Legislation Measures
Regulations
Legal obligations to use a certain share of reusable aquaculture gear items (reuse quota) force sellers of SUP items
like plastic cords to comply with requirements or be sanctioned.
Quota could be graduated over time, i.e. progressively designed to increase at certain intervals, thus further driving
single-use containers out of market relevance.
Technically, gear must be thoroughly washed to comply with national antifouling regulations and must be separated/sorted
manually, which is time-intensive. Therefore, some countries like Germany have outsourced the sorting of fishing gear to
countries with lower labour costs. In a mid- to long-term perspective, it seems to be more efficient, cost effective and
climate friendly, to support national recycling companies in adding or specialising on recycling nets.
EPR measures could support the development of local or regional recycling/reuse schemes to require better data
collection on fishing net waste handling and to implement national marine recycling targets.
EPR under the SUPD could lead to stronger ambitions of producers to use less mixed-plastic material to facilitate the
recycling process.
EPR measures should foresee the upgrading of waste handling facilities, especially in the small fishing ports that many
vessels use.
Extend the scope of the EPR provisions under the SUPD for clean-ups of fishing gear by national legislation.
Avoid through regulation that producers who have to pay for EPR are avoiding to invest into improved materials.
Introduce a national deposit system with subsequent, mandatory recycling of those nets and gear, which are not too
dirty, whereas non-recyclable parts have to be incinerated.
A deposit system would be an additional incentive to collect gear separately. Not only for farmers (e.g. to bring back
old used aquaculture gear), but also for suppliers to bring back e.g. big bags.
A deposit system can work very effectively for larger items, whereas small items that are lost very frequently (because
these are light, cheap and their retrieval is considered to be a waste of time) should be replaced by alternatives and,
in case this is not possible, their use should be closely linked to awareness-raising and training of the e.g. staff
responsible for installation.
The deposit system could be a graduated system for single or multi-use. It ensures the return of a high percentage of
unmixed material.
For passive aquaculture/fishing gear like cages, boxes, cords of regional production a national deposit system with all
its modifications (single-use, re-use, multi-use) seems feasible. Under certain conditions also imported aquaculture
gear can be integrated. Fish cages or transport boxes are often adapted to own needs by farmers and could be included in
a multi-use system.
Similar to a national deposit system also an implementation of regional and municipal deposit systems are thinkable,
which can be adjusted according to the individual needs of the aquaculture sector and producers.
Ban of harmful material, like easy to lose SUP items and Styrofoam containers.
Items which are not automatically linked to the aquaculture sector but used in some aquaculture types like the bottom
culture (plastic sacks, tyres) have to be forbidden as such or replaced by alternative materials (e.g. cotton).
According to the new SUPD, also some SUP items can be prohibited, which has to be implemented by each country. HELCOM
as regional sea body could support such approaches by defining recommendations.
Apply penalties to the companies producing gear and other items used in the aquaculture sector that do not put in place
prevention measures.
Apart from direct bans and regulations, municipalities could also create a contract between the community and local
aquaculture farmers to commit them to bring every item back to shore and to make sure that the farmers are aware that
dumping is prohibited.