Cell-based seafood is a viable alternative to fulfill such ambitions

Though there is interest in developing this industry path in the Bergen region, to date no trigger point for its establishment has been reached. It is reasonable to assume, based on reviewed documents and our interviews, that large-scale production is possible. The key bottleneck is the industry’s ability to compete with traditional salmon farming in terms of production cost and value chain maturity. Production cost is mainly driven by the cost of growth medium, and thus one can argue that the trigger point for the cell-based seafood industry will be the development of media that is sufficiently inexpensive as to bring down production costs. The knowledge bases for these industries also have distinct origins. The region’s salmon aquaculture industry is based mainly on experience-based knowledge and a hands-on approach. Knowledge is generally transferred by word of mouth and through business-to business interactions. This exemplifies a synthetic knowledge base. Yet some industry activities are more analytical knowledge-based, such as production of feed and vaccines and other efforts towards solving environmental issues. By contrast, cell-based seafood industry activity is based strongly on research and carefully measured experiments that are conducted by scientists at research institutions. This type of knowledge is codified and transferable, exemplifying an analytical knowledge base. When it comes to innovation modes, the Bergen region’s salmon industry is quite practical and production oriented. Much of its innovation activity is the DUI type, in which experience and tacit knowledge dominate, and incremental product innovations is the main output. The STI mode elements are mainly linked to innovation collaboration projects between the industry and R&D institutions.

By contrast, the cell based seafood industry is highly dependent on an STI mode in which much of the research and technology are developed in-house among the main industry actors. These firms are also more frequently involved in innovation collaboration with R&D institutions,grow table hydroponic through testing, experimentation, and piloting new solutions. Regarding geographical configuration, the salmon farming industry is clearly tied to coastal areas. The Bergen region has become globally positioned as a salmon hub through a combination of crucial, beneficial geographical factors that make salmon farming possible, as well as from governmental investments in R&D institutions and the region’s development of a strong supplier industry. Together, these industry actors form a competitive cluster characterized by specialization, collaboration and knowledge sharing. Thus, the industry has developed a spatially sticky innovation system. By contrast, cell-based seafood production will not be strongly tied to any specific geographical area, as it will take place in facilities that can be established anywhere in the world with the required infrastructure . Countries such as the US, the Netherlands, China and Japan all have startups, venture capital and/or governmental backing to support establishing the clean meat industry. Thus, clean meat is associated with a footloose innovation system . Through our interviews with cell-based seafood industry representatives, we discovered that they are interested in gaining access to knowledge and animal biology expertise from the Bergen region salmon cluster: “their knowledge of fish embryology, fish genetics would be super helpful” . As the salmon industry has matured, the value chain has diverged into specialized companies occupying specific niches; thus, genetics companies may be of specific interest. At this stage, other areas of potential collaboration with salmon industry actors in the Bergen region may be more relevant.

Almost all cell based seafood industry activity is centered around companies’ R&D into launching their products on the market.Thus, the Bergen region’s strong marine research environment and expertise are advantageous for triggering the development of a new, related seafood industry niche. Other potential areas for collaboration with the Bergen region’s salmon farming industry are down-stream value chain activities such as distribution and marketing. Being included in the distribution and marketing of a large, diversified seafood product portfolio would clearly be advantageous for the cell-based industry. It could speed up the introduction of cell-based seafood to consumers: “If they see it as an important thing to be a part of an aquaculture industry, then it has to be seen as a fish product portfolio more than synergies in production” . Salmon compete against other animal proteins, e.g., beef, through being a supposedly healthier and more ethical choice. Government and regulatory institutions within salmon farming are keen to promote sustainable seafood production as a better choice to red meat, which is another pull factor for the Bergen region, and Norway generally. While there has been no official statement regarding the Norwegian government’s stance on cell-based seafood, it is plausible to assume that when the industry grows, there will be a positive response based on the environmental sustainability, production increase potential and animal welfare benefits of cell-based seafood while delivering a health profile closely matching that of farmed salmon. The introduction of cell-based seafood may also help diversifying the seafood industry portfolio in the region as well as providing knowledge “spill-over” effects from the biotechnological advancements in alternative protein production. Our objective herein has been to explore the opportunities and obstacles for introducing a new, related industry niche through co-evolution with an established regional industry. Empirically, we investigated industry development in the Bergen region of western Norway, with the cell-based seafood sector representing the new industry niche and the salmon industry representing the established regional industry. Cell-based seafood has large potential to diversify the seafood sector and contribute to increased sustainability by providing highly controlled seafood production without animals. Large investments, entrepreneurial experimentation and interest organization initiatives have been undertaken globally to rapidly mature the industry niche.

There are visions and expectations among actors connected to the potential of cell-based seafood and the observed interest in the Bergen region seafood sector may provide opportunities for industry co-evolution in the future. However, our main observation is that co-evolution between the cell-based seafood sector and the salmon industry in the Bergen region are challenging at the present moment. Despite growing popularity of the co-evolution concept, there is scarce literature to explain why co-evolution between two adjacent industry paths can be difficult. Through our study we found two explanations for this. First, co-evolution is difficult when the dominant path is in a stable state. High profitability and a stable state mean that this industry absorbs investors, technology suppliers and research milieus that may otherwise have been on the lookout for alternatives and supplementary business opportunities. It also means that incumbents within the dominant path will not be looking for diversification alternatives. Our findings echo observations by, who argued that the most productive and skilled workers and entrepreneurs in a region tend to flock to the most attractive regional industry. Second, heterogeneity between the two adjacent industry paths also makes co-evolution difficult. As cell-based seafood and salmon farming are both affiliated with the seafood sector, one might expect that cognitive and technological relatedness would promote co-evolution. However, there are distinct differences between the two industry paths when it comes to knowledge base, innovation mode and geographical configurations at the present time, making actor mobility, knowledge spillover and resource sharing between the two industry paths challenging. We also introduce the concept of industrial convergent co-evolution to discuss potential co-evolution between industry paths that at the present are unrelated.

As the cell-based seafood industry matures more opportunities for co-evolution may occur as downstream value chains of farmed salmon and cell-based production may intertwine through convergent evolutionary mechanisms. The cell-based seafood industry aims to create similar products and reach similar customers as the salmon farming industry. Thus, the cell-based seafood industry may eventually imitate and utilize the established logistics and marketing system for salmon, making the value chain of the two industries more similar in the mature stages of industry path development. Our study has implications for policy formulation. The Bergen region lacks some of the infrastructure needed for cell-based seafood to emerge as an industry path. The industry is reliant on specialized R&D facilities such as laboratories and other test facilities. Though there is a strong seafood R&D infrastructure in Bergen, with public research institutions and established pharmaceutical companies, these are markedly oriented to the needs of the salmon industry . Thus, policy initiatives mobilizing for development of a new industry niche are needed. In such path creating processes regional innovation support organizations can play a proactive role. The regional interest organization NCE Seafood Innovation Cluster have for instance a particular interest in creating a more sustainable and diversified seafood sector in the region. They can connect large seafood firms with startups and research to access cutting-edge innovation as well as interfacing with European policy initiatives to ensure increased focus on sustainable seafood development. Vestlandets Innovasjonsselskap , a business incubator and technology transfer offices in the region, provide research infrastructure and expertise toward better integration between biotechnology and aquaculture.Moreover, these regional innovation support organizations should work towards triggering the interest for cell-based seafood among the region’s established salmon farming producers and suppliers. This could unleash more resources towards innovation and experimentation, which would likely increase the probability of the development of a new industry path in the Bergen region. The result could be a more environmentally sustainable and diversified regional salmon sector, including both traditional salmon farming and an emerging cell-based seafood production. This would also make the seafood sector in the region more resilience to external turbulence triggered by governmental initiated growth barriers for salmon farming,grow table changing consumer preferences or environmental challenges. Our study was not without limitations. First, co-evolution has been investigated through the potential establishment of a new industry niche in a region.

If cell-based seafood activities were already in place, we could have examined realized and unrealized co-evolution dynamics, rather than potential co-evolution dynamics. Future research should also include empirical studies in other sectors and regions, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of why potential co-evolution between adjacent industry paths does, or does not, materialize. The concepts of nature-based solutions and the utilization of coastal green-gray infrastructure are attracting increasing attention from both policy and practical perspectives. Shallow coastal ecosystems,such as mangroves, salt marshes, seagrass meadows, and macroalgal beds,are good examples of these concepts, considering their roles as part of the global carbon cycle and as a natural defense against sea level rise. Blue infrastructure and ocean-based NbS projects can lead to sustainable revenue-generating opportunities. Furthermore, they can help in realizing a blue economy for local communities through comprehensive investments in the conservation of coastal ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as in optimal blue infrastructure . In a report jointly published in 2009 by the United Nations Environment Programme Planning Unit; the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, “blue carbon” is defined as carbon captured by marine organisms. The ocean is a particularly important carbon reservoir because blue carbon stored in seafloor sediments can remain undecomposed and unmineralized for long periods of time . The role of blue carbon in SCEs as a climate mitigation measure has attracted attention worldwide. Typical SCEs, including mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrass meadows, are now being called “blue carbon ecosystems”. Blue carbon initiatives are currently moving from the advocacy stage to the social penetration, policy making, and implementation stages . Approximately 20% of the countries that have joined the Paris Agreement have pledged to use SCEs as a climate change mitigation option in their nationally determined contributions. These countries are moving towards measuring national blue carbon amounts and are accounting for them in their greenhouse gas inventories. Approximately 40% of those countries also have pledged to use SCEs to adapt to climate change as part of conservation, protection, and reforestation initiatives, as well as through planning efforts such as integrated coastal zone management and fisheries management. Australia and the United States have also begun including blue carbon in their numerical emissions reduction targets and calculating blue carbon according to the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands . The 25th Conference of the Parties , or COP25, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , held in Spain in 2019 was positioned as a “Blue COP”.