As societies accelerate the transition towards sustainable and circular economies, production systems are increasingly expected to do more than simply minimise environmental harm. The next frontier is clear: production systems must actively contribute to ecosystem restoration while supporting economic value creation. In a recent study published in Ecosystem Services, Marianne Thomsen and international colleagues propose a new way of thinking about this challenge—shifting policy focus from reducing pressure on nature to enabling progress through nature-positive production systems. Read the article here:

Rethinking production systems, not just products

Environmental policy has traditionally focused on regulating individual activities or end products. However, this approach often fails to capture how resources, risks, and benefits move through interconnected value chains. Thomsen argues that production systems must instead be understood as part of circular resource management and industrial symbiosis systems, where interactions with nature are continuous and reciprocal. “Production does not happen outside ecosystems,” Thomsen explains. “It is an exchange with nature. If we want long-term sustainability, we must understand and govern that exchange.”

Seaweed as a case — but not the point

Seaweed aquaculture is used in the study as a concrete example to illustrate a more general principle. During growth, seaweeds transform dissolved emissions into a highly complex biomass while simultaneously delivering regulating ecosystem services such as nutrient removal and water-quality restoration. In this sense, the production system itself can be nature-positive. However, the study also shows that nature-positive production does not automatically result in food-ready biomass. Depending on the environmental status of the production site, harvested seaweed may accumulate micropollutants that limit or prevent its direct use as a food ingredient under existing regulations. “This is where simplistic sustainability narratives break down,” says Thomsen. “A system can deliver clear ecosystem benefits, while simultaneously creating challenges elsewhere in the value chain.”

Mapping services and disservices across stakeholders

To address this complexity, the study introduces the concept of engineered ecosystem services and disservices mapped across all stakeholders—including ecosystems, producers, processors, regulators, and consumers. When micropollutant levels exceed regulatory thresholds, the system delivers a provisioning ecosystem service disbenefit for food-system actors, even though the marine ecosystem may benefit from pollutant removal. Recognising this distinction is crucial: it prevents ecosystem restoration efforts from inadvertently transferring environmental risks into future food systems.

Processing as risk mitigation, not failure

Rather than framing such outcomes as failures, Thomsen highlights the role of processing and value-chain design as essential risk-mitigation tools. Biomass harvested from nature-positive production systems can be allocated to different uses—food, feed, materials, or non-food applications—depending on quality and context. Processing can transform nature-positive biomass into ingredients with defined and controllable quality attributes, rather than treating raw biomass quality as a fixed outcome. This flexibility allows societies to capture ecosystem benefits without compromising food safety or public trust.

The policy takeaway: enable progress, not just compliance

The core policy message is clear: Nature-positive production cannot be achieved through isolated regulations or short-term incentives. Instead, policy instruments must:

• Support long-term nature-positive production systems
• Enable adaptive governance across entire value chains
• Recognise stakeholder-specific benefits and disbenefits
• Align production, processing, and use within circular resource systems

“Policy needs to move beyond managing damage,” Thomsen concludes. “It must actively support production systems that are designed to deliver ecological progress over time.”

Looking ahead

The proposed “pressure-to-progress” framework is not limited to seaweed aquaculture. It offers a transferable approach for evaluating and governing future production systems—marine and terrestrial alike—that aim to operate within planetary boundaries while supporting resilient economies. As governments and institutions invest in the green and blue transitions, the message is timely: progress depends not only on what we produce, but on how production systems interact with nature across their full life cycle. Processing functions as a governance and risk-mitigation mechanism that enables nature-positive biomass to be translated into food ingredients with defined, regulated, and controllable quality attributes, rather than assuming raw biomass quality as a fixed outcome of production.