fact that the majority of the country’s carra-
geenan is exported, the domestic market, particularly the food processing sector, benefits from its
production.
FUNCTIONS
ACTIVITES
OPERATORS
ENABLERS
SEAD/FDEC, SUCs, PCAARRD, DENIR, DSWD
BFAR, LGUs, NGOs
BFAR, SIAP
DTI
ITDI
BFAR/LGU/NGO
Donors
Suppliers
(Seedings & Fa rm
Implements)
Farmers/
Hardware
Shops/Agri-vet
Stores/Fishing
Supplies Store
Farmers’ Associations/Cooperatives
Farmers’ Associations/
Cooperatives
Traders
Farmers
Farmers
Farmers - Tr aders
Traders
(Bregy/Island)
Provision of
seedings, farm
implements, and
training
Farm
establishment
tying, Planning,
Maintenance and
Harvest
Cleaning,
Drying,
Packing
Customizaton
Products
Sampling
Purchase of RDS,
Production of
Noodels,
Packing,
Distribution/
Marketing
PRODUCTION
POST-HARVEST
(DRYING)
TRADINGINPUT PROVISION
MARKETINGEND SA LEPROCESSING
Traders (P)
Traders (M, P)
Traders (B, M, P)
Carrageenan
Processors
Carrageenan
Processors
Export Market
(Reﬁned/
Semi Reﬁned
Carrageeman
Exporters)
Doemstic
Market
(Local Reﬁned/
Semi-Reﬁned
Carrageenan
Users)
Figure 45. Value Chain map of semi-refined and refined carrageenan
7.3 Best Practices in Cluster Development and Standardization of
Farms: Lessons from Africa
Seaweed production in Africa is concentrated in Tanzania’s Zanzibar, Madagascar, and South
Africa. Tanzania has 30,000 farmers, mainly women, cultivating Eucheuma and Kappaphycus species
using off-bottom farming methods. Climate change and low gate prices were just two of the sector’s
concerns, but seaweed farmers in Tanzania have demonstrated how the industry may flourish in a
relatively short amount of time to become one of the main producers outside of Asia.
The main species farmed are the Eucheuma species, E. denticulatum, K. striatus and K.
alvarezii, varieties of which were imported from the Philippines in 1989. Whereas production of E.
denticulatum is above 100,000 tonnes (fresh weight), the production from the genus Kappaphycus
was less than tonnes (fresh weight). Seaweed production in Tanzania has increased rapidly since
the start of the industry in 1989, particularly in Zanzibar, which comprises two islands, Pemba and
Unguja. Production increased from 8,080 tonnes in 1989 to a maximum production of 1,76,000 tonnes
recorded in 2016.
7.3.1 The Seaweed Cluster Initiative
The Seaweed Cluster Initiative (Seaweed CI) aimed to increase seaweed production in the
country by modifying farming techniques and adding value to the produced seaweed. The following
were the key strategies adopted to achieve this goal: POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
91
1. Addressing the problem of cottonii dying-off: Solving the problem of dying-off of Cottonii, a
high-priced seaweed species raised the income of farmers.
2. Adding value to seaweed: Incentives were provided for semi-processing and full processingto
make seaweed products. These fetched higher prices than bulk-unprocessed seaweed.
3. Farming new seaweed species : The Seaweed CI aimed to incentivize farmers to farm new
seaweed species that added income to their farming activities.
4. Standardisation of farms: By standardising farms, more space was used within the same farming
areas, thus increasing production per unit area. This reduced wastage of space.
Seaweed CI implemented a standardisation strategy (Figure 46) for seaweed farms to
increase farming area and reduce seaweed breakage due to strong winds. It involves placing farms
facing the same direction instead of different directions used by the farmers. The standardisation
process will omit unnecessary spaces that are unused between farms thus increasing the farming
area. This approach also reduced the breakage of seaweed due to strong winds, which improved
seaweed production.
Figure 46. Current placement of farms and what the CI is doing to
standardize the farms.
The seaweed cluster initiative has also been instrumental in devising small group product
development strategies. Several initiatives have involved seaweed farmers in value-adding initiatives.
For example, the Seaweed Centre Company Ltd., located in Paje village on the East Coast of Zanziba
was built through collaboration between Chalmers University of Entrepreneurship in Sweden,
Seaweed Cluster initiative, and Zanzibar Adventure School. The Centre has a soap factory, shop for
selling seaweed value-added products, a kitchen for cooking seaweed food, a roof top meeting and
“restaurant” facility. They produced food products such as seaweed cake, juice, cookies, jams and
seaweed salad, as well as seaweed soaps blended with neem, moringa extracts, lime (citrus) & clove.
The Centre also conducts Seaweed Farming Tour where visitors are taken through the process of
farming and adding value to seaweed. Paje Seaweed Centre Company Ltd. works with the women
NGO (Paje Seaweed Centre Society) who make the seaweed products includes seaweed soaps, body
creams, spa scrubs, and foods. The key takeaways from this are:
• Utilize conventional (old) technology to create semi-refined iota carrageenan (SRC-I) in
carrageenan (SRC-I) from raw, dried seaweed (RDS) in Zanzibar-based production facilities.
• Employ newly developing multi-stream, zero-effluent (MUZE) technology to start processing
live, fresh seaweed (FS) to create SRC-I as well as agricultural nutrient products and various
other products that may be made possible by evolving biotechnology. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 92
7.4 Best Practices in Energy Production from Seaweed: Lessons
from Japan
The Ocean Sunrise Project is a ground-breaking initiative in Japan aimed at harnessing the
immense potential of the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and maritime belts, which rank
among the worlds largest. By focusing on the production of bioethanol from Sargassum horneri
seaweed, this project presents an opportunity for Japan to explore sustainable energy options.
Recognizing the pressing issue of global warming, the project alignes with international frameworks
such as the Kyoto Protocol. While traditional biofuel production has relied heavily on food crops
such as maize and sugarcane, concerns about food costs and limited scalability have emerged. The
Ocean Sunrise Project highlights the need to explore alternative biofuel sources. Seaweed, with its
comparable bioenergy production to terrestrial plants, presents a viable solution as an energy crop
that can generate substantial amounts of alternative fuel without compromising food supplies.
7.4.1 Project Image of Bioethanol Production
The Ocean Sunrise Project aimed to produce 5 million kiloliters of bioethanol by farming 150
million tonnes of Sargassum fulvellum, using less than 1 percent of Japan’s economic zone of 4.48
million square km. By expanding this production to the three largest oceans, about 1 billion kiloliters
of bioethanol can be produced. However, such large-scale seaweed farming required deep water
farming technology, and demonstrations are needed to gradually develop farming and harvesting
technology at various water depths. The project’s mid to long-term goal is to achieve these objectives,
which can contribute to solving global environmental and energy issues while utilizing unused spaces
in the world’s oceans.
The Ocean Sunrise Project involves the use of water as its primary material flow, with seaweed
accounting for 90 percent of the 150 million tonnes of annual production. The fermentation and
distillation process consumes the remaining 10 percent. Any water left in the seaweed after natural
drying, fermentation, and distillation is returned to the ocean. During the fermentation and distillation
processes, 58 percent of the consumed seaweed substances are converted into bioethanol through
the fiber, alginate, and mannitol processes, while the remaining 42 percent is composed of organic
components, nutritive salt and ash and will be used efficiently as cattle feed or fertilizer.
To address the issues related to facility and maintenance costs, the Ocean Sunrise Project
plans to use a soft facility structure consisting of ropes and nets for seaweed farming. This system will
be implemented in coastal zones with water depths of 500 meters or less and offshore zones with
water depths ranging from 500 to 3,000 meters. In coastal zones, seaweed farming technologies
such as kelp (Laminaria) and wakame (Undaria pinnatifida) will be adapted, where seeds will be
planted and grown on ropes laid at the water surface. Harvesting methods using reaping vessels or
laver farming technology are being considered. The target cost for seaweed production is 1,000 yen
per 1 tonne of wet weight.
For offshore zones, the project envisions using sea kite farming, utilising ocean currents. The
sea kites will be configured with a triangular shape of 1.5 km in length and 1.0 km in width, similar to
trawl nets. Equipment made of canvas configured like otter boards of trawl nets will be placed onto
sea kites, and their spread-out position will be maintained by the power of ocean currents. Single
point mooring, based on deep water mooring technology, will be used. Seaweed production per
facility is estimated at 60,000 to 190,000 tonnes annually.
For the Ocean Sunrise Project, a water bag transport method was implemented in order
to reduce transportation and land storage expenses. A system like this would use the water bag
transportation method for moving enormous amounts of water. Water bags are being investigated as a
substitute facility for fermenters in addition to being used to store seaweed in ports and on the ocean. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
93
Alginate, mannitol, and fiber found in seaweed are converted into ethanol, butanol, etc. to
create seaweed biofuel. The effectiveness of the fermentation system that is built is crucial in various
production processes. The RITE (Research Institute of Innovative Technologies for the Environment)
system, which combines alginate glycation with extremely efficient fermentation technologies, is one
example of a technological advancement that the Ocean Sunrise Project is seeking.
7.5.2 Comparison of Ethanol Production Rate
According to contained component estimates, seaweed may produce about 27 kg, or 34
litres, of ethanol for every tonne of raw material. Similarly, the findings in the Table 17 reflect a
comparative analysis of estimated ethanol generation from land crops and seaweed. While having a
lower production rate than land crops, seaweed have high-water content. Due to high productivity
per area, ethanol generation potential is significant and equivalent to that of sugarcane.
Table 17. Ethanol production from major land crops and seaweed
Raw material
Moisture
in raw material
(%)
Carbohydrates, etc.
(subject to fermentation)
(%)
Ethanol Production per 1 tonne
of raw material
(kg/tonne) (l/tonne）
Corn14.570.6360.8 462.6
Barley 14.076.2389.5 499.3
Wheat10.075.2384.4 492.8
Rice15.573.8377.2 483.6
Sweet potato 66.131.5161.0 206.4
Potato 79.817.690.0 115.3
Sugarcane 60.015.076.7 98.3
Seaweed
(Sargassum
horneri)
90.05.829.6 38.0
Source: Aizawa et al., 2007
Seaweed contains different components subject to fermentation (alginates, etc.) than that
of land crops (starches, glucose) and thus there is a difference in production coefficient.The overall
energy balance is thought to be almost equivalent to that of bioethanol made from land crops.
However, during the refining process via distillation, energy consumption is high, and it is estimated
that production is possible with input energy at 70 percent of the calorific power of ethanol. To
improve energy efficiency, new technologies such as membrane dehydration are desired. Using
membrane dehydration, it is estimated that production is possible with input energy at 55 percent
of the calorific power of ethanol. Figure 47 depicts the resource consumption in ethanol production
equivalent to 1 kg of oil-based gasoline. Bioethanol production from seaweed could be a potential
game-changer for the Indian seaweed industry. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 94
Figure 47. Resource consumption in ethanol production equivalent to 1 kg of
gasoline (oil based)
7.5 Best Practices in Processing of Seaweed to Culinaries: Lessons
from South Korea
South Korea is a significant global player in the seaweed industry, with an impressive annual
seaweed harvest of 1,761,526 tonnes in 2017 worth USD 864,409 thousand. In 2018, Korea exported
42,033 metric tonnes of seaweed worth USD 601,006 thousand, while importing 14,341 metric tonnes
valued at USD 28,161 thousand. Pyropia, known locally as “Gim,” is the most valuable seaweed species,
contributing to 71 percent of the total output value. The most commonly produced seaweed species
were Undariapinnatifida, Saccharinajaponica, and Pyropia spp. Pyropia was the most exported species,
while Cottoni and Spinosum were the mostly imported one.Korea’s prowess in seaweed farming
makes it a net exporter of seaweed, both in terms of quantity and value.While Koreans have a long
history of consuming seaweed as food, there is now a qualitative shift in the consumption patterns
of seaweed-based products. People are increasingly turning to seaweed as a functional health food,
beauty product, and biotherapeutic. This shift towards more diverse and sophisticated applications of
seaweed-based products highlights the growing importance of seaweed beyond traditional cuisine.
Since the 1980s, numerous seaweed food products have been developed, including machine dried
Pyropia, toasted Pyropia, salted or sliced Undaria, sun-dried Undaria, and seasoned Saccharina jam.
Currently, there is a wide range of packaged goods and processed fast foods available.
Pyropia is typically mechanically processed into dried sheets, and almost all obtained Pyropia
undergoes this processing method. In terms of Undaria, there has been a shift in output from salted
to dried one due to a decline in the export of salted Undaria to Japan. Dried Undaria is widely used
in various processed foods, snacks, and wellness items in Korea. Boiled and sun-dried S. fusiforme
is also a significant commercially important export to Japan. In recent years, U. prolifera has been
processed into salt and oil after being dried in sheets, similar to Pyropia.
7.5.1 The Golden Seed Project of South Korea
Pyropia spp. is the most important seaweed species in South Korea and breeding efforts
are focused on developing temperature-resistant, fast-growing cultivars that are high in desirable
secondary metabolites and disease-resistant. Undaria pinnatifida is widely cultivated in Korea and
serves as a fresh feed for abalone. The cultivation area for S. japonica has increased by 671 percent
between 2001 and 2015 to meet the growing demand for kelp feed from abalone producers. The kelp POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
95
farming sector has expanded rapidly, driven by advancements in seedling and rearing technology.
The Korean government established the “Golden Seed Project” to support the creation of seaweed
cultivars.
To regulate human health and lifestyle, seanol (sea polyphenol) is derived from E. cava
and sold as cosmetics, medical food, and other products. A significant industry in Korea for many
years, agar-agar extraction from Gelidium has constantly been a top export product. However, as a
result of the majority of the processing facilities moving overseas, the agar processing business has
experienced a substantial downturn. There are currently only a few agar processing facilities left, and
agar-agar exports make up only about USD 3 million in annual exports. In addition to its use in food,
kelp is increasingly being used in health supplements such pills, extracts, jelly, and powder. In some
areas, local governments have developed thalassotherapy utilizing seaweed. Some of the culinaries
processed out of seaweed in South Korea are depicted in Figure 48.
Figure 48. Seaweed processing and products of South Korea. (a) Processing of
Pyropia to dried sheets (21 cm × 19 cm in size, 2.5 g-wet weight). (b) Sun-dried
Undaria pinnatifida. (c) Sun-dried Sargassum fusiforme. (d) Sun-dried Saccharina
japonica waiting for the auction. (e) Sun-dried Ulva prolifera. (f) Fried with oil and
salt of Pyropia. (g) Various products of Pyropia. (h) Snacks and instant salads of
seaweeds. (i) Seaweed cosmetics POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 96
7.5.2 Learnings from South Korea
The development of seaweed cultivation technology, which has prioritised reducing labour
and pursuing the efficient use of technology, large-scale farming, development of automated
harvesting and processing technologies, and increasing productivity through better varieties and
culture techniques, is the cause of this growth. The developments of indoor culture systems support
the industry’s competitiveness and allow seaweeds to be produced year-round in order to compete
with terrestrial vegetables. By placing such systems close to markets, it is possible to satisfy customer
demand for fresh goods while reducing the carbon emissions caused by shipping such goods from
far-off ports. The Korean seaweed industry grows in response to the needs of environmentally and
health-conscious consumers with more certifications. The world’s first Aquaculture Stewardship
Council-Marine Stewardship Council (ASC-MSC) certification was obtained by a seaweed company
(The Haedam Co. farm) in Korea in 2019, and as the Korean seaweed indurstry grows in response to
the needs of environmentally and health-conscious consumers, more certifications are anticipated in
the future. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
97 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 98 CHAPTER-VIII RECOMMENDATIONS &
WAY FORWARD POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 100
Considering the status of seaweed value chain in India, it requires multi-stakeholder, multilevel
and inter-ministrial convergence, collaboration, and co-ordination. To fulfill the goal of increasing
the allied sector’s share of GVA in agriculture from 7.28 percent in 2018-19 to approximately 9
percent by 2024-25 and in order to maximize the realization of potential of seaweed value chain,
recommendations are laid out below.
8.1 Regulatory and Governance
i. Amendment in the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961
The Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 may be suitably amended to explicitly allocate the
responsibility for seaweed value chain development to the appropriate department, ministry, or
agency.The “seaweed” and any other aquatic life are included under the term ‘fish’ which has been
defined under the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 [clause
2(b)]. Besides, the global status of’ seaweed production’ has always been published as part of The
State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), which is the flagship publication of the FAO by its
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.
Accordingly, seaweed cultivation and its value chain should be included under the allocation
of business rules of the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying,
GoI, which would help in undertaking delegated responsibilities in a more focused manner.
ii. Exports and certification of seaweed and its products
The exports of seaweed may be allocated to MPEDA under the Ministry of Commerce
&Industry, GoI by suitably amending the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961. MPEDA and the National
Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) may undertake the sale and export of seaweed and
its products through the existing network of FPOs, FFPOs, SHGs, etc. MPEDA may be designated to
oversee the certification process of seaweed and its products. International harmonization should be
made to align certification programs and standards. This can facilitate the global trade of certified
seaweed products and prevent market barriers due to varying certification requirements. MPEDA
may establish the certification protocols and processes. Afterwards, it may be handed over to an
independent third-party certification organization to run the certification system.
iii. Constitution of a National Steering Committee
A national steering committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of
Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, GoI, comprising representation from
the coastal states and union territories, can be constituted for untapping the seaweed potential,
and effectively managing associated environmental, economic, and interstate issues. The steering
committee may comprise representation from CSIR-CSMCRI, ICAR-CMFRI, MPEDA, etc.
iv. Constitution of Technical Committee for the import of seaweed seeds and
planting material
Lack of quality seeds and hurdles in importing germplasm and wet seed materials are among
the major challenges in promoting seaweed cultivation.The authority for providing permission for the
import of live seaweed material to India for research purposes currently deals with the Directorate of
Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. As
per Plant Quarantine Order 2003 (Schedule VII-Plant and Planting Materials), only “dried seaweeds”
such as-Chondrus spp./ Ecklonia rnaxima, Eucheuma spp./Gelidiurn spp./ Gelidiella spp./ Gracilaria
spp./ Kappaphycus spp./ Pteroclodia spp. are allowed to be imported for human consumption. The
commodities under ‘Schedule VII, including seaweed, are permissible on the basis of a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the exporting country, and the inspection is conducted by the inspection
authority. In order to obtain proper permission to import live seaweed material from abroad, the POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
101
Plat Quarantine (PQ) Form No. 23 & 24 issued by the Plant Protection Adviser, Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarantine & Storage (DPPQ&S), Gol has to be duly filled in and furnished to the above
department so as to give appropriate clearance for the import of explants or tissue culture-raised
plantlets (for research purposes).
A national-level technical committee for the import of seaweed seeds and planting material
may be constituted under the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry &
Dairying, GoI. The technical committee may use a mechanism for seaweed, similar to the indenting
system used for crop seeds. The committee shall comprise representation from the following
organizations:
• Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage (DPPQ&S)
• Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, GoI
• Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare
• The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR)
v. Priority Sector Lending for seaweed
The Reserve Bank of India may consider including credit related to seaweed in the
list of priority sector lending (PSL) of banks, as seaweed is a tool to combat and deal with climate
change.
vi. Guidelines for the regulation of seaweed-based products
The certification system for seaweed-based products maybe developed by the regulatory and
certifying authority pertaining to the product category. For example, certification for pharmaceutical
products maybe developed by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), for
biostimulants by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoA&FW), for animal feed by the
Department of Animal Husbandary (MoFAH&D).
Standards on edible seaweed products would typically incorporate establishing maximum
limits for contaminants, including heavy metals and toxins. They also encompass the formulation of
guidelines for labeling and packaging, along with specific prerequisites for production and processing
methods. Furthermore, permissible additives and preservatives are defined within these standards to
ensure product safety and quality. Such standards may be developed and notified by the FSSAI. FSSAI
should harmonize Indian Standards for use of seaweed products in line with the CODEX standards.
vii. Import and quarantine system
A defined process for the import and quarantine of different seaweed strains should be
notified. Research institutions responsible for the process of acclimatization, assessment, and final
clearance should also be notified. This would increase growing options for cultivators and get them
away from monoculture while increasing income opportunities.
8.2 Social Security and Financial Support
i. Comprehensive risk cover through insurance
To mitigate the risks posed by weather events such as excess rains, cyclones, high tides, etc.,
risk cover is essential for seaweed farming. The insurance scheme may be finalized in consultation
with the insurance companies. The insurance may cover crop insurance, life-insurance of the seaweed
farmer, insurance for capital infrastructure relating to seaweed cultivation and processing. The
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, GoI may lead this in the
interest of farmers. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 102
ii. Financial support for seaweed cultivation
The scope of the PM-KISAN scheme may be broadened to include seaweed farmers, and
similar input support may be provided to them under the scheme. The appropriate guidelines for
the same may be formulated by the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (MoA&FW). Similarly,
the scope of the PMFBY scheme may be broadened to cover seaweed farmers under its ambit. The
appropriate guidelines for the same may be formulated by the MoA&FW.
iii. Improved access to institutional credit for seaweed farmers
In order to provide institutional credit to seaweed farmers, the following is recommended:
1. Covering all seaweed farmers under Kisan Credit Cards (KCC) and enabling access to
institutional credit.
2. Promote a large number of joint liability groups (JLGs) for group financing, which will enhance
the access of small and marginal farmers to institutional credit.
3. Mobilize farmers through self-help groups (SHGs), commodity interest groups (CIGs), and fish
farmer producer organizations (FFPOs) and strengthen their ability to access credit facilities
from banks and cooperatives.
4. As recommended earlier, the Reserve Bank of India may consider including credit related to
seaweed in the list of PSL of banks, as seaweed is a tool to combat and deal with climate
change. This will make available more and easy institutional credit for seaweed farmers.
8.3 Incentivising Investments and Ease of Doing Business
i. Enhancing investment in coastal regions
Recognizing the significant link between agricultural and allied sector growth and gross
capital formation (GCF), increasing investments in the seaweed sector through both the public and
private / corporate sectors is crucial. The Ministry may take enabling measures for the corporate
sector and young entrepreneurs to take advantage of various reforms introduced in the sectors of
marketing, foreign direct investment (FDI), input management, initiatives like Stand-up India, Start-
up India, and infrastructure-promoting initiatives.
ii. PPP partnership
The importance of investment in supply chain infrastructure and integrated processing is
critical for the creation of market opportunities for seaweed farmers. The Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) mode may be adopted for the creation of such infrastructure. PPP mode may also be deployed
to support the development and implementation of certification programs. This can provide financial
assistance, technical expertise, and research support to certification bodies, seaweed producers, and
processors.
iii. Ease of doing business
The Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, GoI
should establish guidelines for seaweed cultivation activities such as site selection, infrastructure
development, and monitoring.
iv. Development of dynamic data portal and decision support tools
A portal may be developed with geo-tagging of all sites suitable for seaweed cultivation.
The portal should have multiple users so that state governments, union governments, research
organizations, farmers, universities, etc. may have access to the data required. It should identify
seaweed clusters, such that respective state governments and universities should be able to utilize it
for the formulation of cluster development plans for seaweed. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
103
v. Inclusion of seaweed and its products in e-NAM and agriculture mandis
e-NAM and state agriculture mandis may be amended to have a separate category of seaweed
and seaweed-related products for their trade and sale. PPP mode for sale-side intervention may also
be explored.
vi. Scaling up of Seaweed Farmer Service Platform (SFSP)
The ‘Seaweed Farmer Service Platform’ (SFSP) may be scaled upwhich can serve as a central
repository in the data ecosystem to enable data-based decision-making.
vii. Use of remote sensing data
Real remote sensing-based metrological monitoring systems can be leveraged to provide
customized short-, medium-, and long-term meteorological forecasts to farmers. This will enable
farmers to make the right decisions at the right time to reduce losses and improve yields.
8.4 Infrastructure and Institutions
i. Establishment of seed banks
Seed banks should be established by the research institutions, agriculture, and fisheries
universities, as well as FFPOs in all the maritime states and UTs to ensure the availability of quality
seed material immediately after the end of monsoon.
ii. Leveraging FFPO’s for infrastructure development and economies of scale
FFPOs can be instrumental in the cultivation and utilization of seaweed through enhanced
production, infrastructure development, market linkages, marketing support, and financial inclusion.
FFPOs can play a vital role in helping farmers economies of scale. The Department, through the Small
Farmers Agri-Business Consortium (MoA&FW), KVKs, agriculture and fisheries universities (both
public and private) may incentivize the formation of FFPOs catering to seaweed.
iii. Creation of logistics and processing centers at cluster level
In order to facilitate primary processing of seaweed at cluster level, logistics and processing
centers may be created to provide access to basic logistics such as warehouses (both dry and wet),
transport (dry and reefer), pack houses, cleaning, grading, packaging facilities, etc.
iv. Creation of aggregation and marketing centers at district level
These centers can serve as hubs where primary processed seaweed produce is brought for
standardization and aggregation, enabling efficient transactions.
1. Standardization and aggregation: The centres will ensure that the seaweed products meet
specified quality standards and are properly processed. Standardized and aggregated
seaweed can be transported from these centres to export, whole-sale, or retail markets for
further distribution.
2. Upgraded storage facilities and promote using the eNWR (electronic negotiable warehouse
receipt) system to streamline storage, trading, and collateralization of seaweed products.
3. Marketplaces and Digital Trade Platforms: They can also function as marketplaces where
farmers can directly sell their seaweed produce.These centres can be integrated into digital
trade platforms like eNAM (National Agriculture Market) to facilitate online trading, price
discovery, and transparent transactions. Integrating with eNAM will give farmers access to a
broader market and enhance price competitiveness. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 104
viii. Creation of Indian Seaweed Cluster Initiative (ISCI):
The Indian Seaweed Cluster Initiative (ISCI) may be created to develop value-added products
from seaweed, focusing on small-scale farmers and processors, particularly women, in coastal states.
ix. Centre of Excellence for Seaweed
Centres of Excellence (CoE) may be established in every coastal state and union territory
for holistic development and support of seaweed. The state department of fisheries in collaboration
with MPEDA-RGCA, NaCSA, research institutions, Fisheries and Agriculture Universities may submit
proposals for the establishment of CoE to the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal
Husbandry & Dairying, GoI. The CoE will facilitate research, development, training, and collaboration
to establish a thriving, environmentally conscious seaweed industry. The CoE shall be setup within
the following broad framework (Table 18).
Table 18. Components and tentative budget for the proposed CoE for seaweed
S. No.Components
Tenative
Budget
(₹crores)
1.
Seed Bank
Inshore facility for seaweed tissue culture, spore culture, indoor/outdoor
nursery, outdoor seaweed seed reserves with essential scientific manpower
4.5
2.
Seaweed Research and Demonstration Farms
Inshore and offshore demonstration farms in identified atolls
2.0
3.
Aquatic Environment Monitoring and Disease Management
NABL laboratory with essential equipment for chemical/physical/biological
quality of water and soil and a disease diagnostic & quarantine centre.
2.8
4.
International Collaborations with Academia and the Industry
Knowledge and skill transfer by visiting experts and visits by in-house
scientists to other centres of excellence around the globe in seaweed to
develop a sound, inclusive seaweed enterprise in the islands
3.5
5.
Product Development and Incubation
Infrastructure and facilities for the development of processing technology
of seaweed, product development, testing, and the incubation of
entrepreneurs.
3.2
6.
Training and skill development
Infrastructure and skills for on-the-job training for farmers and processors,
and support for postgraduate research on seaweed by the universities.
2.0
7. Cost of civil works and land acquisition2.0
Total20
1. The CoE shall develop models and practices for the onshore/inland cultivation of seaweed,
cultivation of seaweed in creeks. It shall make an estimate of the total land possible to be
brought under inland seaweed cultivation in the state or union territory. For example, the
state of Goa has nearly 17,000 hectares of Khazan land, which may be utilized for the inland
cultivation of seaweed.
2. The CoE shall be a nodal point for identification of other seaweed species, which could be
specific to the state or union territory besides the ones mentioned in the document. The
CoE shall provide support to the state or union territory for entire value chain, from seed
availability, multiplication, cultivation, harvesting, post-harvest handling, and processing,
marketing, and domestic and international trading of seaweed. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
105
3. The CoE will focus on optimizing cultivation techniques, promoting the growth of potential
seaweed species, and establishing a seed bank for their preservation. By leveraging advanced
technologies such as tissue culture and spore culture, the CoE will facilitate the production of
high-quality seaweed seedlings for farmers.
4. The CoE will prioritize research and development efforts to enhance the value of seaweed
products. This includes exploring innovative applications in sectors such as food, feed, biofuels,
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and fertilizers.Through collaboration with academia and industry
experts, the CoE will develop cutting-edge technologies, refine processing techniques, and
promote the creation of value-added products having high market demand.
5. Recognizing the importance of knowledge and skill enhancement, the CoE will provide
comprehensive training programs for farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs. This training
will cover various aspects of seaweed farming, processing techniques, quality control, and
product development. By equipping stakeholders with the necessary expertise, the centre
aims to empower and actively participate in the seaweed industry and enhance its income
opportunities.
6. International collaborations with leading academic institutions and industry experts will be a
key focus of the CoE. The centre shall aim to stay at the forefront of seaweed research and
development through knowledge and skill transfer, facilitated by visits from global experts
and exchanges of in-house scientists.
7. At present, Kappaphycus is the single dominant species being cultured on a commercial scale.
Commercial-scale culture of the native seaweed species like Gracilaria, Gelidiella, Porphyra,
Asparagopsis, Ulva, Enteromorpha, Monostroma, Sargassum has also to be promoted by CoE
for better growth rate and biochemical production.
8. The CoE may identify industrial-scale offshore farming. Sea leasing policies must be framed
with due consideration to the concerns of national security in the seas.
9. The CoE will develop machinery for seeding, maintenance, harvesting, and processing to
support large-scale coastal as well as offshore farming.
10. A facility for the culture of small branches of potential seaweed speciesshould be established
to develop fast and stress tolerant strains. Gene bank should be created to generate DNA
fingerprinting (RAPD) of different strains of potential seaweed species, as these will serve as a
basis for genetic classification and identification of the cultivars for biodiversity conservation
and protection from bio piracy. Similarly, tissue culture laboratory should be established at
the CoE which shall provide and store high yielding elite commercial strains/germplasm or
seedlings of seaweed.
11. Referral laboratories should be established at district level for quality assurance and
management of seaweed and their products. The CoE shall oversee the regional referral
laboratories.
12. The CoE will provide state-of-the-art infrastructure and incubation facilities to facilitate
product development and entrepreneurial ventures. This will enable entrepreneurs to test
and refine their seaweed-based products, access necessary equipment, and receive guidance
from industry experts. By nurturing innovation and supporting the growth of small businesses,
the centre will drive economic diversification and create a conducive environment for
entrepreneurship.
13. The sites and areas identified by CSIR-CSMCRI and ICAR-CMFRI are not exhaustive. The CoE
shall identify more sites and areas suitable for the cultivation of seaweed in the respective
state or union territory in consultation with the local research organizations, agriculture and
fisheries universities, and their respective state or union territory governments, following the
norms and appropriate environmental safeguards in identifying the sites. It shall take due
care that the sites identified should not be ecologically sensitive and should not coincide with POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 106
turtle nesting grounds, crocodile habitat, or other relevant factors. Suitable human-animal
conflict mitigation measures should be considered with proper technological innovations by
the CoE.
14. The CoE shall, at the state level, create a map for the allocation of sea space, wherein seaweed
clusters are identified for the development of the required infrastructure.
15. Creation of Seaweed Service Centres (SSCs) may be created under theCoE in the identified
clusters mandated to provide all inputs available under various government programs under
different sectors as a ‘Single Window Service’.
x. Incentives to islands
Considering the remoteness and inadequacy of the basic facilities in the outer islands (A&N
Islands, Lakshadweep), incentives in the form of subsidies are to be extended for plant machinery,
generators, and POL to the entrepreneurs for setting up seaweed processing units for them. Further,
freight subsidies are to be included for the transportation of finished or semi-processed seaweed and
its produce to the mainland by local entrepreneurs.
8.5 Skill Development and Research
i. Certificate and diploma courses for skill development
This comprehensive program aims to thoroughly understand the entire seaweed cultivation
process, including harvesting and post-harvest management. By offering these courses, the seaweed
industry and individuals can gain the essential expertise required to engage in seaweed cultivation
effectively and maximize its potential for enhancing livelihoods. These courses enable technically
skilled farmers to do seaweed farming, creating new sustainable opportunities and generating
employment prospects. The said training may be offered by agriculture and/or fisheries universities,
MPEDA-RGCA, various ICAR institutes etc.
ii. Product development from seaweed
Bio-stimulants used in agriculture derived from seaweeds have demonstrated an increase in
crop production about 20-35% and can help in reducing chemical fertilizer consumption to the tune
of 25% without impacting the final yield of the farmers. Aligned research institutions (public and
private) may conceive research programs for the development of seaweed-based bioethanol,animal
fodder, pharmaceuticals, neutraceuticals, etc.
iii. Development of production technology
The research institutions under ICAR and CSIR may initiate research on key environmental,
social, and economic aspects of seaweed cultivation, such as responsible harvesting practices, water
quality management, ecosystem protection, labour practices, and waste management.
iv. Study and framework on carbon credits from seaweed
To accelerate the growth of the carbon credit sector and foster a robust industry, it is crucial
to prioritize opportunities and incorporate seaweed within the national and international carbon
credit frameworks and trading markets. The Union Ministry of Fisheries may initiate a study through
research institutions on opportunities through carbon credits from seaweed. It may develop a
framework for the estimation and trading of carbon credits from seaweed. This step will align with
India’s commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions.
v. Realignment of research organizations and academic institutions
The objectives of research organizations such as ICAR-CMFRI, CSIR-CSMCRI, state and
national-level agricultural and fisheries universities, private universities, the Department of Science
and Technology, the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), the National Institute of Ocean POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
107
Technology (NIOT), and other institutions involved in fisheries and seaweed may be made more
explicit to cover seaweed value chain development under its ambit.
vi. Incentives and recognition
The Union Ministry of Fisheries may look into possibilities of recognition of seaweed and
its products for GI tag. Similarly, it may initiate research on the access to preferential markets, eco-
branding opportunities, encouraging greater adoption of certified seaweed products.
vii. Research on climate climate-resilient seaweed varieties
The research institutions (both public and private) may initiate and conduct research for the
development of climate resilient seaweed varieties and a strengthened seed value chain system for
mitigating risks and ensuring successful seaweed cultivation in coastal areas. Seaweed varieties that
resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses, and collaborations between institutions, farmers, and the pri-
vate sector are essential POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 108 ANNEXURES POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 110
Annexure-I: Basic Production Data Including Market Value and
Infrastructure Cost of Different Agarophytes
The analysis is done at the rate of 1 tonne per day (1 TPD) and 5 tonnes per day (5 TPD) dry biomass with low and high range yield scenario.
Table 19. Basic production data including market value and infrastructure cost of different agarophytes
Parameters
G. acerosa
(Ganesan et al., 2009)
G. debilis
(Veeragurunathan et al., 2019)
G. dura
(Veeragurunathan et al., 2015b)
G. edulis
Ganesan et al., 2011a
1 TPD
5 TPD
1 TPD
5 TPD
1 TPD
5 TPD
1TPD
5 TPD
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Seed biomass (kg) raft
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yield (kg) raft
-1
@
90 days
Ge. acerosa

@
45 days
G. debilis, G.
dura, G. edulis
5
6
5
6
14
43
14
43
2
10
2
10
6
28
6
28
Yield after deducting seed material for subsequent crop raft
-1

(kg)
4.5
5.5
4.5
5.5
11
40
11
40
1
9
1
9
5
27
5
27
Dry to fresh weight ratio (Water content)
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
10
10
10
10
Dry weight (kg)
1.12
1.38
1.12
1.38
1.38
5
1.38
5
0.14
1.29
0.14
1.29
0.5
2.7
0.5
2.7
Number of rafts required for @ 1 TPD or @ 5 TPD
889
727
4,444
3,636
727
200
3,636
1,000
7,000
778
35,000
3,889
2,000
370
10,000
1,852
Number of people required for seeding

@ 2 rafts day
-1
person
-1
444
364
2,222
1,818
364
100
1,818
500
3,500
389
17,500
1,944
1,000
185
5,000
926 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
111
Parameters
G. acerosa
(Ganesan et al., 2009)
G. debilis
(Veeragurunathan et al., 2019)
G. dura
(Veeragurunathan et al., 2015b)
G. edulis
Ganesan et al., 2011a
1 TPD
5 TPD
1 TPD
5 TPD
1 TPD
5 TPD
1TPD
5 TPD
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Number of rafts growth cycle
-1
@ 90 days
Ge. acerosa

@ 45 days
G. debilis, G.
dura, G. edulis
80,000
65,455
4,00,000
3,27,273
32,727
9,000
1,63,636
45,000
3,15,000
35,000
15,75,000
1,75,000
90,000
16,667
4,50,000
83,333
Area required (ha)
32
26.18
160
130.90
13.09
3.6
65.45
18
126
14
630
70
36
6.667
180
33.33
Total days of farming year
-1
@ 3 harvests of 90 days for
Ge. acerosa
@ 6 harvests of 45 days for
G. debilis
and
G.
edulis @ 5 harvests of 45 days for
G. dura
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
225
225
225
225
270
270
270
270
Total days of obtaining harvest
180
180
180
180
225
225
225
225
180
180
180
180
225
225
225
225
Total produce year
-1

(tons)
180
180
900
900
225
225
1125
1125
180
180
900
900
225
225
1125
1125 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 112
Parameters
G. acerosa
(Ganesan et al., 2009)
G. debilis
(Veeragurunathan et al., 2019)
G. dura
(Veeragurunathan et al., 2015b)
G. edulis
Ganesan et al., 2011a
1 TPD
5 TPD
1 TPD
5 TPD
1 TPD
5 TPD
1TPD
5 TPD
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Yield scenario
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Low Range
High Range
Market value of biomass tons
-1
as prevailing rates
(Million USD)@ USD 1603 for
Ge.
acerosa, @ USD 601 for
G. debilis
@ USD 534 for
G. edulis
and @ USD 1336 for
G. dura
0.29
0.29
1.44
1.44
0.14
0.14
0.68
0.68
0.24
0.24
1.20
1.20
0.12
0.12
0.60
0.60
Infrastructure cost (Million USD)@ USD 8.016 raft
-1
0.64
0.52
3.21
2.62
0.26
0.07
1.31
0.36
2.52
0.28
12.65
1.40
0.72
0.13
3.61
0.69
Total investment (Million USD) @ 50% subsidy from Fisheries Department Government of Tamil Nadu
0.32
0.26
1.60
1.31
0.13
0.04
0.66
0.18
1.26
0.14
6.30
0.70
0.36
0.07
1.80
0.34 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
113
Annexure-II: List of Sites for Seaweed
Cultivation
Table 20. List of sites/locations identified by ICAR-CMFRI
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
1
Fraserhanj
(Bakkhali)
West Bengal
South 24
Parganas
99.76 88.27544121.527064 2767.64
2
Sagar Island
Systems
West Bengal
South 24
Parganas
124.70 88.08136121.585523 4924.96
3
Sundarban
Dhanchi Forest
West Bengal
South 24
Parganas
94.72 88.43875 21.577823 0.00
4 Mandarmani West Bengal Purba Mednipur 69.79 87.73661621.608956 7122.11
5 Shankarpur West Bengal Purba Mednipur 59.87 87.634498 21.593063 6203.91
6
TN NA1 28
Cuddalore M
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 20.86 79.785874 11.723963 252.03
7
TN NA1 28
Cuddalore M
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 36.54 79.784645 11.714561 198.43
8
TN NA1 28
Kudikadu
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 52.33 79.776866 11.679383 287.39
9
TN NA1 28
Tiyagavalli
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 26.19 79.76598 11.636834 196.18
10
TN NA1 28
Tiyagavalli
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 52.26 79.764695 11.618647 245.01
11
TN NA1 28
Kayalpattu
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 36.59 79.760594 11.585995 200.58
12
TN NA1 28 Andar
Mullipalayam
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 26.14 79.760031 11.575109 181.69
13
TN NA1 28
Silambimangalam
Tamil Nadu Cuddalore 52.19 79.763132 11.551198 175.43
14
TN NA1 28
Bommaryarpalayam
Tamil Nadu Villupuram 26.27 79.853373 11.990061 466.99
15
TN NA1 28
Kunimedu
Tamil Nadu Villupuram 52.42 79.894983 12.073823 182.62
16
TN NA1 28
Anumandai
Tamil Nadu Villupuram 47.21 79.923603 12.118473 193.53
17
TN NA1 28
Marakkanam TP
Tamil Nadu Villupuram 21.04 79.963504 12.181346 161.58
18
TN NA1 28
Panaiyur
Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 26.34 80.02537 12.284704 123.82
19
TN NA1 28
Paramankeni
Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 26.34 80.069672 12.348372 36.73
20 TN NA1 28 Kadalur Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 26.24 80.149071 12.45101 696.48
21 TN NA1 28 Kadalur Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 34.70 80.14226 12.439111 129.01
22
TN NA1 28
Mamallapuram
Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 36.82 80.21210312.650188 329.34 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 114
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
23
TN NA1 28
Nemmeli
Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 31.70 80.234552 12.713968 286.26
24
TN NA1 28
Thiruvidanthai
Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 21.16 80.243072 12.740335 942.09
25
TN NA1 28
Kovalam
Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 52.79 80.25852112.785208 1282.78
26 TN NA1 28 Uthandi Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu 31.64 80.25307 12.862499 185.59
27 TN NA1 28 Kalanji Tamil Nadu Thiruvallur 21.18 80.34462 13.332358 1423.26
28 TN NA1 28 Pulicat Tamil Nadu Thiruvallur 26.51 80.33115 13.422613 0.00
29
Chilka lake
Arakuda (Near Bar
mouth
Odisha Puri 49.85 85.55192319.667565 1730.78
30 Satpada Odisha Puri 130.03 85.51515819.647266 1805.50
31
Ramchandi
Muhanan near
Chandrabhaga
Odisha Puri 49.84 86.062779 19.849116 230.61
32 Baliharichandi area Odisha Puri 6.20 85.70119719.749574 323.55
33
Puruna bandha
area
Odisha Ganjam 149.83 85.005333 19.316333 1256.27
34 Ramayapatnam Odisha Ganjam 150.04 84.810332 19.137565 507.14
35 Kalijai area Odisha Puri 199.75 85.29817719.534246 1744.72
36
Gopalpur Open
sea
Odisha Ganjam 99.73 84.880493 19.221232 728.97
37
Balaramgadi to
Mahi sahi area
Odisha Baleshwar 100.05 87.050819 21.427848 1980.49
38
Balarampur
Panchubisha to
Januka
Odisha Baleshwar 149.55 86.887383 21.245999 2583.77
39 Kirtania to Talasari Odisha Baleshwar 99.73 87.45732 21.539461 4882.12
40
Jatadhari Muhana
Gadakujanga
Odisha Jagatsinghpur 149.59 86.557625 20.176867 1851.57
41
Sea Near Neheru
Banglow
Odisha Jagatsinghpur 49.79 86.709269 20.281619 338.83
42 Gada Harishpur Odisha Jagatsinghpur 99.79 86.49636120.098284 1830.53
43
M1 644 Nagaon to
Revdanda
Maharashtra Raigarh 642.42 72.89755118.577683 745.56
44
M1 644 Maneri -
Suveri
Maharashtra Raigarh 548.88 72.930644 18.25977 372.91
45
M1 644 Harnai
-Murud
Maharashtra Ratnagiri 343.66 73.104847 17.779467 462.39 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
115
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
46 M1 644 Adoor Maharashtra Ratnagiri 150.03 73.179797 17.41756 403.00
47
M1 644
Ganapatipule
-Bhandarpulee
Maharashtra Ratnagiri 129.60 73.266609 17.129693 815.97
48
M1 644
Rameshwar
Maharashtra Sindhudurg 94.71 73.31224616.547225 227.84
49
M1 644
Mithmumbari
Maharashtra Sindhudurg 149.19 73.381804 16.34743 390.58
50 M1 644 Kolamb Maharashtra Sindhudurg 184.30 73.45712816.072239 0.00
51
M1 644 Medha-
Mayana-Khavana
Maharashtra Sindhudurg 198.75 73.54967 15.925445 270.12
52
M1 644 Navabag
to Varachemad
Maharashtra Sindhudurg 274.35 73.62862 15.835689 96.81
53 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Agatti 17.48 72.16184710.848441 0.00
54 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Amini 1.50 72.720202 11.130597 5346.31
55 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Androth 0.50 73.682308 10.818396 0.00
56 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Bitra 46.14 72.31094610.956464 0.00
57 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Bangaram 45.48 72.167837 11.592596 0.00
58 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Chetlath 1.60 72.70423 11.690572 0.00
59 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Kiltan 37.40 72.754158 11.195694 0.00
60 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Kadmath 25.47 73.630655 10.100661 0.00
61 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Kavaratti 5.00 72.61929910.555205 0.00
62 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Kiltan 1.79 73.002653 11.475348 0.00
63 LD1 17.5 Lakshadweep Minicoy 30.44 73.050472 8.318637 0.00
64 KL1 10 Vizhinjam Kerala Thiruvananthapuram 10.04 76.960752 8.3832 14329.36
65 KL1 10 Kerala Kollam 19.89 76.605104 8.915685 234.10
66 KL1 10 Elathur Kerala Kozhikode 1.02 75.731039 11.334715 1421.87
67 KL1 10 Elathur Kerala Kozhikode 6.97 75.739164 11.321399 1256.20
68 KL1 10 Thikkodi Kerala Kozhikode 19.87 75.61346 11.478311 87.77 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 116
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
69 KL1 10 Padana Kerala Kasargod 4.99 75.12227212.207132 216.05
70 KL1 10 Pallikara Kerala Kasargod 16.89 75.02697112.390098 226.52
71
GJ1 1500 Bhada
-Kathada
Gujarat Kachchh 1495.1869.247683 22.821562 155.09
72
GJ1 1500Adatra -
Arambhada CT
Gujarat
Devubhumi
Dwaraka
1993.43 69.01457 22.454508 0.00
73
GJ1 1500 Dwaraka
- Baradia
Gujarat
Devubhumi
Dwaraka
1992.90 68.963783 22.219649 0.00
74
GJ1 750 Kuchhidi -
Zaver
Gujarat Porbandar 747.63 69.554424 21.652101 248.85
75
GJ1 750 Ratanpar -
Oddar
Gujarat Porbandar 747.68 69.659213 21.568188 253.29
76 GJ1 1500 Jafrabad Gujarat Amreli 614.30 71.36735620.846351 1080.11
77 GJ1 1500 Velan Gujarat Gir Somanath 299.32 70.84522920.698345 128.77
78 GJ1 1500 Velan Gujarat Gir Somanath 199.86 70.87087 20.701652 95.62
79 GJ1 1500 Velan Gujarat Gir Somanath 199.05 70.824978 20.68888 289.54
80
GJ1 1500 Navapara
to Lati
Gujarat Gir Somanath 1993.9170.366473 20.897111 37.95
81
D1 200 Rajput
Rajpara
Gujarat Gir Somnath 199.09 71.09112220.747713 359.12
82
D1 200
Navabandar
Gujarat Gir Somnath 49.85 71.045366 20.724319 597.37
83
D1 200
Navabandar
Gujarat Gir Somnath 49.93 71.07054220.729372 1324.52
84 D1 200DiuDiu 299.68 70.948539 20.698228 466.31
85 D1 200DiuDiu 104.80 70.903466 20.692255 991.18
86
AP1 40
Vishakapattinam
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 44.25 83.322967 17.703905 6153.44
87
AP1 40
Vishakapattinam
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 38.70 83.343406 17.716436 4135.76
88
AP1 40
Chinagadila
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 55.29 83.357513 17.744738 800.07
89
AP1 40
Kapuluppada
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 27.65 83.421942 17.819844 2659.10
90
AP1 40
Bheemunipatnam
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 55.31 83.461474 17.888973 273.40
91
AP1 40
Kapuluppada
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 38.81 83.417656 17.811185 1664.35
92
AP1 40
Chepaluppada
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 27.63 83.417359 17.8408 2831.02 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
117
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
93 AP1 40 Yendada
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 55.24 83.374501 17.760982 1198.48
94
AP1 40
Cheepurupalle E
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 27.60 83.095487 17.531039 544.29
95
AP1 40
Pudimadaka
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 55.09 83.010056 17.488369 748.97
96 AP1 40 Vakapadu
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 49.60 82.86122317.406064 1155.56
97 AP1 40 Rambili
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 22.08 82.93614317.440693 5146.63
98
AP1 40
Gudepuvalasa
Andhra
Pradesh
Vizianagaram 27.79 83.566799 17.988173 3148.35
99 AP1 40 Kancheru
Andhra
Pradesh
Vizianagaram 27.72 83.553061 17.966652 6026.25
100 AP1 40 Kancheru
Andhra
Pradesh
Vizianagaram 27.70 83.560498 17.974638 4806.14
101 AP1 40 Yendada
Andhra
Pradesh
Vishakapattnam 36.51 83.367222 17.756524 696.44
102
AP1 40
Narayanagajapathirajapu
Andhra
Pradesh
Srikakulam 38.76 83.687724 18.08451 1038.77
103AP1 40 Baruvapeta
Andhra
Pradesh
Srikakulam 29.96 84.599545 18.875957 465.29
104
AP1 40
Rushikudda
Andhra
Pradesh
Srikakulam 19.98 84.636769 18.912866 623.35
105 AP1 40 Uppada
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 27.48 82.343334 17.072427 1538.88
106 AP1 40 Ponnada
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 38.44 82.400853 17.127127 607.17
107 AP1 40 Kona
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 33.05 82.537531 17.235612 4802.05
108 AP1 40
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 27.33 82.369033 16.941444 308.43
109
AP1 40
aAmaravalli
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 38.41 82.366812 17.095041 750.04
110 AP1 40 Kona
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 54.93 82.498713 17.20844 663.54
111 AP1 40 Kona
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 27.55 82.484485 17.200018 540.91
112
AP1 40
Kandikuppa
Andhra
Pradesh
East Godavari 27.23 82.229292 16.525096 1127.10
113
AP1 40
Vemuladeevi
Andhra
Pradesh
West Godavari 54.47 81.673942 16.320581 1478.55
114AP1 40 Perupalem
Andhra
Pradesh
West Godavari 54.38 81.600486 16.328539 4305.74
115AP1 40 Nidamarru
Andhra
Pradesh
Krishna 54.37 81.41593816.333558 1208.33
116
AP1 40
Chinagollapalem
Andhra
Pradesh
Krishna 27.24 81.50245 16.341633 3656.50 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 118
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
117 AP1 40
Andhra
Pradesh
Krishna 32.48 81.02549115.845619 857.14
118
AP1 40 Etha
Mukkala
Andhra
Pradesh
Prakasam 26.90 80.13102115.366913 2275.73
119 AP1 40 Pakala
Andhra
Pradesh
Prakasam 26.95 80.09104 15.244544 502.63
120 AP1 40 Karedu
Andhra
Pradesh
Prakasam 27.00 80.06948 15.13412 858.87
121 AP1 40 Mypadu
Andhra
Pradesh
Prakasam 21.41 80.18652114.505034 537.19
122
AP1 40
Venkanapalem
Andhra
Pradesh
P S Nellore 26.71 80.181079 14.441574 4359.07
123 Thengapattinam Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 30.10 77.176675 8.227595 14319.60
124 Colachel Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 30.05 77.261892 8.167649 11333.50
125 Kadiapattinam Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 30.03 77.301395 8.138461 6164.98
126 Muttom Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 70.85 77.319946 8.120413 2944.86
127 Pillaithoppu Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 20.05 77.340682 8.122818 1354.67
128 Periyakaadu Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 30.00 77.398194 8.105935 132.57
129 Kovalam Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 20.17 77.519697 8.080737 225.98
130 Kanyakumari Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 39.99 77.560749 8.088564 659.97
131 Chinnamuttom Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 30.30 77.566291 8.097698 770.01
132 Arockiyapuram Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 50.62 77.560562 8.110241 118.76
133 Periyathalai Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 36.17 78.03171 8.3571 191.36
134 Manapad Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 67.52 78.065572 8.376584 151.81
135Kulasekarapattinam Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 41.49 78.061432 8.396893 1045.10
136 Alanthalai Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 81.60 78.076038 8.429717 138.02
137 Amali nagar Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 31.14 78.12676 8.488738 112.19
138VeerapandiyapattinamTamil Nadu Thoothukudi 62.57 78.127766 8.510081 380.63
139 Kayalpattinam Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 82.89 78.136906 8.567774 606.10
140 Punnakayal Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 25.88 78.130225 8.613056 135.05 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
119
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
141 Palayakayal Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 52.86 78.14164 8.692885 719.44
142 Mullakadu Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 92.56 78.163227 8.73019 152.38
143
Tuticorin harbour
Point
Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 83.22 78.20375 8.769394 2106.47
144 Mottaigopuram Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 41.76 78.168814 8.84794 0.00
145 Vellapatti Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 61.96 78.170097 8.864128 0.00
146 Tharuvaikulam Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 71.99 78.181989 8.89623 0.00
147 Pattinamathur Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 82.48 78.196379 8.937305 0.00
148 Sippikulam Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 78.04 78.238781 8.982049 0.00
149 Keezhavaippar Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 61.75 78.266848 9.001255 0.00
150 Periyasamypuram Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 51.60 78.338265 9.051045 103.96
151 Vembar Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 82.53 78.379587 9.08598 36.32
152 Thomaiyarpuram Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 10.09 77.584515 8.138298 2111.24
153 Kootapuli Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 10.83 77.606342 8.146832 78.23
154 Perumanal 1 Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 6.38 77.642839 8.156861 759.48
155 Perumanal 2 Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 8.98 77.652348 8.158025 102.53
156 Kuthenkuli Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 15.31 77.682391 8.159584 2403.07
157 Idinthakarai Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 15.93 77.756616 8.184407 137.28
158 Uvari Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 20.28 77.789921 8.22491 1185.12
159 Koduthalai Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 15.99 77.826105 8.24684 165.00
160 Kootapanai Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 15.49 77.865602 8.260584 328.67
161 Periyathalai Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 35.25 77.928576 8.297195 158.90
162 Kunthukal Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 20.64 79.219351 9.265974 0.00
163 Mandapam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 18.53 79.143608 9.273803 817.60
164 Vedalai 1 Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 17.48 79.1145939.265965 0.00 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 120
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
165 Vedalai 2 Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 13.33 79.088406 9.259691 1893.56
166 Seeniappa Darga Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 24.78 79.071047 9.260204 400.72
167 Nochioorani Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 19.55 79.035589 9.266062 291.85
168 Manankudi Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 16.44 79.015654 9.269665 211.86
169 Pudumadam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 25.70 78.995954 9.271877 30.91
170 Valangapuri Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 12.90 78.976933 9.27295 31.52
171 Vellarioodai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 15.40 78.9581119.271694 150.59
172 Thalai Thoppu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 20.61 78.945298 9.269764 31.31
173 Inthira Nagar Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 12.35 78.923995 9.263862 0.00
174
Munthal
(Periyapattinam)
Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 13.37 78.914343 9.25462 0.00
175
Pudhukudiyiruppu
(Periyapattinam)
Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 10.30 78.904297 9.250122 0.00
176 Thoppuvalasai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 15.41 78.892417 9.252997 0.00
177 Velayuthapuram Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 13.89 78.880579 9.255234 0.00
178 Kalimankundu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 10.38 78.869974 9.25414 0.00
179 Sethukarai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 8.74 78.844784 9.24775 0.00
180
Kanjirangudi
(Pakkirappa
Dargha)
Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 14.44 78.828127 9.241488 0.00
181 Sengalaneerodai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 25.81 78.8103 9.236075 0.00
182 Keelakarai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 22.73 78.774584 9.222756 0.00
183 Bharathinagar Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 25.75 78.75706 9.215627 0.00
184
Mangaleswari
Nagar
Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 28.90 78.740102 9.211334 0.00
185 Earanthurai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 26.80 78.728024 9.207908 0.00
186 Erwadi Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 19.03 78.720788 9.19519 0.00
187 Sadaimuniyanvalasai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 16.51 78.713431 9.190104 7.66
188 P.M. Valasai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 37.04 78.696114 9.192665 909.41 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
121
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
189 Adancheri Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 28.77 78.678534 9.194827 43.09
190 Valinokkam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 90.57 78.627216 9.152083 66.86
191 Keelamundhal Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 31.92 78.584632 9.134889 29.59
192 Melamundhal Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 31.95 78.563848 9.134072 214.15
193 Mariyur Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 30.38 78.53221 9.135388 185.08
194 Oppilan Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 30.33 78.498317 9.130957 798.99
195 Mookaiyur Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 30.86 78.471578 9.126272 80.22
196 Naripaiyur Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 24.68 78.428612 9.11687 2179.42
197 Kannirajapuram Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 29.32 78.404973 9.10601 1681.64
198 Rochma Nagar Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 36.99 78.393837 9.09769 363.97
199 Dhanushkodi Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 92.84 79.394168 9.205266 0.00
200 Sangumal Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 25.70 79.328878 9.298257 0.00
201 Olaikuda Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 36.01 79.332719 9.312429 0.00
202 Mangadu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 22.70 79.320247 9.32604 0.00
203 Sambai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 30.68 79.309757 9.328654 0.00
204 Vadakadu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 30.87 79.300869 9.325106 0.00
205 Pillaikulam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 26.86 79.289549 9.31897 0.00
206 Ariyankundu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 23.77 79.273493 9.303895 171.86
207 Villoondi Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 26.74 79.267697 9.295688 19.14
208 Manthoppu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 14.51 79.257981 9.292897 0.00
209 Victoria Nagar Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 9.80 79.245609 9.292782 0.00
210 Naalupanai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 15.46 79.237583 9.293244 0.00
211 Akkalmadam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 20.67 79.228247 9.292745 0.00
212 Pamban Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 8.24 79.2190219.290659 0.00 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 122
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
213 Thonithurai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 14.46 79.182379 9.283844 0.00
214 Meenavar colony Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 6.19 79.1752759.285083 0.00
215 T. Nagar Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 15.41 79.141301 9.292391 0.00
216 Munaikadu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 41.26 79.133084 9.290157 0.00
217 Umayalpuram Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 39.10 79.120605 9.289511 0.00
218 Vedalai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 24.82 79.09612 9.292139 0.00
219 Pillaimadam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 22.69 79.078595 9.29746 0.00
220 Pirappanvalasai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 16.42 79.056685 9.305274 0.00
221 Irumeni Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 16.46 79.034064 9.319663 0.00
222 Uchipuli Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 20.56 79.011143 9.337312 0.00
223 Attrangarai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 15.79 78.991957 9.353179 0.00
224 Alakankulam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 16.34 78.979743 9.364193 0.00
225 Panaikulam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 16.52 78.964427 9.380283 0.00
226 Puduvalasai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 19.53 78.95253 9.393193 0.00
227 Athiyuthu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 15.50 78.94307 9.404081 0.00
228 Palanivalasai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 9.27 78.932768 9.416178 0.00
229Mudiveeranpattinam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 27.87 78.9117189.449242 0.00
230 Devipattinam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 2.11 78.898754 9.488682 18.09
231 Thiruppalaikudi Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 8.26 78.91967 9.537252 55.70
232 Karankadu Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 8.77 78.967178 9.64712 0.00
233 Mullimunai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 9.31 78.969549 9.651434 0.00
234 Puthupattinam 1 Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 5.21 78.974794 9.674123 0.00
235 Puthupattinam 2 Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 7.25 78.979868 9.685547 0.00
236
Veerasangili
madam
Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 23.74 78.984404 9.691991 0.00 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
123
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
237 Soliyakudi 1 Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 8.30 78.99082 9.701959 0.00
238 Soliyakudi 2 Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 7.22 79.002233 9.715295 0.00
239 Nambuthalai Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 7.74 79.014758 9.729375 0.00
240 Thondi Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 10.86 79.030531 9.752423 0.00
241 M.R. Pattinam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 12.47 79.035843 9.759624 0.00
242 P.V. Pattinam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 10.11 79.041585 9.765044 0.00
243 Narenthal Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 13.50 79.055201 9.771427 0.00
244 Vattanam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 20.64 79.065266 9.785148 0.00
245 Dhamothirapattinam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 14.47 79.075107 9.796561 0.00
246 Pasipattinam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 12.45 79.0801119.802255 0.00
247Theerthandadhanam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 8.27 79.093142 9.828469 0.00
248 S.P Pattinam Tamil Nadu Ramanthapuram 15.52 79.1013099.833809 0.00
249 Muthukuda Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 7.43 79.120355 9.876761 0.00
250 Arasanagaripattinam1Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 5.19 79.125327 9.886777 0.00
251Arasanagaripattinam2Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 30.95 79.132595 9.897023 0.00
252 Mimisal Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 22.81 79.1513189.915665 0.00
253 Gopalapattinam 1 Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 8.31 79.153463 9.925178 0.00
254 Gopalapattinam 2 Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 7.28 79.155267 9.931338 0.00
255 Palakkudi Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 19.14 79.1714429.946305 0.00
256 Kallivayal Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 18.15 79.1776729.952028 0.00
257 Jegathapattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 10.72 79.1921019.966871 0.00
258 Kottaipattinam 1 Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 7.75 79.200259 9.974685 0.00
259 Kottaipattinam 2 Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 8.29 79.207149 9.984702 0.00
260 Odavimadam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 17.12 79.210725 9.988118 0.00 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 124
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
261 Pudukkudi Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 14.53 79.22336510.002896 0.00
262 Aathipattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 12.84 79.228994 10.008418 0.00
263 Ammapattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 14.52 79.235004 10.015356 0.00
264 Avudaiyarpattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 19.70 79.240389 10.019779 0.00
265 Sangupattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 5.69 79.253775 10.031577 0.00
266 Kodiyakkarai Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 23.86 79.261639 10.03489 0.00
267 Muthurajapuram Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 22.83 79.260779 10.043199 0.00
268 Seetharamanpattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 10.44 79.236263 10.077614 0.00
269 Krishnajipattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 12.45 79.229007 10.093547 0.00
270 P.R. Pattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 10.68 79.228325 10.101594 0.00
271 Ganeshapuram Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 7.35 79.230987 10.136893 0.00
272 Somanathanpattinam Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 7.76 79.241403 10.161357 0.00
273 Mandhiripattinam Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 9.32 79.240784 10.171134 0.00
274 Senthalaipattinam Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 14.44 79.25612310.190606 0.00
275 Adaikathevan Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 8.79 79.266845 10.200752 0.00
276 Karankuda Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 9.60 79.272147 10.2371 0.00
277Sethubavachathiram Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 12.47 79.288472 10.253317 0.00
278 Pillayarthidal Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 17.64 79.295645 10.259743 0.00
279 Manora Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 10.85 79.30146710.264025 0.00
280 Chinnamanai Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 2.28 79.31126110.269225 0.00
281 Mallipattinam Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 4.24 79.313838 10.271802 0.00
282 Mallipattinam 2 Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 16.47 79.326831 10.281261 0.00
283 Pudhupattinam Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 27.01 79.338652 10.285552 0.00
284 Kollukadu Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 35.19 79.358326 10.289055 0.00 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
125
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
285 Athiramapattinam Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 75.68 79.385866 10.312359 0.00
286
Thondiyakadu
Lagoon
Tamil Nadu Tiruvarur 104.04 79.573807 10.33266 0.00
287 Maniyantheevu Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 28.99 79.87401510.365397 2073.98
288 Arcottuthurai 1 Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 10.45 79.871645 10.380691 2354.64
289 Arcottuthurai 2 Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 31.19 79.86893910.405044 198.66
290 Periyakuthagai Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 55.99 79.866314 10.43065 138.35
291 Pushpavanam Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 76.76 79.86487110.468282 281.48
292 Naluvethapathy Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 20.75 79.864068 10.486239 1363.95
293 Vizhunthamavadi Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 18.69 79.857745 10.587638 243.02
294 Kameswaram Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 13.52 79.855357 10.622519 105.10
295
Sammanthan
Pettai
Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam 3.12 79.851227 10.7906 2889.44
296 Pillaichavadi Puducherry Puducherry 21.05 79.859838 12.008683 385.59
297 Kanagachettykulam Puducherry Puducherry 1.07 79.87290112.037803 4355.47
298 Solai Nagar Puducherry Puducherry 21.03 79.841577 11.95445 4219.91
299 Vaithikuppam Puducherry Puducherry 21.04 79.839842 11.947252 3429.50
300 Kurusukuppam Puducherry Puducherry 20.97 79.838573 11.938706 2478.55
301Vambakeerapalayam Puducherry Puducherry 52.37 79.836267 11.925094 720.47
302 Veerampattinam Puducherry Puducherry 21.01 79.830478 11.898209 388.12
303
Chinna
Veerampattinam
Puducherry Puducherry 62.82 79.828038 11.88635 37.20
304 Pudukuppam Puducherry Puducherry 52.45 79.822467 11.869483 108.79
305 Nallavadu Puducherry Puducherry 41.86 79.8143 11.850116 89.75
306 Pannaithittu Puducherry Puducherry 10.46 79.807594 11.830239 90.52
307 Narambai Puducherry Puducherry 20.91 79.803604 11.816448 77.41
308 Moorthikuppam Puducherry Puducherry 21.00 79.798921 11.793909 474.93 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 126
S.
No.
Site name /
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from
CRZ-IA (m)
309
Dhandebag-
Kangiguda Island,
Karwar
Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 100.12 74.093036 14.890487 1628.08
310
Baval-Kanga
Island, Karwar
Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 10.98 74.10378614.866643 659.28
311 Harwada, Ankola Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 71.77 74.25617914.722096 290.28
312 Belikeri, Ankola Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 134.48 74.271157 14.68881 255.22
313 Gabit Keni, Ankola Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 7.02 74.27567914.662826 558.86
314 Belambar, Ankola Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 243.17 74.27567 14.643358 798.30
315
Haldipur-Horbhag,
Honnavar
Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 410.81 74.399953 14.359216 208.20
316 Manki 1, Honnavar Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 49.80 74.472985 14.149463 254.81
317 Manki 2, Honnavar Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 93.62 74.468889 14.172933 518.53
318
Navayatkeri,
Murudeshwara
(North)
Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 51.84 74.460284 14.192737 68.63
319
Huddi Point South
Bhatkal-Shiroor
(North)
Karnataka Uttar Kannanda 99.78 74.56806 13.935105 1642.76
320 G2 63Goa North Goa 62.84 73.797949 15.468678 29474.02
321 G2 63Goa North Goa 7.47 73.869158 15.429757 36956.80
322 G2 63Goa South Goa 3.99 73.800861 15.392393 38589.86
323 G2 63Goa South Goa 44.88 74.036559 14.977085 12859.45
Total area 24237.40 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
127
Table 21. List of sites/locations identified by CSIR-CSMCRI
S.
No.
Site name/
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from CRZ-
IA (m)
1 Muttom Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 4.50 77.311546 8.126126 5285.86
2 Chinnamuttom Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 4.50 77.559842 8.090057 1289.31
3 Leepuram Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 3.50 77.558923 8.114749 585.83
4 Arockiapuram Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari 3.50 77.56182 8.121499 511.78
5 Kuthankuzhi Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli 3.50 77.783976 8.213375 3178.88
6 Punnakayal Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 4.50 78.130839 8.633573 447.49
7 Pullavali Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 5.50 78.137032 8.685768 955.36
8 Mullaikadu Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 8.50 78.15856 8.725967 865.72
9 Muthiapuram Tamil Nadu Thoothukudi 7.50 78.176103 8.746424 1456.92
10 Sambai Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 8.50 79.313483 9.328353 40.79
11 Mangadu Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 10.50 79.324063 9.323519 37.03
12 Mandapam Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 7.50 79.183921 9.283029 71.84
13 Karangadu Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 2.50 78.966112 9.646359 85.87
14 Pudupatinum Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 2.50 78.976951 9.67994 0.00
15 Soliyakudi Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 7.50 79.002859 9.715597 39.35
16 Nambuthalai Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 1.50 79.005458 9.717941 0.00
17 M.R.Pattinum Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram 3.50 79.038726 9.763516 0.00
18 Jagathapattinum Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 5.50 79.188138 9.964441 20.68
19 Kottaipattinam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 5.50 79.206169 9.984383 75.70
20 Odavimadam Tamil Nadu Pudukottai 4.00 79.209519 9.988407 0.00
21 Adiakkadevan Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 5.50 79.263562 10.195113 23.05
22 Sethubavachatram Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 1.50 79.283954 10.249517 20.30
23 Manora Tamil Nadu Thanjavur 2.00 79.302813 10.265212 3.63
24 Kovilpathu Tamil Nadu Nagappattinum 1.50 79.859699 10.54761 3437.91
25 Mypadu
Andhra
Pradesh
Nellore 10.00 80.10901 14.301 2358.78
26 Mangamaripeta
Andhra
Pradesh
Visakhapatnam 8.00 83.41678 17.82498 3113.61
27 Suryalanka
Andhra
Pradesh
Guntur 5.00 80.5338 15.8487 14.30
28
Fish Landing
Centre Jetty
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
North & Middle
Andaman
1.00 92.908406 12.909713 0.00 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 128
S.
No.
Site name/
Location
State District
Area
(ha)
Longitude Latitude
Distance
from CRZ-
IA (m)
29 Aves Island
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
North & Middle
Andaman
administrative
5.00 92.932366 12.918892 0.00
30 German Jetty
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
North & Middle
Andaman
1.00 92.9011 12.923709 0.00
31 Sound island
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
North & Middle
Andaman
Administrative
5.00 92.972036 12.939918 0.00
32 LTC Jetty
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
North & Middle
Andaman
0.50 93.035889 13.279566 0.00
33
Ariel Bay
lighthouse
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
North & Middle
Andaman
1.00 93.028233 13.281681 0.00
34 Durgapur
Andaman
& Nicobar
Islands
North & Middle
Andaman
3.00 93.03813 13.280065 0.00
35 Madvad Gujarat Junagadh 25.00 70.8434 20.69462 1381.53
36 Kalapan Gujarat Gir Somanath 3.00 71.0793 20.75065 1064.66
37 Simar Gujarat Gir-Somanath 40.00 71.13 20.75 937.42
38 Rajapara Gujarat Gir-Somanath 40.00 71.17 20.78 1753.39
39 Miyani Gujarat Porbandar 4.00 69.3796 21.83466 926.60
40 Mithapur Gujarat Dwarka 5.00 69.055366 22.422181 0.00
41 OhkaGujarat Dwarka 5.00 69.063698 22.47651 199.14
42 Burondi Maharashtra Ratnagiri 84.07 73.13182 17.70594 6900
43 Kolthare Maharashtra Ratnagiri 67.34 73.13378 17.64408 262
44 Mochemad Maharashtra Sindhudurg 4.00 73.6495 15.8041 232
45 HawaiiGoa North Goa 3.06 73.8063 15.4548 > 5000
46 CacraGoa North Goa 3.05 74.8345 15.4516 4600
47 BogmaloGoa South Goa 2.65 73.8338 15.3695 > 5000
48 Bawal Karnataka Karwar 3.17 74.106897 14.870783 892
49 Maravanthe Karnataka Udupi 2.00 74.642231 13.704816 > 5000
50 Benegere Karnataka Udupi 1.50 74.653597 13.664521 > 5000
51 Puthanthod Kerala Ernakulam 7.86 76.2629 9.8695 330
Total 455.19 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
129
Annexure-III: Laws Pertaining to
Coral Reef Protection
India
1. In India, the primary law protecting wildlife, including marine wildlife, is the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 (WLPA) and further amendments in 2022. It prohibits hunting animals listed in its
schedulesand regulates trade in such animals and their parts. It also provides for the declaration
of protected areas where human activities are restricted. Two approaches i.e. (i) banning hunting
of and regulating trade in species by listing them in the schedules, and (ii) designating protected
areas.
2. Corals are included in Schedule-I list of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and further amendments
in 2022 and have included all the hard coral in the Schedule List of WLPA of 1972, which explicitly
outlaws coral mining and trade in India.
3. Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA) confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Central Government
to preserve and protect the marine environment and to prevent and control marine pollution.
4. Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ) 2019 under the EPA explicitly notifies the Ecologically
Sensitive Areas (CRZ 1A) in which corals and the associated biodiversity of reefs are to be
conserved.
5. Marine Protected Areas (MPA): to preserve certain areas of the nation’s waters, including areas
with coral reefs.
Indonesia
1. Designation and management of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in Indonesia was authorized by
Ministerial declaration in 1990.
2. Management and responsibility for marine areas has been in the hands of the Department of
Forestry, specifically the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation
(PHPA). Four different types of MPA in Indonesia are recognized: (i) National Parks (ii) Strict
Nature Reserves (iii) Wildlife Reserves (iv) Nature Protection Park.
Philippines
1. Kappaphycus alvarezii is a marine red macroalga with a native range confined to shallow-reef
areas of the Sulu archipelago, Philippines. The marine habitats of the Philippines are recognized
to be some of the most biodiverse systems globally yet only 1.7 percent of its seas are designated
as marine protected areas (MPA) with varying levels of implementation. Many of these MPA
were established based on local-scale conservation and fisheries objectives without considering
larger-scale ecological connections (Pata and Yñiguez, 2021). There is no clear definition of coral
reefs under the Philippine law. It continues to follow the definition according to the Presidential
Proclamation 2146 Series (1981) as it does not categorize them as environmentally critical.
Introduction of Exotic Species is considered unlawful into Marine National Parks (MNP) only
whereas, it is not so in the reef areas outside the MPAs. It is approved based on the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) studies which categorizes the project as (i) Category A to D, (ii)
proclaiming certain areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and (iii) within the
scope of the EIA system established under presidential decree no. 1586.
2. In addition, under Section 91, it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation to gather, possess,
sell or export ordinary precious and semi-precious corals, whether raw or in processed form,
except for scientific and research purposes. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 130 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
131
Annexure-IV: Expert Committee Office
Memorandum
File No. Q-11050/3/2023-AGRICULTURE
NITI (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog
(Agriculture & Allied Sectors Vertical)
NITI Aayog, Sansad Marg New Delhi – 110001
Date: 11
th
July 2023
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Constitution of Expert Committee to review the Draft Policy on “Seaweed Value Chain
Development in India” and draft curricula of certificate courses on seaweed cultivation
-reg.
It has been decided with approval of the competent authority to set up an Expert Committee
on the subject cited above with the following composition and ToRs.
2. The composition of the Expert Committee is as under:
1. Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Hon’ble Member (S&T), NITI Aayog Chairman
2. Dr. J.K. Jena, Deputy Director General (Fisheries), ICAR Co-Chairman
3. Prof. Himanshu A. Pandya, Professor & Former VC, Gujarat University Co-Chairman
4. Ms. Neetu Kumari Prasad, Jt. Secretary, Dept. of Fisheries, Member
5. Shri Tanmay Kumar, Additional Secretary, MoEFCC Member
6. Shri. Dodda Venkata Swamy, Chairman, MPEDA Member
7. Dr. A. Gopalkrishnan, Director, ICAR-CMFRI Member
8. Dr. Kannan Srinivasan, Director, CSIR-CSMCRI Member
9.
Dr. Dharani G, Scientist E, National Institute of Ocean Technology
(NIOT)
Member
10.
Shri Rajesh Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of
Maharashtra
Member
11. Shri A. K. Rakesh, Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Gujarat Member
12. Ms. Salma K Fahim, Principal Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of Karnataka Member
13. Shri. K S Srinivas, Principal Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of Kerala Member
14.
Shri Mangat Ram Sharma, Addl. Chief Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of
Tamil Nadu
Member
15.
Sri Gopal Krishna Dwivedi, Principal Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh
Member
16.
Shri Suresh Kumar Vashishth, Principal Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of
Odisha
Member
17.
Shri. Santhosh Kumar Reddy V, Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of
Lakshadweep
Member
18. Ms. Nandini Paliwal, Secretary (Fisheries), Govt. of Andaman & Nicobar Member
19.
Shri Shivkumar Suryanarayanan, Managing Director and Co-Founder,
Sea6 Energy Pvt. Ltd.
Member
20. Shri Ashwin Shroff, Executive Chairman, Excel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Member
21. Patricia Bianchi, Seaweed Account Manager, Aqua Stewardship Council Member
22. Dr. Neelam Patel, Senior Adviser (Agri), NITI Aayog
Member
Secretary POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 132
3. The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Expert Committee will be as follows:
I. To review the draft policy on the development of seaweed value chain in India.
II. To draft roadmap for the development of entire seaweed value chain -on-shore and off-
shore.
III. To develop any other necessary components for the policy framework of the seaweed
value chain that may be required.
4. The Expert Committee may examine and address any other issues which are important though not
specifically spelt out in the ToR. The Expert Committee may devise its own procedures for
conducting its business / meetings / field visits / constitution of sub-groups, etc.
2. The Chairman of the Expert Committee may co-opt any other official / non-official expert /
representative of any organization as a member(s), if required.
3. The Expert Committee will review the draft policy and curricula and finalize it within 60 days of
its constitution.
4. Mr. Paremal Banafarr, Young Professional, W018, Fifth Floor, NITI Aayog, New Delhi,
Telephone- 011-2304 2203 (L) - e-mail: paremal.banafarr@nic.in will be the nodal officer for this
committee in NITI Aayog. Any further queries / correspondence in this regard may be made with
him and the Member Secretary of the Committee.

Paremal Banafarr
Agriculture & Allied Sectors Vertical
NITI Aayog
+91-11-2304 2203
Distribution:
Chairman and all Members of Expert Committee
CEO, NITI Aayog POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
133
1. “Applications of seaweeds in Food & Nutrition”, Elsevier 2023 - Chapter 17 - Seaweed derived
packaging material.
2. “Blue Biotechnology - Production & use of marine molecules “ published, Wiley 2018 Chapter 8
- Cultivation and Conversion of tropical seaweeds into Food and Feed ingredients, Agricultural
Bio-stimulants, Renewable Chemicals & Biofuel”.
3. Aizawa, Masahito & Asaoka, Ken & Atsumi, Masaya & Sakou, Toshitsugu. 2007. Seaweed Bioethanol
Production in Japan - The Ocean Sunrise Project. Oceans. 1 - 5. 10.1109/OCEANS.2007.4449162.
4. Andhikawati A., Permana R., Akbarsyah N., and Pringgo D. N. Y. P. K. 2020. Review: Potential of
endophytic marine fungi for bioethanol production from seaweed. Global Scientific Journals, 8
(5): 1719- 1726.
5. Aneesh, P. A., Ajeeshkumar, K. K., Lekshmi, R. G. K., Anandan, R., Ravishankar, C. N., & Mathew,
S. 2022. Bioactivities of Astaxanthin from natural sources, augmenting its biomedical potential:
A Review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 125, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tifs.2022.05.004
6. Anon, 2003. Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment of Eucheuma sp. Cultivation on Marine
Environment in the Selected Regions of Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay of Tamil Nadu Coast. M/s
Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon.
7. Anon, 2008. Indian coral islands under threat from algae. Nature 453, 710–711.
8. Ask, E. I, Ledua E, Batibasaga A, Mario S. 2003. Developing the cottonii (Kappaphycusalvarezii)
cultivation industry in the Fiji Islands. Pp 81-85 in Proceedings of the 17th International Seaweed
Symposium, Cape Town, 2001. Oxford University Press.
9. Ask, E.I., Batibasaga, A., Zertuche-Gonz’alez, J.A., de San, M. 2001. Three decades of Kappaphycus
alvarezii (Rhodophyta) introduction to non-endemic locations. In: Chapman, A.R.O., Anderson, R.J.,
Vreeland, V.J., Davison, I.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of 17
th
International Seaweed Symposium. Cape Town.
10. Atmadja, W.S. 2001. Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) Doty ex Silva. In: Prud’homme van Reine,
W.F. and Trono, G.C., Eds., Plant Resources of South-East Asia Cryptogams: Algae, Backhuys
Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, 215-219.
11. Ayyakkalai, B., Nath, J., Rao, H. G., Venkata, V., Nori, S. S., & Suryanarayan, S. 2024a. Seaweed
derived sustainable packaging. Applications of Seaweeds in Food and Nutrition, 263–287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-91803-9.00006-8
12. Bagla, P. 2008. Ecology: seaweed invader elicits angst in India. Science, 320:1271.
13. Balaji (Jr), S, J K Patterson Edward and V Deepak Samuel. 2012. Coastal and Marine Biodiversity
of Gulf of Mannar, Southeastern India - A comprehensive updated species list. Gulf of Mannar
Biosphere Reserve Trust, Publication No. 22, 128 p.
14. Bedoux, G.; Hardouin, K.; Burlot, A.S.; Bourgougnon, N. 2014. Bioactive Components from
Seaweeds: Cosmetic Applications and Future Development. In Advances in Botanical Research;
Bourgougnon, N., Ed.; Academic Press Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 345–378.
15. Castelar B, Reis, R.P., Moura A, Kirk, R. 2009. Invasive potential of off the south coast of Rio de
Janeiro state, Brazil: a contribution to environmentally secure cultivation in the tropics. Bot Mar 52:
283-289.
16. Chandrasekaran, S., Nagendran, N. A., Pandiaraja, D., Krishnankutty, N., Kamalakannan, B. 2008.
Bio invasion of Kappaphycus alvarezii on corals in the Gulf of Mannar, India. Curr. Sci. 94, 1167–
1172.
REFERENCES POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 134
17. Chivers, C., Leung, B. 2012. Predicting invasions: alternative models of human-mediated dispersal
and interactions between dispersal network structure and Allee effects. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1113–
1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02183.x.
18. CMFRI, FRAD. 2022. Marine Fish Landings in India - 2021. Technical Report. ICAR-Central Marine
Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi.
19. CMFRI. 2016. CMFRI Annual report 2015-16. page no. 178
20. Colautti R. I, MacIsaac H. J. 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Divers.
Distrib. 10, 135–141.
21. Conklin E. J, Smith J. E. 2005. Abundance and spread of the invasive red algae, Kappaphycus
spp., in Kane’ohe Bay, Hawaii and an experimental assessment of management options. Biol.
Invasions 7: 1029–1039.
22. Cultivation and conversion of tropical red seaweed into food and feed ... Available at: https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9783527801718.ch8
23. Doh H. 2020. Development of seaweed biodegradable nanocomposite films reinforced with
cellulose nanocrystals for food packaging. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Food Technology) at the Graduate School of
Clemson University, South Carolina, USA. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2663
24. Duarte CM, Wu J, Xiao X, Bruhn A and Krause-Jensen D. 2017. Can Seaweed Farming Play
a Role in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation? Front. Mar. Sci. 4:100. doi: 10.3389/
fmars.2017.00100.
25. FAO Global Fishery and Aquaculture Production Statistics (FishStatJ; March 2021; Available at:
www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en
26. FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation.
Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en
27. FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation.
Rome, FAO.
28. Fao.org (no date) The Global Status of Seaweed Production, Trade and Utilization - Volume
124, 2018 | GLOBEFISH | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at:
https://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/publications/details-publication/en/c/1154074/
29. Feasibility assessment for a Zanzibar Muze Seaweed ... - open.unido.org Available: https://open.
unido.org/api/documents/4313856/download/3ADI_Feasability%20assessment%20for%20
Zanzibar.pdf
30. FRAD, CMFRI, 2022. Marine Fish Landings in India 2021. Technical Report, CMFRI Booklet Series
No. 26/2022. ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi.
31. Ganesan, M, Meena, R, Siddhanta AK, Selvaraj, K, Chithra, K. 2014. Culture of the red alga
Sarconema filiforme in open waters and hybrid carrageenan from the cultivated seaweeds.
Journal of Applied Phycology 27(4):1549-59
32. Ganesan, M, Thiruppathi, S, Eswaran, K, Reddy, C.R.K., Jha. B. 2009. Cultivation of Gelidiella
acerosa in the open sea on the Southeastern coast of India. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 382:49–57.
33. Ganesan, M, Thiruppathi, S, Jha, B. 2006. Mariculture of Hypnea musciformis (Wulfen) Lamourex
in the southeast coast of India. Aquaculture 256:201–211.
34. Ganesan, M., Reddy C.R.K., Jha B. 2015. Impact of cultivation on growth rate and agar content of
Gelidiella acerosa (Gelidiales, Rhodophyta). Algal Research 12:398–404. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
135
35. Ganesan, M., Sahu N, Eswaran, K. 2011. Raft culture of Gracilaria edulis in open sea along the
southeastern coast of India. Aquaculture 321(1-2):145-51.
36. Global Seaweeds and microalgae production, 1950 2019 - researchgate (no date). Available
at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Junning-Cai-2/publication/361039604_Global_
seaweeds_and_microalgae_production_1950-2019/links/62990e3955273755ebcbefc2/Global-
seaweeds-and-microalgae-production-1950-2019.pdf.
37. Goreau, T. J., Smith, J. E., Conklin, E. J., Smith, C. M. & Hunter, C. L. 2008. Fighting algae in
Kaneohe Bay. Science 319:157.
38. Gross, M., Sathish, A., & Wen, Z. 2018. Algae as a sustainable feedstock for biofuel production.
Green Chemistry for Sustainable Biofuel Production, 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1201/b22351-9
39. Gurunathan, Veera & Prasad, Kamalesh & J.M, Malar & Singh, Nripat & Meena, Ramavatar & Mantri,
Vaibhav. 2019. Gracilaria debilis cultivation, agar characterisation and economics: Bringing new
species in the ambit of commercial farming in India. Journal of Applied Phycology. 31. 10.1007/
s10811-019-01775-z.
40. Henríquez-Antipa, L.A. and Cárcamo, F. 2019. Stakeholder’s multidimensional perceptions on policy
implementation gaps regarding the current status of Chilean small-scale seaweed aquaculture,
Marine Policy, 103, pp. 138–147. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.042.
41. Himala Joshi, Marimuthu, N. Forbidding invasive species – a way to attain sustainability of the
coastal ecosystem. Curr. Sci. 2, 151-152.
42. https://www.cbi.eu/sites/default/files/2019_vca_indonesia_seaweed_extracts.pdf.
43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366512073_Assessment_of_Government_
Financing_through_Commercial_Banks_on_Seaweed_Production_in_Zanzibar.
44. Hu, Z.-M.; Juan, L.-B. Adaptation mechanisms and ecological consequences of seaweed invasions:
a review case of agarophyte Gracilaria vermiculophylla. Invasions 2014, 16, 967–976, doi:10.1007/
s10530-013-0558-0.
45. Hwang, E.K. and Park, C.S. 2020. Seaweed cultivation and utilization of Korea, ALGAE, 35(2), pp.
107–121. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2020.35.5.15.
46. ICAR-CMFRI. (2022). Nutraceutical Products of ICAR - CMFRI Repository. Kochi, Kerala; Dr.
A Gopalakrishnan. Retrieved January 24, 2024, from http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/16498/1/
Nutraceutical%20Products%20of%20ICAR-CMFRI_2022_Pamphlet.pdf.
47. Jesumani, V.; Du, H.; Aslam, M.; Pei, P.; Huang, N. 2019. Potential Use of Seaweed Bioactive
Compounds in Skincare-A Review. Mar. Drugs 2019, 17, 688.
48. Johnson, B., Divu, D., Jayasankar, Reeta, Ranjith, L., Dash, Gyanaranjan, Megarajan, Sekhar,
Edward, Loveson, Ranjan, Ritesh, Muktha, M ., Xavier, Biji, Rajesh, N., Ratheesh Kumar, R., Anuraj,
A., Suresh Babu, P. P., Ramkumar, S., Chellappan, Anulekshmi, Nakhawa, A. D., Koya, Mohammed,
Ghosh, Shubhadeep, Loka, Jayasree, Jayakumar, R., Nazar, A. K. A., Asokan, P. K., Kaladharan,
P., Rohit, Prathibha, Mojjada, Suresh Kumar, Satish Kumar, M., Ignatius, Boby, Singh, V. V. and
Gopalakrishnan, A. 2020. Preliminary estimates of potential areas for seaweed farming along
the Indian coast. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series, 246. pp.
14-28.
49. Johnson, B., Divu, D., Jayasankar, Reeta, Ranjith, L., Dash, Gyanaranjan, Megarajan, Sekhar,
Edward, Loveson, Ranjan, Ritesh, Muktha, M., Xavier, Biji, Rajesh, N., Ratheesh Kumar, R.,Anuraj,
A., Suresh Babu, P. P., Ramkumar, S., Chellappan, Anulekshmi, Nakhawa, A. D., Koya, Mohammed,
Ghosh, Shubhadeep, Loka, Jayasree, Jayakumar, R., Nazar, A. K. A., Asokan, P. K., Kaladharan,
P., Rohit, Prathibha, Mojjada, Suresh Kumar, Satish Kumar, M., Ignatius, Boby, Singh, V. V. and
Gopalakrishnan, A. 2023b. ArcGIS Web Application-An interactive seaweed farming sites along
Indan Coast. ICAR- Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 136
50. Johnson, B., G. Tamilmani, D. Divu, Suresh Kumar Mojjada, Sekar Megarajan, Shubhadeep Ghosh,
Mohammed Koya, M. Muktha, Boby Ignatius and A. Gopalakrishnan. 2023a, Good Management
Practices in Seaweed Farming. CMFRI Special Publication No. 148, ICAR- Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute, Kochi, India. 30p.
51. Joshi, H & Marimuthu, N. 2015. Forbidding invasive species – a way to attain sustainability of the
coastal ecosystem. Curr. Sci. 2, 151-152.
52. Julie L. Lockwood, Martha F. Hoopes, and Michael P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion Ecology. Malden
(Massachusetts): Blackwell Publishing. 304 p.
53. Kaladharan, P., Johnson, B., Abdul-Nazar, A.K., Boby-Ignatius, Chakraborty, K., Gopalakrishnan,
A., 2019. Perspective plan of ICAR-CMFRI for promoting seaweed mariculture in India. Mar. Fish.
Inf. Serv. Tech. Ext. 17–22. Ser., No. 240.
54. Kamalakannan, B., Jeevamani, J.J.J., Nagendran, N.A., Pandiaraja, D., Krishnan Kutty, N.,
Chandrasekaran, S., 2010. Turbinaria sp. as victims to Kappaphycus alvarezii in reefs of Gulf of
Mannar, India. Coral Reefs 29, 1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-010-0684-4.
55. Kamalakannan, B., Jeevamani, J.J.J., Nagendran, N.A., Pandiaraja, D., Chandrasekaran, S., 2014.
Impact of removal of invasive species Kappaphycus alvarezii from coral reef ecosystem in Gulf
of Mannar, India. Curr. Sci. 106, 1401–1408.
56. Kanlayavattanakul, Mayuree & Lourith, Nattaya. 2014. Biopolysaccharides for Skin Hydrating
Cosmetics. 1867-1892. 10.1007/978-3-319-16298-0_29.
57. Kasinathan, C. and Sukumaran, S., 2005. A note on the coral reef degradation in some islands of
Gulf of Mannar. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series, 184, pp.15-
16.
58. Kavale M. G, Meena R, Veeragurunathan V, Persis, M. 2022. Effect of duration of culture period
on the agar yield and gel strength of Gracilaria dura C. Agardh (Gracilariaceae, Rhodophyta) at
Saurashtra coast, Gujarat, India. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1613162/v1
59. Kelp aquaculture in China: A retrospective and future prospects (no date). Available at: https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/raq.12524
60. Khotimchenko, S.V. & Vaskovsky, V.E. & Titlyanova, T.V. 2002. Fatty Acids of Marine Algae from the
Pacific Coast of North California. Botanica Marina - BOT MAR. 45. 17-22. 10.1515/BOT.2002.003.
61. Krishnakumar, A., 2003. Fear of algae invasion. Frontline 20, 13–26.
62. Krishnamurthy V, Joshi H. V. 1970. Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute. In:
checklist of Indian marine algae. Bhavnagar, India, p. 36.
63. Krishnamurthy, V. 1991. Gracilaria resources of India with particular reference to Tamilnadu coast.
Seaweed Res Utiln 14:1–8.
64. Krishnan, P, Abhilash KR, Sreeraj C. R., Deepak. Samuel. V., Purvaja, R, Anand A, Mahapatra, M,
Sankar R, Raghuraman, R, Ramesh, R. 2021. Balancing livelihood enhancement and ecosystem
conservation in seaweed farmed areas: A case study from Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve,
India. Ocean and Coastal Management 207: 105590.
65. Krishnan, P., Abhilash, K.R., Sreeraj, C.R., Deepak Samuel, Purvaja R., Anand, A., Manik, M.V.,
Sankar R. and Ramesh, R. 2016. Impact of Kappaphycus alvarezii cultivation on the coastal
environment in India. National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, Chennai, p38.
66. Littler, M. M., & Littler, D. S. 1984. Relationships between macroalgal functional form groups
and substrata stability in a subtropical rocky intertidal system. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology, 74(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(84)90035-2 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
137
67. Lüning, K. 1990. Seaweeds: their environment, biogeography, and ecophysiology. Wiley
Interscience, New York, pp. 489.
68. M. Nor, Adibi & Gray, Tim & Caldwell, Gary & Stead, Selina. 2016. Is a cooperative approach to
seaweed farming effectual? An analysis of the seaweed cluster project (SCP), Malaysia. Journal
of Applied Phycology. 29. 10.1007/s10811-016-1025-y.
69. M. Nor, Adibi & Gray, Tim & Caldwell, Gary & Stead, Selina. 2020. A value chain analysis of
Malaysia’s seaweed industry. Journal of Applied Phycology. 32. 10.1007/s10811-019-02004-3.
70. Mairh, O.P., Zodape, S.T., Tewari, A., Rajyaguru, M.R. 1995. Culture of marine red alga Kappaphycus
striatum (Schmitz) Doty on the Saurashtra region, West coast of India. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 24,
24–31.
71. Mandal S K, Ajay G, Monish N, Malarvizhi J, Temkar G, Mantri V A. 2015. Differential response
of varying temperature and salinity regimes on nutrient uptake of drifting fragments of
Kappaphycus alvarezii: implication on survival and growth. J Appl Phycol 27: 1571–1581
72. Mandal, S. K, Mantri VA, Haldar, S, Eswaran, K, Ganesan, M. 2010. Invasion potential of Kappaphycus
alvarezii on corals at Kurusadai Island, Gulf of Mannar, India. Algae 25(4):205-16.
73. Mantri, V. A, Eswaran K, Shanmugam, M, Ganesan, M, Veeragurunathan, V., Thiruppathi, S, Reddy
C. R., Seth, A. 2017. An appraisal on commercial farming of Kappaphycus alvarezii in India:
Success in diversification of livelihood and prospects. Journal of Applied Phycology 29(1):335-
57.
74. Mashoreng, Supriadi & La Nafie, Yayu & Isyrini, Rantih. 2019. Cultivated seaweed carbon
sequestration capacity. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 370. 012017.
10.1088/1755-1315/370/1/012017.
75. McManus, J.W., Polsenberg, J.F., 2004. Coral–algal phase shifts on coral reefs: ecological and
environmental aspects. Prog. Oceanogr. 60 (2–4), 263–279.
76. Mostafavi F. S., and Zaeim D. 2020. Agar-based edible films for food packaging applications
- A review, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 159: 1165-1176. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.123
77. Msuya, Flower & Bolton, J. & Pascal, Fred & Narrain, Koushul & Nyonje, Betty & Cottier, Elizabeth.
2022. Seaweed farming in Africa: current status and future potential. Journal of Applied
Phycology. 34. 1-21. 10.1007/s10811-021-02676-w.
78. Msuya, Flower. 2006. The Seaweed Cluster Initiative in Zanzibar, Tanzania.
79. Murphy, J.T.; Johnson, M.P.; Viard, F. A theoretical examination of environmental effects on the
life cycle schedule and range limits of the invasive seaweed Undaria pinnatifida. Invasions 2017,
19, 691–702, doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1357-1.
80. NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences). 2003. Seaweed Cultivation and Utilization,
Policy Paper 22, p. 5.
81. Nandy, S., Fortunato, E., & Martins, R. 202). Green Economy and Waste Management: An
inevitable plan for materials science. Progress in Natural Science: Materials International, 32(1),
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2022.01.001
82. Neish, Iain & Suryanarayan, Shrikumar. 2017. Development of Eucheumatoid Seaweed Value-
Chains Through Carrageenan and Beyond. 10.1007/978-3-319-63498-2_12.
83. Norzagaray-Valenzuela, C. D., Valdez-Ortiz, A., Shelton, L. M., Jiménez-Edeza, M., Rivera-López,
J., Valdez-Flores, M. A., & Germán-Báez, L. J. 2016. Residual biomasses and protein hydrolysates
of three green microalgae species exhibit antioxidant and anti-aging activity. Journal of Applied
Phycology, 29(1), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-0938-9 POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 138
84. Offei F., Mensah M., Thygesen A. and Kemausuor F. 2018. Seaweed bioethanol production: A
process selection review on hydrolysis and fermentation. Fermentation, 4: 99. doi:10.3390/
fermentation4040099
85. Panipilla, R., Marirajan, T., 2014. A participatory study of the traditional knowledge of fishing
communities in the Gulf of Mannar, India. In: Kumar, K.G., Narayanan, S. (Eds.), Samudra
Monograph: International Collective in Support of Fish workers, pp. 1–84. Chennai, India.
86. Pata, P.R. and Yñiguez, A.T., 2021. Spatial planning insights for Philippine coral reef conservation
using larval connectivity networks. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, p.719691.
87. Patterson E. J. K, Bhatt J. R. 2012a. A note on bio-invasion of Kappaphycus alvarezii on coral
reefs and seagrass beds in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. In: Bhatt, J. R, Patterson J.K.E.,
MacIntosh. D, Nilaratna, B. P. (eds.). IUCN-India, pp. 281-287.
88. Patterson, E. J. K, Bhatt, J. R. 2012b. Impacts of cultivation of Kappaphycus alvarezii on coral
reef environs of the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay, southeastern India. In: Bhatt, J.R. (Ed.), et al.,
Invasive Alien Plants: An Ecological Appraisal for the Indian Subcontinent. CAB International,
pp. 89–98.
89. Pereira, N., Verlecar, X.N., 2005. Is Gulf of Mannar heading for marine bio invasion? Curr. Sci. 89,
1309–1310.
90. Philippine seaweed industry roadmap 2022-2026. 2022. Philippine Council for Agriculture and
Fisheries. Available at: http://www.pcaf.da.gov.ph/index.php/cir-seaweed/
91. Pillai, C. S. G. 1971. Composition of the coral fauna of the southeastern coast of India and the
Laccadives. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London, 28. pp. 301-327.
92. Qin Y. 2018. Applications of bioactive seaweed substances in functional food products. In:
Bioactive seaweeds for food applications: Natural ingredients for healthy diets. Qin Y. (ed)
Elsevier Inc. pp. 111-134.
93. Ramachandra T. V., Hebbale D. 2020. Bioethanol from macroalgae: Prospects and challenges.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 117: 109479. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109479.
94. Rao, P.S.N., Rao, U.M., 1999. On a species of Kappaphycus (Solieriaceae, Gigastinales) from
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Phykos 38, 93–96.
95. Rebours, Céline & Marinho-Soriano, Eliane & Zertuche, Jose & Hayashi, Leila & Vásquez, Julio
& Kradolfer, Paul & Soriano, Gonzalo & Ugarte, Raul & Abreu, Maria & Bay-Larsen, Ingrid &
Hovelsrud, Grete & Rødven, Rolf & Robledo, Daniel. 2014. Seaweeds: An opportunity for wealth
and sustainable livelihood for coastal communities. Journal of Applied Phycology. 26. 10.1007/
s10811-014-0304-8.
96. Rodgers, S.K., Cox, E.F., 1999. Rate of spread of introduced rhodophytes Kappaphycus alvarezii,
Kappaphycus striatum, and Gracilaria salicornia and their culture and distributions in Kane’ohe
Bay, O’ahu, Hawai’i. Pac. Sci. 53 (3), 232–241.
97. Roque, B. M., Venegas, M., Kinley, R., deNys, R., Neoh, T. L., Duarte, T. L., Yang, X., Salwen, J. K.,
& Kebreab, E. 2020. Red Seaweed (Asparagopsis Taxiformis) Supplementation Reduces Enteric
Methane by over 80 Percent in Beef Steers. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.15.204958
98. Russell, D. J. 1983. Ecology of the red imported seaweed Kappaphycus striatum on coconut
island, Oahu, Hawaii. Pac. Sci. 37, 87–107.
99. S. Kamenova, T.J. Bartley, D.A. Bohan, J.R. Boutain, R.I. Colautti, I. Domaizon, C. Fontaine, A.
Lemainque, I. Le Viol, G. Mollot, M.-E. Perga, V. Ravigné, F. Massol. 2017. Chapter Three - Invasions
Toolkit: Current Methods for Tracking the Spread and Impact of Invasive Species, Editor(s):
David A. Bohan, Alex J. Dumbrell, François Massol, Advances in Ecological Research, Academic
Press, Volume 56, 2017, Pages 85-182, ISSN 0065-2504, ISBN 9780128043387. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
139
100. Saravanan R, Ranjith L. and Jasmine S., 2016. SCUBA survey in Palk Bay reveals existence of
Rhodolith beds off Pamban Island. Cadalmin Newsletter No. 148. pp.5.
101. SDMRI. 2021. report on Invasion of destructive exotic seaweed Kappaphycus alvarezii on coral
reefs of Gulf of Mannar, Tamil Nadu - Impacts, Remidial action & Management Measures.
102. Seaweed industry in China - submariner-network.eu (no date). Available at: https://www.
submarinernetwork.eu/images/grass/Seaweed_Industry_in_China.pdf
103. Seaweed Research and Utilization in India, 1987. CMFRI Bulletin 41, ICAR- Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute.128p.
104. Seaweeds and microalgae: An overview for unlocking their potential in global aquaculture
development” (2021). Available at: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5670en.
105. Sellers, A. J, Saltonstall K, Davidson T. M. 2015. The introduced alga Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty
ex P.C. Silva, 1996) in abandoned cultivation sites in Bocas del Toro, Panama. Bioinvas ions Rec.
4, 1–7.
106. Servel M.-O., Claire C., Derrien A., Coiffard L., De Roeck-Holtzhauer Y. Fatty acid composition of
some Marine Microalge. Phytochemistry. 1994;36:691–693. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9422(00)89798-8.
107. Sharma, Sandeep & Chen, Chen & Khatri, Kusum & Rathore, Mangal S. & Pandey, Shree.
2019. Gracilaria dura extract confers drought tolerance in wheat by modulating abscisic acid
homeostasis. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 136. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.01.015.
108. Siah W.M., Aminah A., and Ishak A. 2015. Edible films from seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii).
International Food Research Journal, 22(6): 2230-2236.
109. Silva P.C., Basson P.W.& Moe R.L., 1996. Catalogue of the benthic marine algae of the Indian
Ocean. University of California publications in botany, 79:1-1259.
110. Singh I., Gopalakrishnan V. A. K., Solomon S., Shukla S. K., Rai R., Zodape S. T., et al. 2018. Can we
not mitigate climate change using seaweed based biostimulant: A case study with sugarcane
cultivation in India. J. Clean. Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.070
111. Singh, Ishwar & Gopalakrishnan, Vijay Anand & Solomon, Sushil & Shukla, Sudhir & Rai, Ramakant
& Zodape, Sudhakar & Ghosh, Arup. 2018. Can we not mitigate climate change using seaweed
based biostimulant: A case study with sugarcane cultivation in India. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 204. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.070.
112. Smith, J. E, Hunter C. L, Smith C. M. 2002. Distribution and reproductive characteristics of non-
indigenous and invasive marine algae in the Hawaiian Islands. Pac. Sci. 56, 299–315.
113. Sukumaran, S., George, R.M. and Kasinathan, C., 2005. Assessment of species diversity and coral
cover of Velapertumuni Reef, Palk Bay, India. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of
India, 47(2), pp.139-143.
114. Sukumaran, S., George, R.M. and Kasinathan, C., 2007. Biodiversity and community structure
of coral reefs around Krusadai Island, Gulf of Mannar, India. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 54(3),
pp.275-282.
115. Sukumaran, S., George, R.M. and Kasinathan, C., 2008a. Biodiversity Assessment of a Fringing
Reef in Palk Bay, India. Fishery Technology. 45(2) pp: 163 – 170.
116. Sukumaran, S., George, R.M. and Kasinathan, C., 2008b. Community structure and spatial
patterns of hard coral biodiversity in Kilakarai group of islands in Gulf of Mannar, India. Journal
of the Marine Biological Association of India, 50(1), pp.79-86. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN 140
117. Suryanarayan, S., Neish, I. C., Nori, S., & Vadassery, N. 2018. Cultivation and conversion of tropical
red seaweed into food and feed ingredients, agricultural biostimulants, renewable chemicals,
and biofuel. Blue Biotechnology, 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527801718.ch8
118. Tan, Inn shi & Lam, Man & Lee, Keat Teong. 2013. Hydrolysis of macroalgae using
heterogeneous catalyst for bioethanol production. Carbohydrate Polymers. 94. 561-6. 10.1016/j.
carbpol.2013.01.042.
119. The aquaculture opportunity. 2017. The Nature Conservancy. Available at: https://www.nature.
org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/the-aquaculture-opportunity/
120. Thirumaran, G, Anantharaman P. 2009. Daily growth rate of field farming seaweed Kappaphycus
alvarezii (Doty) Doty ex P. Silva in Vellar estuary. World Journal of Fish and Marine Science
1(3):144–153 TIFAC. 2018. Seaweed’s cultivation and utilisation: prospects in India. Technology
information. Forecasting & Assessment Council, New Delhi, p 44.
121. Trivedi, Khanjan & Gopalakrishnan, Vijay Anand & Pradipkumar, Vaghela & Critchley, Alan &
Shukla, Pushp & Ghosh, Arup. 2023. A review of the current status of Kappaphycus alvarezii-
based biostimulants in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Applied Phycology. 35. 10.1007/s10811-
023-03054-4.
122. Van Kleunen, M.; Weber, E.; Fischer, M. 2010. A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive
and non-invasive plant species. Lett. 2010, 13, 235–245, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01418. x.
123. Veeragurunathan V, Vadodariya N, Chaudhary JP, Saminathan KR, Meena R. 2018. Experimental
cultivation of Gelidium pusillum in open sea along the southeast Indian coast. Indian Journal of
Marine Sciences 47(02):336-345.
124. Veeragurunathan, V, Mantri V. A, Eswaran, K. 2021. Influence of commercial farming of
Kappaphycus alvarezii (Rhodophyta) on native seaweeds of Gulf of Mannar, India: Evidence for
policy and management recommendation. Journal of Coastal Conservation 25(6):1-2.
125. Veeragurunathan, V., Eswaran, K, Saminathan, K, Mantri, V. A, Malarvizhi, J, Ajay G, Jha, B. 2015.
Feasibility of Gracilaria dura cultivation in the open sea on the Southeastern coast of India.
Aquaculture 438:68–74.
126. Vieira, R.; Pinto, I.S.; Arenas, F. 2017. The role of nutrient enrichment in the invasion process in
intertidal rock pools. Hydrobiologia 2017, 797, 183–198, doi:10.1007/s10750-017-3171-x.
127. Zhou XR, Robert SS, Petrie JR, Frampton DM, Mansour MP, Blackburn SI. 2007. Isolation and
characterization of genes from the marine microalga Pavlova salina encoding three front-end
desaturases involved in docosahexaenoic acid biosynthesis. Phytochemistry. 2007;68:785–796. POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
141
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Sr. no.OrganizationName & Designation
1.
Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR)
Dr. J K Jena, DDG (Fisheries Science)
2.
Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research - Central Salt and
Marine Chemical Research
Institute (CSIR-CSMCRI)
Dr. Vaibhav Mantri, Sr. Principal Scientist
3.Dr. Veeragurunathan V., Principal Scientist
4.Dr Monica Kavale, Senior Scientist
5.Dr. Satish Lakkakula, Scientist
6.
National Centre for Sustainable
Coastal Management (NCSCM)
Dr. Deepak Samuel V., Scientist E
7.Dr. Abhilash K. R., Scientist C
8.Dr. Muruganandam R., Scientist C
9.Shri. Manodeepan K.K, Jr. Applications Engineer
10.
Indian Council of Agricultural
Research - Central Marine
Fisheries Research Institute
(ICAR-CMFRI)
Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, Director
11.Dr. Ranjith L., Sr. Scientist
12.Dr. Tamilmani G., Principal Scientist
13.Dr. Boby Ignatius, Principal Scientist
14.Dr. Divu, D., Senior Scientist
15.Dr. Muktha M., Senior Scientist
16.Dr. Mohammed Koya, Senior Scientist
17.Dr. Shubhadeep Ghosh, ADG (Marine Fisheries)
18.
National Institute of Ocean
Technology (NIOT)
Dr. Vinithkumar N. V., Scientist F
19. NITI AayogMiss Manisha Kumari, Research Scholar NOTES NOTES Designed by: POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWEED VALUE CHAIN
145