Aquaculture should not be singled out as industry, instead cooperation in handling waste with other industries/neighbour states is needed. This would make the logistics for handling wastes more attractive for specialized companies. Once government and involved stakeholders have access to real data regarding the marine litter issue, they will probably more easily engage in addressing the problem. Gear should be tagged by the manufacturer and by the farmer. Floats/buoys are usually found tangled with the nets on the seafloor. Therefore, it would be advisable to mark nets and floats/buoys together. Set up collaborations between farmers, port authorities and gear producers to locate and establish collection points for disposal of aquaculture gear in the port reception facilities. Farmers could be responsible for bringing the gear to the port facilities (encouraged by implementing a deposit-to-be-returned system, for example) and, on the other hand, gear producers could economically compensate the port authorities for using their installations. Establish a clear management and description of roles and responsibilities in each part of the process (collection, treatment, transport and recycling) before the creation of the EPR system. Deposit schemes, option 1: grant a discount on following purchases: the farmer brings back the used items to the seller/manufacturer and gets a discount on the price of the following purchase depending on the weight/volume/quantity returned. Deposit schemes, option 2: return a deposit: to purchase an order, the farmer pays not only for the bought items but he also leaves a deposit, which will be returned by the seller/manufacturer once the farmer returns the used items. Raise the awareness related to the non-organic marine litter from the aquaculture sector as this will increase the willingness of farmers and/or consumers to pay more to cover the extra cost related to the use of recycled nets (if no other option could avoid the price increase), and thus the reduced impact on the marine environment. An increased awareness of all aquaculture stakeholders, especially the farmers, should imply a larger involvement of the sector in voluntary initiatives focused on reducing the impact of their economical activities (e.g. voluntary initiatives related to Fishing for litter). The responsibility of the individual user should be increased instead of EPR schemes possibly overtaken by a whole sector and denying individual liability More preventive measures are needed to reduce litter from the aquaculture sector. Both the producers and designers should be more active at the start of the material chain. With regard to EPR, the gear producer should give a certain guarantee to the farmer after analysing correct installation. After this period, it is up to the farmer to maintain the installation Tracking system should be performed at a European level so that lost and found items can be exchanged between countries. Farmers can pay a fund to a European body that collects the waste and distributes it to the owners. The producer should report their lost items to the European body Raising awareness will have effect on a long term, it is important to make people active and do not make them upset. Waste collection by responsible authorities is advisable because a fee can be imposed on the sector that is responsible for the items collected. An exhaustive inventory of what materials each sector is using (incl. fisheries and aquaculture separately) is needed to know how to assign the correct proportion of litter to every sector. In this way, each sector could be made responsible for their litter: mussel sector; oyster sector, fish sector, etc. Extended Producer Responsibility - Trace the responsibility of recycling to the producers and do not leave it at the sole responsibility of the farmer: a joint responsibility (shared responsibility). Introduce annual maintenance contracts (AMC) between the aquaculture farmers, equipment manufacturers and other service providers to carry out regular checkups of the entire aquaculture infrastructure, to maintain, repair and collect the damaged gear and other equipment, and to recover it after a storm (even if located in another country bordering the same sea-basin). Implement the new EPR provisions related to fishing and aquaculture gear according to Art. 8 of the SUPD into national law for prevention and better design/and expand individual responsibilities, by including indirect costs like littering or climate change for single-use products. This could be also achieved by the general fee of 20 cent for all typical single-use plastic packages used in the aquaculture sector. National legislation needs to refer to the items mentioned in the SUPD which are also used in the aquaculture sector like caps and plastic bags - but should extend the range of items and include other SUP items, specifically used in this sector like cords, gloves, boxes and special packaging. With the revenues, avoidance and multi-use concepts have to be fostered. EPR schemes can also support the better design of unavoidable single-use plastic products to improve their recycling capability. Obligatory quota for recyclates to increase secondary raw materials that can be used to make high-quality new products. Within EPR schemes supporting the better design, companies could pay a fee to the national / municipal responsible authority, which could be used to remove marine litter in general or with a focus on the small litter items. Support individual EPR schemes since in practice producers and manufacturers often transfer their responsibility to producer responsibility organisations (PROs). If a collective scheme is chosen on national level, the PRO, set up by producers or through legislation, has to be regularly (e.g. every 5 years) assessed whether they have met their responsibility for recovery and recycling obligations of the individual producers.