Legislation Measures

Tracking systems may also pose pressure on non-EU countries to produce higher quality gear with a better durability, which indirectly supports the EPR schemes. Governing bodies should compel producers of aquaculture gear to use more alternative materials. This can be done both by introducing incentives and by strict regulations Working with a ‘fee’ or ‘discount’ is a better system to retrieve especially the big items used at sea and prevent their loss. This is preferred over a cost increase. A trusting relationship between producer and consumer/farmer is important. Taxes on small and cheap disposable plastic gear items would make them more expensive for farmers who would not be able to afford to lose them. The farmers would be worried enough to keep and recover them as much as possible. All companies could pay a fee to the national government, and the money could be used to remove the small litter items in the sea. However, if this measure is taken up for the aquaculture sector, it should also be introduced in other offshore sectors (tourism, shipping…). Taxes and incentives mainly benefit the big players. Instead, the entire sector (depending on the aquaculture type) should work together towards having more sustainable equipment accessible. Taxation is probably not a good idea, unless the tax money collected is used to invest in the aquaculture sector. Shaping taxes to stimulate innovation would be a better way, with the focus on obtaining new materials/gear and reducing the price of sustainable materials. A decommissioning plan for aquaculture infrastructure should be developed (e.g. as included in the fisheries policy). This will probably be implemented through the upcoming transnational or national ‘plastic’ plans/guidelines/legislation. This way, end-of-life or outdated aquaculture infrastructure could be decommissioned with national or EU aid. It should be possible during the operational phase of an aquaculture farm that the licensing authority adjusts certain requirements for an aquaculture installation Improvements to the installation during the operational phase may be compulsory if new experiences are gained since setting up the farm. This should be explicitely mentioned in all aquaculture permits. Logistics and decommission services should be done by an external company. This ensures uniformity and, incidentally, supports all companies within the sector. Regulating waste management should be much stricter. Everything needs to be declared when concerning chemical and dangerous waste, but this is not (yet) the case for other waste such as plastics. The equipment inventory of all aquaculture companies should be integrated and made public by local authorities. The waste policy (collection and depositing) on concessions should be improved, clarified and specified and a better follow-up should be granted. Lost or abandoned items should be reported to the appropriate authorities. There is only a decommissioning plan but no waste management plan in aquaculture in several countries. A waste management plan would reduce the loss of gear and other material at sea. Include criteria in Corporate Social Responsibility of aquaculture businesses. A Mass-balance system in which the farmers are paying for what they leave offshore, and/or are rewarded for additional litter they bring on land is an initiative needed from the government. A Deposit system (based on fees or discounts) as an additional incentive to collect gear separately is needed. Not only for farmers (e.g. to bring back old used aquaculture gear), but also for suppliers to bring back e.g. big bags. However, additional extensive administrative burden has to be avoided. The government should pay a more active role in motivationg and incentivising farmers to sort waste Active work from authorities is needed to manage waste. The waste problem is under-estimated by the government, who should put more effort in managing the waste.