Nature-based Solutions and Gender Equality in Aquaculture

By Dr. Nguyen Van Bao

NbS or Nature-based Solutions to the problems of global climate change and biodiversity loss are often promoted as evidence-based, scalable, and cost-effective responses to these two crises (Seddon 2021; Sowińska-Świerkosz 2022). In coastal and delta regions, where aquaculture plays a vital role in local livelihoods, NbS are increasingly applied to restore mangroves, take advantage of water cycles, and support sustainable fish and shrimp production. NbS are also framed by international organizations, governments, and development agencies as interventions that deliver multiple benefits, from carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation to economic opportunities (Seddon 2021; Key 2022).

Yet, critics warn that NbS risk becoming technocratic and depoliticized, privileging measurable outcomes such as carbon stored, trees planted, or land restored (Osaka 2021; Diep 2023). While these indicators satisfy policy agendas, they often fail to reflect the lived realities of communities whose livelihoods depend on ecosystems, such as aquaculture farmers and coastal fishers who directly experience environmental fluctuations and resource pressures. Most importantly, they overlook the situated knowledge of women and men who are deeply connected to land and water.

This essay argues that Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) should permeate NbS-thinking. A recognition of the contributions provided by women and men is not optional but essential; without it, NbS risk becoming hollow promises.

When Knowledge Becomes Invisible

In rural communities around the world, women have long practiced their own forms of ecological adaptation and subsistence, particularly through small-scale aquaculture and water management systems embedded in household and community life (Burkett 2022).

In Vietnam, for example, women monitor water quality through sensory cues, manage daily feeding, and handle post-harvest processing such as cleaning and drying fish or shrimp. Many women also participate in mangrove restoration and shellfish collection in integrated mangrove-aquaculture systems. These activities are not only routine practices but also embody cycles of care, intergenerational teachings, and an intimate knowledge of land and water.

Men, too, hold essential ecological expertise, for example, in understanding water flows, forest dynamics, or traditional land protection methods (Scarlett 2021; Wang 2025). Such knowledge of hydrological rhythms and sediment flows is particularly crucial in mangrove-shrimp and rice-fish systems, where ecological balance determines both yield and sustainability.

These seemingly routine actions embody creativity, adaptability, and an ethic of care that prioritizes equilibrium with the environment. They also constitute subtle forms of resistance, as communities reinterpret and adjust external interventions to align with local realities, thereby preserving autonomy and preventing the erasure of situated knowledge.

Yet, despite this diversity of knowledge, NbS frameworks often fail to recognize women and men as active knowledge-holders. Instead, they reproduce gendered assumptions: women are positioned as passive participants in need of training, while men are treated as active decision-makers by default. Women sometimes attend workshops or make token appearances in reports, while men are consulted only for leadership roles. This is frequently observed in NbS for aquaculture, where women’s routine tasks, such as monitoring pond conditions, managing feed, or processing fish and shrimp, are framed as supporting activities rather than technical expertise, and men’s work is recognized only when it aligns with managerial or infrastructural decisions. In both cases, the everyday, hands-on expertise of rural communities is sidelined.

This pattern of behavior illustrates the sociology of absences or the social dynamics which systematically overlook or exclude the knowledge and lived experiences of marginalized communities (Cooper 2023; Tallent 2024). When NbS projects rely on standardized, technical models that privilege measurable or market-oriented outcomes, practices rooted in care, embodied experience, and community resilience are dismissed as traditional or supplementary. Such invisibility is more than just a matter of fairness; it directly undermines the effectiveness of NbS themselves. Solutions that ignore the lived realities and adaptive practices of both women and men are far less likely to endure and risk weakening the very ecological and social systems they aim to strengthen.

Why GESI Should be Central to NbS

If NbS disregard the voices of local communities, they risk repeating the shortcomings of earlier development initiatives that imposed external models without fully engaging with or respecting lived realities. In the aquaculture sector, this has often meant introducing standardized climate-smart or export-oriented models that overlook local gendered practices in pond management, mangrove restoration, or rice-fish systems. Such approaches have often produced short-term gains while undermining long-term resilience, equity, and trust. To avoid reproducing these patterns, GESI should serve as a guiding principle woven into every stage of NbS and not be treated as an afterthought or secondary concern. Centering GESI in NbS practice requires fundamental shifts in both mindset and methodology.

First, participation must extend well beyond tokenism. Women, men, and diverse social groups should not be included merely to satisfy reporting requirements or to give the appearance of inclusivity. Instead, their involvement must be substantive and meaningful, ensuring that they shape decisions, contribute their expertise, and exercise agency over initiatives that directly affect their lives.

Second, local knowledge needs to be recognized as an NbS foundation, not an optional supplement. Everyday practices, such as cultivating and conserving local aquatic species for aquaculture, monitoring seasonal water cycles, or maintaining traditional irrigation systems, represent accumulated wisdom that is essential for the sustainability of ecosystems. Acknowledging and integrating these practices is not simply a matter of cultural respect but a prerequisite for effective and resilient NbS.

Finally, the very metrics of success must be redefined. Too often, projects are assessed primarily through market-oriented indicators such as GDP growth, export volumes of fish and shrimp, or investment returns. While these hold some relevance, they provide only a partial picture. A more holistic evaluation should ask whether NbS initiatives enhance human dignity, strengthen local food systems, empower marginalized voices, and nurture reciprocal relationships between communities and their environments. In doing so, NbS can move from being externally imposed solutions to becoming community-driven pathways toward just and sustainable futures.

How a GESI Approach Offers Benefits and Creates Challenges

Integrating the knowledge and experiences of both women and men into NbS brings benefits that extend far beyond questions of fairness or equity; it directly enhances the effectiveness, legitimacy, and long-term resilience of the solutions.

From an environmental perspective, community-driven practices, such as those seen in small-scale aquaculture, often align with natural cycles and emphasize stewardship rather than exploitation, helping sustain healthier and more balanced ecosystems. From an economic perspective, such adaptive approaches can reduce household costs, lessen dependency on external inputs, and increase resilience in times of crisis. From a social perspective, acknowledging gender-diverse contributions nurtures respect and confidence, strengthens local leadership, and supports transfer of knowledge across generations. From a governance perspective, projects that meaningfully engage diverse voices are viewed as more legitimate and are therefore more likely to gain enduring community trust and support.

Yet, despite these clear advantages, embedding GESI at the core of NbS remains a significant challenge. Persistent power imbalances often restrict women’s ability to participate in decision-making, while men, too, may be constrained by rigid norms that frame them solely as household heads, overshadowing their ecological knowledge and contributions to care.

Institutional routines also reinforce exclusion: governments and organizations frequently fall back on standardized, technical models that are easy to communicate and replicate but that are far less responsive to local contexts and needs. This pattern is evident in livelihood systems such as rice-fish or mangrove-shrimp farming, where NbS interventions often emphasize engineered designs or production targets, overlooking the situated expertise of small-scale farmers, especially women, who understand local hydrology, tides, and soil rhythms through lived experience. Moreover, the categories of women and men are never homogeneous; differences of age, class, ethnicity, and other intersecting identities shape whose knowledge is valued and whose voices are sidelined.

These realities underscore that a simple commitment to include women and men is not enough. Genuine transformation requires careful listening, the creation of supportive and inclusive spaces, and the courage to confront and dismantle entrenched power structures.

Who Should do What

Building inclusive and effective NbS in the aquaculture sector requires coordinated action by a wide range of actors. Governments should design policies that recognize the ecological contributions of both women and men, provide stable funding for community-led initiatives, and avoid imposing uniform, top-down models. Researchers and academics need to work in genuine partnership with communities, co-producing knowledge instead of positioning science as the only valid authority. NGOs and development agencies should strengthen gender-inclusive networks, support peer-to-peer learning, and ensure that women and men shape project priorities and decisions together. The private sector, rather than focusing solely on profit, should also invest in approaches that build community resilience and promote ecological stewardship. Finally, communities themselves are central actors; by continuing to practice, share, and defend their knowledge systems, they exercise resilience and self-determination, ensuring that NbS remain grounded in lived realities.

What Outcomes do Inclusive and Just NbS Reach for

NbS are widely promoted as innovative strategies to address the climate change crisis. Yet, without a genuine commitment to GESI, they risk becoming narrow, technocratic interventions which appear persuasive in reports, but which fail the very communities they are meant to serve. In contrast, the everyday practices of women and men, which make use of local materials to sustain their aquaculture, or which rely on knowledge of seasonal water cycles to manage risks, show that sustainability is already embedded in community life. These practices are not secondary or outdated; they hold knowledge, cherish care, and advance quiet forms of resistance that challenge the assumption that only science or markets can define what counts as an effective solution.

For NbS to reach their full potential within aquaculture-dependent communities, women cannot be relegated to passive recipients of aid, nor can men be reduced to one-dimensional decision-makers. Both must be recognized as active agents and knowledge-holders, whose complementary perspectives are essential for building resilience. Valuing diverse ways of knowing, moving beyond growth-driven paradigms, and foregrounding principles of sufficiency, care, and dignity can transform NbS. In doing so, NbS can become more than ecological interventions in aquaculture systems: Nature-based Solutions can evolve into pathways that restore ecosystems while also advancing social justice and strengthening community well-being.