Legislation Measures

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. Perform inspections to enforce regulations and deny concession renewals if removal and recycling criteria are not met. Oblige farmers to fill in a logbook, keeping track of the bought items, installed and/or used items, major events happening and any gear loss or damage. Logbooks can help to generate information on the lifecycle of the larger gears like nets, the duration of their use, details on possible repairs, washes or treatments with anti-fouling products, etc. This information can also help to enlarge the lifecycle of the gear. Apply financial fines to the farming companies that do not follow the EPR rules and do not discard properly the gear that has reached the end-of-life. These fines could include direct economic sanctions or disengagement from European funding, for example. Provide financial incentives to the companies that have a higher proportion of gear (e.g. nets) recycling and reusing. This could only be possible if the traceability system (including manufacturer and farmers tagging) works properly. Include controls on marine waste generation in aquaculture farms during audits. Audits must have a waste control protocol including valid indicators to assess the removal and recycling efficiency of the facility. 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.