Legislation Measures

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. In Spain, include the identification of potential sources of waste and the estimation of non-organic marine litter related to an aquaculture facility in the Environmental Surveillance Plans (PVAs due to the Spanish abbreviation) Establish public official reference values in relation to the potential waste generated by the aquaculture sector, exclusive of each type of aquaculture main activities. This kind of litter-frame would help to build trust among the multiple aquaculture stakeholders involved in the non-organic marine litter management The results of the analysis of the technical characteristics of suitable material for aquaculture gear and life-cycle steps should be incorporated in environmental aquaculture regulation and gear made following these recommendations should be included as a certified good practice. Any breakthrough related to eco or sustainable designs should be integrated in the aquaculture regulation. Share the information related with the main needs and priorities in relation to non-organic litter prevention and reduction in the aquaculture sector with the gear producers, material producers and the policy makers, with the aim to create a set of rules that would apply to the gear design and material selection, to ensure resistance and durability in a regulation framework. In Spain, create a specific Spanish Single Use Plastic regulation and Extended Producer Responsibility scheme regulation for fisheries and aquaculture Involvement of the policy makers environmental authorities in the identification of areas for the development of the aquaculture, to guarantee the harmonious integration of the aquaculture facilities in the coastal zones, minimize land-use conflicts and reduce the potential impacts. Raise taxes on non-sustainable (like plastic) materials but not on alternative materials to create a clear benefit in using the sustainable gear. This solution can only be adopted once there are real alternatives to the non-sustainable materials. 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.