End-of-life fishing and aquaculture gear: An assessment of the potential recycling capacity in Scotland

3. Findings

3.1. Gear waste in Scotland

This section outlines the most recent available evidence on EOL fishing and aquaculture gear quantities and composition in Scotland. The dominant waste management routes for EOL gear are also presented.

3.1.1. Literature review findings

Two previous studies conducted by Resource Futures in 2021 estimated the quantity and composition of commercial fishing and aquaculture gear waste generated in Scotland.^{[18], [19]} Since then, no new data has been published. However, some studies have estimated quantities, with limited details on material composition, in other areas of the UK. Studies on whelk gear in Wales^[20] and fishing gear in the English Channel area^[21] adopted the same methodology as Resource Futures, assessing the number of vessels, expected quantity of gear, life span of gear, and weight of gear. At time of publication, a study funded by the Nature Restoration Fund to estimate quantities of creel fishing gear was ongoing, but the findings had not yet been published.

Other research has focused on insights into market opportunities (for example, for biodegradable or recycled fishing gear) and the impact of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded gear.^{[22], [23], [24], [25], [26]}

3.1.2. Quantities, composition and distribution

The annual waste generation of materials in EOL fishing and aquaculture gear, from the combined results of the studies by Resource Futures, are shown in Figure 1. The figures are bottom-up estimates using industry datasets and interviews to understand gear types, weights and material composition, the number of items in use, and the average lifespan of each gear component. In the absence of a comprehensive and reliable dataset on actual waste generation, the bottom-up estimates provide the best indication of national waste generation in future years from commercial fishing and aquaculture gear.

Even if formal waste management data was available, it would not represent any EOL gear that is in storage or lost at sea. Some gear components have lifespans of 10 years or more, and waste gear can be stored for years before reaching reprocessors. Variations in the use and storage phases have a significant impact on when waste will be generated. For example, actual waste generation within a single year can rise significantly if a large number of HDPE aquaculture flotation pipes come to the end of their life in the same year. In addition, gear types and sizes change over time.

The main materials of interest to this project were PP and PE, including HDPE. Though metal components make up a significant share of fishing gear waste by weight, these were out of scope of this project as they already had more established disposal routes. More niche materials such polystyrene/expanded polystyrene (PS/EPS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) were not included due to low quantities produced.

Table 5 shows the dominant sources of waste PE and PP by activity. The terms ‘small’ and ‘large’ relate to the size of the fishing vessel or engine size. Circle pens and small and large potters account for the most PE and PP waste from aquaculture and fishing respectively.

Table 5: Estimated annual commercial fishing and aquaculture gear waste in Scotland (tonnes per annum)

Gear	PE	PP
Aquaculture
Circle pen	2,847	334
Square pen	208	74
Oyster Trestles	25	-
Mussel Longlines	123	61
Wooden pens	1	0
Total from aquaculture gear	3,203	469
Fishing
Low Activity Demersal Trawl	0.14	0.22
Small Demersal Trawl	2.47	3.81
Large Demersal Trawl	16.62	14.46
Seiners	8.19	41.27
Pelagic Trawl	-	0.23
Low Activity Prawn Potters	1.05	0.93
Small Prawn Potters	18.12	16.04
Large Prawn Potters	19.16	16.10
Low Activity Crab Potters	2.35	11.09
Small Crab Potters	35.88	169.22
Large Crab Potters	34.88	170.18
Low Activity Potters	3.40	12.02
Small Potters	54.0	185.3
Large Potters	54.0	186.3
Large beam trawl	3.0	0.7
Low activity scallop dredger	-	0.1
Small scallop dredger	-	2.0
Large scallop dredger	-	7.4
Large netter	0.3	0.2
Total from fishing gear	142.3	453.9
Total fishing and aquaculture gear	2,344	560
Combined plastic waste annual arising	4,268.31

Aquaculture circle pens used the most PE according to bottom-up estimates (as shown in Table 5). The majority of PE weight in common circle pens (illustrated in Figure 2) are HDPE flotation pipes (typically filled with EPS) and, when used, sinker tubes (typically with a steel core). PE weight also includes netting, feeder tubes and PE rope, but to a lesser extent.

Small and large potters account for a large quantity of PP waste (as shown in Table 6). The PP quantities in the waste estimate largely relate to crab pots, which are typically heavier than Nephrops/prawn pots (as shown in Figure 3). The latter can have protective PP or cut tyres around the edges of the pot to protect it from damage.

Further details on the construction, weight, and material composition of different types of fishing gear are given in the 2021 study.^[27]

The regional distribution of plastic waste arising from Scotland’s commercial fisheries was identified from Resource Futures’ previous studies. The highest estimated annual tonnage of PP (96.25 TPA) and PE (31.79 TPA) is from fisheries in the Highlands. Fisheries in northern Scotland are producing more PP and PE waste than fisheries in the south of Scotland.^[28] A detailed breakdown of plastic waste arising by the main commercial fishing ports in Scotland can be found in Annex A and is illustrated in Figure 8.

The regional distribution of aquaculture sites in Scotland shows the highest concentration (137 licensed sites) on the Shetland islands. The northwest of Scotland including the Outer Hebrides, Highland and the Orkney Islands collectively have the highest concentration of aquaculture sites (230 licensed sites).^[29] While this is not directly linked to plastic waste arising, it gives a good indication of where aquaculture activities are taking place in Scotland. A detailed breakdown can be found in Annex A and is further illustrated in Figure 8.

3.1.3. Scottish waste data on current waste management routes

The results of the desk-based analysis of the waste site returns undertaken by SEPA suggested that of the identifiable EOL fishing and aquaculture gear entering sites in Scotland for management between 2022 and 2024 most is sent to landfill or treated off site for management elsewhere. The search results from SEPA’s Waste Sites and Capacity database identified what gear was:

• ‘Sent to landfill.’
• ‘Treated on-site’ meaning waste came into a site for treatment rather than being transported to another site. Treatment on-site can include but is not limited to, recycling, physical treatment (such as sorting processes), chemical treatment.
• ‘Treated off-site’ meaning its intended management method will be undertaken at another receiving site. This would include material sent to a transfer station where it does not undergo treatment, or where the management method of the next site was not known.

The type of treatment, such as whether materials were reprocessed, was not specified in the data.

Table 6 shows that from 2022 to 2024, most EOL fishing and aquaculture gear was treated off site (45 per cent) or sent to landfill (43 per cent), and just over a tenth (340 tonnes) was treated on site (12 per cent). The 1,262 tonnes of waste sent to landfill was disposed of in greater volumes (across 14 instances) compared to the 1,286 tonnes that was treated off-site (across 40 instances). Interview findings also suggested EOL gear sent to landfill was sent in large amounts, after building up in storage, which reportedly led to some rejections from English landfill sites.^[30]

Table 6: EOL fishing and aquaculture gear treatment from 2022-2024 (SEPA’s Waste Sites and Capacity database)

Management	Instances	2022 tonnage	2023 tonnage	2024 tonnage	Total tonnage	Total percentage
Treated on site	8	2	0	338	340	12%
Treated off site	41	622	242	423	1,286	45%
Landfilled	14	185	579	497	1,262	43%
Total	63	809	821	1,258	2,888	100%

Table 7 and Table 8 break down the data in Table 6 based on known component or gear types identified by waste descriptions. According to the SEPA data, EOL buoyancy materials and netting/ropes were managed differently. Table 8 shows that from 2022-24, no buoyancy materials were sent to landfill, and most were treated off-site for management elsewhere (89 per cent). Table 8Table Table shows that most netting and ropes were sent to landfill (72 per cent) with a very small amount treated on-site (0.1 per cent). Therefore, most material landfilled is netting and rope, and most material treated on-site is buoyancy materials.

Table 7: EOL buoyancy material treatment from 2022-2024 (SEPA’s Waste Sites and Capacity database)

Management	Instances	2022 tonnage	2023 tonnage	2024 tonnage	Total tonnage	Total percentage
Treated on site	3	0	0	47	47	11%
Treated off site	7	356	5	0	361	89%
Landfilled	0	0	0	0	0	0%
Total	10	356	5	47	408	100%

Table 8: EOL netting and rope treatment from 2022-2024 (SEPA’s Waste Sites and Capacity database)

Management	Instances	2022 tonnage	2023 tonnage	2024 tonnage	Total tonnage	Total percentage
Treated on site	2	2	0	0	2	0.1%
Treated off site	30	56	87	277	420	27.9%
Landfilled	4	151	475	458	1084	72.0%
Total	36	209	562	735	1,506	100%

3.2. Waste management options for EOL gear

Interviews with stakeholders highlighted various options for the management of EOL gear. These varied from repair and reuse, repurposing, or reprocessing of gear, to disposing of it through landfill or incineration. It should be noted that while incineration was mentioned by several stakeholders as a current disposal option, SEPA was unable to provide quantitative data on this waste management route. Figure 4 presents the pathways to UK reprocessing and other end destinations. More detail, drawing on the interview findings, is provided in sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.4.

This is a flow diagram demonstrating the complexity of the life cycles of fishing and aquaculture gear, the routes and processes the materials may go through, and the ultimate destinations for end-of-life gear. These include gear being lost at sea, put into storage, sent to landfill, repurposed or re-used in non-fishing related activities, reprocessed ready for being recycled, exported abroad for recycling, or recycled in the UK.

3.2.1. Repair and reuse practices

Generally, the fishing industry will try to repair broken fishing gear due to the high costs associated with its replacement. Repairs may include the replacement of broken components or the patching of holes and rips using pieces of different nets.

The fishing and aquaculture industry in countries such as Norway has established brokerage systems that allow for the resale of working gear. As a result of this, organisations purchasing new equipment due to upscaling or new technologies can sell their existing gear to smaller companies or those operating in emerging industries abroad.^[31]There is an active second-hand market within the Scottish fishing industry. Used gear can be sold on, especially when upsizing or replacing gear that is in good working condition, thereby elongating its lifespan.^[32]

Certain EOL fishing and aquaculture gear can be effectively repurposed for agricultural applications. Some companies have relationships with local farmers who use components like nets and pipes in protecting crops from predators, covering bales of hay or outhouses, improving drainage, and fencing. While highlighted as a popular option for EOL gear by several aquaculture companies, some were apprehensive about the practice due to the possibility of mismanagement of the material by the recipients, ultimately giving the aquaculture company a bad reputation in the local community.^[33]

Several aquaculture companies also had a relationship with a Scottish manufacturer of reinforced polytunnels, as a pathway for the repurposing of feedpipes.^[34]

3.2.2. Reprocessing

Reprocessing of EOL gear is not as common as other disposal options, due to various challenges (see section 3.4). However, where logistically and economically viable, some components are sent for reprocessing.

In aquaculture, some parts of the pens, especially those made from rigid plastic such as feedpipes, are processed and recycled by a waste management contractor specialising in plastic reprocessing. Similarly, any metal components are sent to the appropriate facilities and reprocessed. One company specialising in the manufacture and production of aquaculture gear operates its own take-back scheme. This aims to recycle plastic components and use the outputs in the production of new aquaculture gear, with the recycled plastic used for non-structurally critical parts of equipment.^[35]

While components made from rigid plastics are more likely to be recycled, specialised facilities exist which can take a wider range of plastic materials. These facilities are often set up to specialise in different gear components. For example, fishing industry rope, trawl nets or aquaculture nets. It is less common to take multiple different gear components. While these facilities exist, they are very limited, which often results in disposal of flexible and mixed plastic components further down the waste hierarchy.^[36]

3.2.3. Intermediate processing

Before gear can be recycled it needs different degrees of pre-processing, depending on the reprocessor's requirements, to ensure the material is compatible with their equipment. Pre-processing can happen in two stages: intermediate processing and specialised intermediate processing (as shown in Figure 4).

The first stage of intermediate processing typically happens close to the source of the waste, and includes baling, removal of biofoul, rubbish and large contaminants (using powerjets, for example), and sorting. It aims to remove extraneous material and make the gear more suitable for transportation. Gear can contain a mixture of materials like plastic, metal, and rubber, which need to be separated from ropes and netting. Metals are regularly removed at this stage, due to the value that can be recovered from recycling them. Figure 5 and Figure 6 below are examples of gear during this stage of intermediate preprocessing.

There are no mandatory requirements for intermediate processing; instead, it must be done voluntarily to support reprocessing efforts. A reprocessor from outside Scotland said that when they first started collecting gear from harbours, rubbish and biofoul were common: “At the start, we had dead fish, crabs. We had all sorts, like the fishermen would chuck in the rubbish from the boats. It took quite some time [working with harbours] to get it into like a good state.”^[37]

Reprocessors and organisations conducting specialist intermediate processing activities have different methods. Unique approaches have been developed based on reprocessor requirements, equipment used and the desired output. In some cases, washing is done first, before dismantling and shredding (as illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6)^[38]. In others, only large pieces of contamination are removed at the start, and the material is further decontaminated after shredding.^[39] Nylon can be removed at different stages depending on the equipment used. Figure 7 is a picture of nylon being manually removed from an aquaculture net; a time- and labour-intensive process.

One reprocessor of EOL gear highlighted a lack of knowledge sharing and collaboration between current reprocessors, which has likely contributed to this diversity: “It’s very secretive… It's a shame in many ways, because it'd be great if we could all work together.”^[40]

An outline of the stages involved in intermediate processing of EOL gear is presented in Table 9. The data in this table was obtained through interviews with fishing and aquaculture sector specialists and presents the materials, infrastructure, cost, and considerations associated with each process in order for the material to be reprocessed.

Table 9: Stages of intermediate processing required before EOL gear is recycled

Stage

1. Storage

• Material
• Piles of fishing and aquaculture gear, sometimes sorted into types.
• Infrastructure
• Requires space for storage and sorting, e.g. skips. Equipment to move material
• Costs
• Take-back schemes or harbour dues that cover disposal costs. Rental cost of storage space.
• Considerations
• UV rays can reduce algae contamination, but material left too long can make it unsuitable for reprocessing. Assessment of ground suitability due to soft ground issues.

Intermediate processing: 2. Sorting of components

• Material
• Metal, rubber, hard plastics and specified unrecyclable materials are removed.
• Infrastructure
• Manual dismantling and rinsing to meet pre-processing acceptance requirements and make the material suitable for transportation.
• Costs
• Labour, e.g. it can take 10 hours for each trawl net.^[41] Training.
• Considerations
• Active vessels are often not onshore long enough to dismantle gear, but labour and skills exist in the fishing community, e.g. retired fishers. Knowledge to dismantle gear efficiently.

Specialist intermediate processing: 3. Decontamination / washing

• Material
• Material is decontaminated, with as much sand, salt, and algae removed as possible.
• Infrastructure
• Washing equipment or manual removal. Equipment to move material. Waste water filtration.
• Costs
• Specialised machinery and energy.
• Considerations
• Water needs to be regularly replaced due to the salt content, and microplastics will be produced during washing.

Specialist intermediate processing: 4. Manual dismantling

• Material
• Manual sorting of plastic components into polymer types. Unrecyclable materials removed.
• Infrastructure
• Manual dismantling, often done by hand using specialised equipment. Equipment to move material.
• Costs
• Labour, e.g. it could take 30-40 hours for each aquaculture net.^[42]Training.
• Considerations
• Leaded rope must be removed. Nylon can be removed manually by cutting out the stitching or potentially during later polymer sorting. Knowledge to identify different polymers.

Specialist intermediate processing: 5. Shredding

• Material
• Components are de-sized into smaller pieces.
• Infrastructure
• Specialised shredding equipment.
• Costs
• Specialised machinery and energy.
• Considerations
• There is a risk of entanglement with the machinery, so ordinary shredding equipment can’t be used. Shredding machines might have to run at slower speeds to prevent the polymers from melting.

Specialist intermediate processing: 6. Polymer sorting

• Material
• Shredded pieces are separated into polymer types. More contamination removed.
• Infrastructure
• Specialised equipment, such as sink-float tanks.
• Costs
• Specialised machinery and energy.
• Considerations
• Possible for nylon to be removed at this stage.The level of sorting will impact the value of the outputs, e.g. PE and PP mixed or separate.

7. Reprocessing

• Material
• Pellets or flakes that can be used in new products.
• Infrastructure
• Specialised equipment, such as plastic extrusion machines.
• Costs
• Specialised machinery and energy.
• Considerations
• Reprocessing can’t produce a food-grade product. Output needs to compete with other secondary and virgin polymers on the market.

3.2.4. Landfill and incineration

Scottish local authority representatives stated that EOL fishing gear collected from ports and harbours by council services and private waste management companies is disposed of at authority-owned landfill sites. Sometimes, nets are baled and used in the construction of the landfill, aiding in the containment of other waste items.^[43] However a waste expert interviewed suggested EOL nets and ropes are, in some cases, being rejected by some landfills due to large volumes and incompatibility with onsite equipment.^[44]

Local authority-managed EOL gear is most likely to be landfilled due to difficulties in transporting the material to suitable reprocessing facilities and the lack of resources to dismantle and separate the gear into different components. Local authorities will most often manage gear that has been disposed of at authority-owned ports and harbours, as well as material collected through beach cleans.^[45]

Other actors, including aquaculture companies, and the fishing industry, also dispose of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear through landfills. In some instances, the lack of waste management facilities at harbours and ports leads fisherman to arrange their own dispose of their EOL gear directly to the landfill^[46].

Incineration is another common disposal option. Incinerated components include hard-to-recycle items such as shorter lengths of rope. Not all incinerators accept EOL fishing and aquaculture gear, as certain components, such as nets, are not compatible with the machinery available at the facility, negatively impacting the operations of the energy from waste (EfW) facilities.^[47] Though data on the quantity of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear sent for landfill was obtained through SEPA’s database, there is a data gap on the quantity or share of gear sent to EfW.

3.2.5. Summary of waste management options

In summary, a large majority of EOL gear is reportedly being sent to landfill. This was backed up SEPA data and corroborated by stakeholders interviewed. While incineration was anecdotally mentioned as a common waste management option, no data was obtained to verify the quantities currently being sent to EfW facilities.

The repair of gear is a common practise within the fishing industry and helps to keep gear in use for longer. While there is evidence of re-use of EOL gear outside of the fishing and aquaculture industry, this is likely small scale, only accounting for a very small proportion of EOL gear.

Reprocessing of plastic gear is not currently widespread but is happening on a small scale with more gear from the aquaculture industry being reprocessed than that from the fishing industry. With no mandatory requirements for intermediate processing, this is further limiting the amount of EOL gear that is reprocessed.

3.3. Reprocessing infrastructure

3.3.1. Reprocessing infrastructure in Scotland

During this research, 11 reprocessors in Scotland were identified that handle PE, HDPE and/or PP (not necessarily including fishing and aquaculture gear). Seven of these participated in the research, and six provided data on relevant waste reprocessing and spare capacity quantities. Gaps remain in the data. The total known reprocessing of relevant plastic waste streams is 76,200 tonnes per annum (TPA), and total known spare capacity in Scotland is 12,500 TPA. If, in theory, all the known spare capacity could go towards reprocessing EOL fishing and aquaculture gear, this would greatly exceed the estimated annual waste arisings. (The other four reprocessing sites that did not participate in the research are likely to represent an even greater capacity in Scotland.)

The following sections provide more detail on the existing and potential capacity for reprocessing plastic fishing and aquaculture gear within Scotland.

3.3.1.1. Reprocessors currently accepting EOL gear

In Scotland, three sites were confirmed to be accepting EOL fishing and/or aquaculture gear, as shown in Table 10. A further site was identified as potentially accepting EOL fishing and/or aquaculture gear using SEPA data, but it was not possible to confirm this during the research.

Table 10: Reprocessing sites in Scotland that do/might currently accept EOL fishing and aquaculture gear

Facility no.	1	2	3	4	Total/summary
Location in Scotland	Invergordon	Fraserburgh	Fort William	Dumfries	Four site locations
Did they respond to questions?	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Three responded
Total known waste inputs (TPA)	1,000	200	Unknown	13,000	14,200
Polymers reprocessed	HDPE	HDPE, PE, PP	Unknown	HDPE, PE, PP	HDPE, PE, PP
Do they currently accept fishing and aquaculture gear?	Yes	Yes	Unknown	Yes	Three sites accept fishing and aquaculture gear
Known reprocessing of fishing and aquaculture gear (TPA)	1,000	0*	Unknown	40	1,040 *Start-up currently doing intermediate processing only, with plans to reprocess
Types of gear accepted	Rigid PE from aquaculture	HDPE, PE and PP ropes and nets	Unknown	HDPE, PE, PP and nylon ropes and nets	Ropes, nets, rigid plastics
Types of gear not accepted	Only accepts the above	Nylon nets, buoyancy, rope with lead core	Unknown	Nylon escape hatches in trawl nets, co-mingled polymer rope, rope with lead core	Nylon nets and escape hatches in trawl nets, co-mingled polymer ropes, rope with lead core
Might they accept fishing or aquaculture gear in the future?	No	Yes	Unknown	Yes	Two sites will continue to accept fishing and aquaculture gear
Known spare reprocessing capacity (TPA)	0	500	Unknown	2,000	2,500
Pre-processing requirements	None	Intermediate processing	Unknown	Specialist intermediate processing	Mixed

As Table 10 shows, active reprocessing capacity in Scotland is insufficient at present, with 1,040 tonnes verified as being reprocessed in Scotland annually through stakeholder engagement (40 tonnes of which originates from outside of Scotland). Overall, based on the gear tonnage estimates in Table 6, this indicates 24 per cent of plastic Scottish derived EOL fishing and aquaculture gear is reprocessed (this figure is higher than expected when compared to anecdotal evidence - it should be noted that this figure is based on estimates which are several years old and does not take into consideration gear that is in indefinite storage or the backlog gear that would need to be worked through). The spare reprocessing capacity of the three facilities known to reprocess fishing gear is 2,500 TPA. If their capacity was immediately and exclusively used for fishing and aquaculture gear, this would increase the estimated percentage reprocessed to 83 per cent.

Most of the tonnage currently reprocessed is rigid PE from aquaculture gear (1,000 tonnes), meaning an estimated 31 per cent of the PE from aquaculture was reprocessed. The reprocessing site in question reported that their main business was aquaculture waste. They mostly reprocessed salmon cages made from rigid PE into 100 per cent recycled granules, sending metal components to local recycling and nets and ropes to a facility in the Netherlands.

However, they had plans to stop accepting aquaculture gear because of the financial challenges related to the plastic recycling market, which has led to them ending reprocessing operation altogether. In particular, high-energy costs were impacting their financial viability. The increased cost of running machinery meant the cost of reprocessing was the same as sending waste to landfill. As a result, aquaculture sites were not incentivised to sort waste for recycling, which was essential for this reprocessing site due to licensing requirements.^[48] This suggests the capacity gap for rigid PE could widen in the future, though stakeholder engagement suggested rigid plastics are generally accepted by plastic reprocessors.

The remaining 40 tonnes being reprocessed were mainly fishing rope and nets. A plastic reprocessing business had developed a private partnership with a business that created products out of recycled EOL fishing gear, collected from harbours and marine litter initiatives in England. In this case, the reprocessor was primarily a plastic reprocessor, and not a specialised site for EOL gear. The reprocessing site had strict requirements for the material it would accept. Their customer was responsible for collecting, sorting, and pre-processing the material. The customer explained, “We see ourselves as the pre-processor. The extrusion partnership would not happen without the work we do to dismantle, shred, and polymer sort.”^[49] For the plastic reprocessor, this reduced the financial burden associated with intermediate pre-processing and the risks of securing demand for the reprocessed plastic pellets.

The plastic reprocessor’s client mainly worked with PP ropes from fishing gear, as HDPE items could be difficult to decontaminate and extrude:

“We're still continuing to accept HDPE, but the extrusion line has to be very slow. A line would typically run 800 kilos an hour, but for HDPE it’s running at 80, which from an energy and cost perspective is not good.”^[50]

In addition, PP and PE can mix slightly, but HDPE cannot. This meant the co-mingling of polymers in HDPE nets was a barrier to reprocessing:

“When you're on the ground working, what feels the most painful, if there is a tiny braid of PE going through a HDPE net, then there is no option for it apart from landfill.”^[51]

Another company aimed to specialise in intermediate processing and reprocessing of EOL fishing and aquaculture mixed-polymer nets and ropes. At the time of research, they were conducting trials to reprocess gear whilst they waited for new machinery and to move location. The gear they were accepting was either stockpiled or sent to Europe for recycling. Most of the gear they accepted was aquaculture nets (90 per cent), with a small volume of trawl nets (10 per cent).^[52] They explained the composition of most aquaculture nets was as follows:

“The average 120-metre net is three tonnes; 1.8 tonnes is clean HDPE, 250 kilograms is leaded rope, and the rest is the framework ropes, which are polysteel ropes (made from a mix of PE and PP) and nylon stitching. The clean HDPE is the easiest to reprocess. We can mix PE and PP, but not nylon.”^[53]

The site said they would only accept trawl nets if the mouth and the cod-end of the net were removed, leaving the middle tube of netting. Their trials had shown that the removed parts had a greater mix of materials, were more complex to dismantle and could not be reprocessed. A representative of this reprocessor explained:

“Fishing nets have so many different types of polymers. They've got wire rope, rubbers on the bottom of the net, floats on the top, the top and bottom, the catching area… You’ve got multiple polymers, which are mixed together. There are still parts of trawl nets we could take, but it would cost us a lot of money to dispose of the bits we can’t use.”^[54]

They would also not accept nylon nets, as most were covered in anti-fouling coating, or leaded ropes.

The site had ordered new, more advanced equipment to scale up its on-site reprocessing activities. This included equipment that would allow them to speed up their own specialist intermediate processing, such as dismantling nets, shredding, and technical polymer sorting. It also included new manufacturing equipment, which would enable it to produce higher value-added end products for sale to local businesses. This would support a maximum future capacity of 500 tonnes per annum of gear to be reprocessed by the site and create new revenue streams.

The expansion also depended on moving from their current rural location to a more urban area with access to lower energy costs, pending planning permissions. Reprocessing ropes was more challenging and expensive than rigid plastics:

“A subsidy or something to offset the costs and energy is needed to reduce the reprocessing cost compared to landfill. Reprocessing hard plastics is far easier than netting and ropes; netting and ropes require more skill, effort and machinery investment. That’s why I would say domestically in Scotland, we’re the only ones doing it at scale.”^[55]

The total known spare reprocessing capacity of these three sites was 2,500 TPA. One-fifth (500 TPA) is from the reprocessor specialising in nets and ropes, and four-fifths (2,000 TPA) from the plastic reprocessor with strict reprocessing requirements.

3.3.1.2. Additional potential reprocessing infrastructure

The existence of one non-specialist plastic reprocessor that accepts EOL fishing and aquaculture gear suggests an opportunity to further expand reprocessing capacity beyond specialised sites. An additional seven plastic reprocessors were identified in Scotland that worked with HDPE, PE, and PP. Table 11 below shows the polymers they accept, whether they responded in the engagement, if they could accept EOL gear in the future, and their known spare capacity.

Table 11: Latent reprocessing potential of HDPE, PE or PP gear in Scotland

Facility no.	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Total/ Summary
Location in Scotland	Dumfries	Glasgow	Glasgow	Melrose	Dumfries	Inchinnan	Perth	Seven plastic reprocessing sites
Did they respond to questions?	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Four sites responded to questions
Total known waste inputs (TPA)	70,000	Unknown	30,000	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	33,000	133,000 TPA known throughput
Polymers reprocessed	Post industrial HDPE and PE	Post industrial PP	Post consumer and industrial PP and PE	Post consumer and industrial HDPE and PP	Post industrial HDPE, PE and PP	Post consumer and industrial HDPE and PP	Post consumer HDPE	-
Might they accept fishing or aquaculture gear in the future?	Unknown	Yes	Yes	Unknown	No	Unknown	No	Two sites might accept EOL fishing or aquaculture gear in the future
Known spare reprocessing capacity (TPA)	0	Unknown	10,000	0	0	0	0	10,000 TPA known spare reprocessing capacity
Pre-processing requirements	N/A	Specialist intermediate processing	Specialist intermediate processing	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Specialist intermediate processing needed

Of the reprocessors interviewed, two facilities expressed interest in accepting fishing and aquaculture gear in the future, though were not currently taking it. The current known spare reprocessing capacity for accepting the relevant polymers in the future for these two sites is 10,000 TPA, but this only covers one of the interested reprocessors. If this is added to the spare capacity of the reprocessors mentioned in section 3.3.1.1, the total annual spare reprocessing capacity in Scotland is at least 12,500 TPA. This far surpasses the total estimated annual quantity of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear generated (4,268 TPA).

One of the facilities that might accept gear had conducted a trial on reprocessing fishing and aquaculture gear, and the other had participated in a research study and visited net manufacturers. From these experiences, both understood the materials and challenges of reprocessing it. One identified the collection and sorting of materials from harbours as a barrier. However, the other had seen effective collection, washing, shredding and sorting by waste management companies, at a small scale, in ports in Amsterdam.

The main barriers deterring these two facilities from accepting EOL fishing and aquaculture gear were commercial, for instance low investment interest, a lack of ownership over the waste material, and low demand for outputs. Further details on barriers are given in section 3.4. As a result, both reprocessors stated that greater support and investment would be needed for them to accept the material.

Two of the seven Scotland-based reprocessors interviewed stated they did not, and had no plans to, accept EOL fishing and aquaculture gear. Reasons given included a lack of experience; incompatibility with their current waste inputs (such as plastic bottles); and lack of appropriate machinery. One such reprocessor said:

“We've got no capacity at all for any kind of agriculture or fishing material. It's [more of] the same material that we're already dealing with that we're looking for, not different types of PE.”^[56]

It was not possible to find out whether the remaining three sites had the capacity to accept gear in the future. In all cases, the level of interest and the potential reprocessing capacity would depend on how pre-processed the material is and whether reprocessors would need to invest in specialised equipment.

Desk research identified two other initiatives to expand specialised reprocessing or pre-processing infrastructure in Scotland. A Shetland-based start-up was aiming to process netting and other marine litter into local biofuel.^[57] In 2024-25, the Scottish Government’s Marine Fund granted funding to a project seeking to set up a service station for repairs, washing and storage of aquaculture nets at Kyleakin, Isle of Skye.^[58]

3.3.2. Reprocessing infrastructure in rest of UK and Europe

While the focus of this research was Scotland, the reprocessing infrastructure to which Scottish gear is sent in the rest of Europe was examined, as this will remain part of the solution for the foreseeable future. Through desk-based research and interrogation of databases such as WDF and Recoup, a total of 108 reprocessors were identified as accepting the target polymers, PP, PE and HDPE.

Nine facilities agreed to be interviewed, six in England, one in Wales, one in Northern Ireland and one in mainland Europe. Table 12 summarises their known total waste input per annum, the quantity of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear currently being reprocessed, the known spare capacity and the number of facilities that might take EOL fishing and aquaculture gear in the future providing intermediate processing requirements were met (See section 3.2.3).

In the rest of the UK, of eight facilities interviewed, six provided us with polymer input data. These six were accepting 87,080 TPA in total. Three facilities provided data on spare capacity, which totalled 28,100 TPA.^[59]

Of the facilities interviewed, only two were identified as accepting EOL fishing and aquaculture gear, receiving a total of 195 TPA.^[60] One further facility had 1,100 TPA spare capacity to potentially accept EOL fishing and aquaculture gear, providing intermediate processing requirements were met.^[61]

While these figures do not represent the full current reprocessing landscape in the rest of the UK, they do highlight the comparatively small amount of EOL fishing gear currently being reprocessed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The known current reprocessing capacity is just 20 per cent of that in Scotland.

In the rest of Europe only one reprocessor was interviewed. This facility was contacted as it was mentioned as a possible end destination for UK derived EOL fishing and aquaculture gear by several stakeholders. This facility specialised in reprocessing EOL fishing and aquaculture gear and was accepting approximately 155 TPA from the UK (including Scotland).^[62] In total, the reprocessor was accepting approximately 8,750 TPA with a spare capacity of 35,000 TPA.^[63] While this facility was capable of considerably increasing its reprocessing output, it was currently unable to do so due to lack of market demand for the output material.^[64]

The data gathered on EOL fishing and aquaculture gear currently reprocessed in England, Northern Ireland and Wales is likely to be reasonably close to the total, as this aligns with qualitative insights received during stakeholder engagement. The total quantities of target polymer inputs and spare capacity in the rest of the UK and mainland Europe, however, will be considerably higher than the data presented here, as only a small sample of plastics reprocessors were interviewed. To fully understand the reprocessing infrastructure in the rest of the UK and Europe, further research would be needed.

Engagement with UK reprocessors was challenging. Out of the 109 identified, 92 did not respond to our multiple attempts at contact and eight responded but declined to take part. Of the nine reprocessors interviewed, there was hesitance about providing data on polymer inputs and spare capacity.

Table 12. Reprocessors capacity landscape from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and rest of EU. Data only comes from reprocessors Resource Futures engaged with and who were willing to provide data.

Location	Reprocessors accepting target polymers	Reprocessors engaged with that accept target polymer	Known waste inputs (TPA)	Known current EOL F&A gear reprocessing (TPA)	Known spare capacity (TPA)	Known facilities accepting EOL F&A gear	Known facilities that could accept in the future
England	98	6	6080	195	2,100	2	2
Wales	4	1	75,000	0	20,000	0	0
Northern Ireland	3	1	6,000	0	6,000	0	0
Subtotal	105	8	87,080	195	28,100	2	2
Rest of Europe	4	1	8,750	8,750	35,000	1	1
Totals	109	9	95,830	8,945	63,100	3	3

3.3.2.1. Export of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear

Quantifying the amount of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear exported out of the UK for reprocessing was not possible from the data obtained through this research. Information received from stakeholders was limited and in some cases contradictory.

Due to the lack of UK recycling options, one stakeholder said it was easier to recycle certain gear abroad. However, transportation could be very complex, discouraging companies from considering this option.

There are more options for reprocessing EOL fishing and aquaculture gear in Europe. For example, stakeholders named specialised facilities in Norway, Denmark and Slovenia. However, from data received, it is understood that only small quantities of UK-derived material are being received by European reprocessors. One reprocessor based in Denmark had only received 155 tonnes of aquaculture gear from Scotland since 2022, all from one site.^[65]

Two stakeholders explained that prior to 2022 they had sent bales of EOL fishing and aquaculture to Denmark and Slovenia, but the current economic and environmental cost were too high, preventing further exportation. This coincides with the UK governments implementation of new import and export rules following its withdrawal from the European Union.^[66]

One stakeholder stated that exporting EOL fishing and aquaculture gear to specialised reprocessors in Europe was more economically viable than sending it to UK reprocessors, but this was contradicted by another, who explained that transportation from the UK into mainland Europe had become prohibitively expensive. The administration of exporting waste could cause significant delays, and some UK transportation companies were unwilling to make the journey. ^[67] Sending EOL fishing and aquaculture gear to Europe can also be associated with an increased CO₂ footprint.^[68]

Transportation of EOL aquaculture gear is reportedly easier than fishing gear. Aquaculture farms are often owned by one large organisation, many of which are headquartered in Europe. These companies have established logistical infrastructure that can be utilised for exporting EOL gear.^[69]

Another reprocessor based in England suggested that reprocessing sites in Asia were well equipped to deal with EOL fishing and aquaculture gear, but some Asian countries were not accepting waste from the UK and others required data on traceability, which UK reprocessors were unable to provide.^[70]

3.3.3. Summary of reprocessing capacity

As illustrated in Figure 8, 11 reprocessors were identified in Scotland that accept the target polymers (PP, PE and HDPE). Three facilities were identified as currently accepting EOL gear. A further two facilities showed interest in accepting EOL gear in the future. Two facilities showed no interest in accepting EOL gear, and it remains unknown whether the final four facilities may accept it or not.

Engagement with those accepting it suggested that 1,040 TPA of EOL gear was reprocessed in Scotland in 2024-25. Most of this was rigid PE from aquaculture in Scotland (1,000 TPA), whilst 40 TPA was fishing nets and ropes from England. This implies none of the ropes or netting from Scotland were being reprocessed within Scotland. The SEPA data analysis supported this, as it found that 80 per cent of ropes and netting was sent to landfill in Scotland. Other EOL gear produced in the UK was reprocessed in England (195 TPA) or Europe (155 TPA).

If all the known spare capacity in Scotland from specialist and plastic reprocessors were used for EOL gear, the total annual capacity in Scotland would be at least 12,500 TPA. This greatly exceeds the total estimated annual quantity of EOL gear generated in Scotland (4,268 TPA).

This suggests the reprocessing capacity for relevant polymers in Scotland is not a barrier to scaling up fishing gear recycling. However, other challenges are stopping this from happening, as illustrated by the fact that the reprocessor currently taking the large majority of EOL gear in Scotland is planning to cease operations.

3.4. Barriers and challenges to scaling up domestic activities

The interviews with stakeholders point to several challenges experienced by different stakeholder groups in relation to recycling EOL fishing and aquaculture gear and scaling up reprocessing activities in Scotland. Generally, it has been suggested that the reprocessing of gear is a costly option when compared to other disposal methods due to its transport and intermediate processing requirements. Other factors, including the rate of waste generation and the current plastic recycling market, have also been highlighted as potential barriers to the scaling up of domestic reprocessing.

3.4.1. Sporadic waste generation

The fishing industry and aquaculture farms cannot contractually commit to providing specific amounts of waste material to recycling facilities that require minimum amounts of the waste stream to undertake its reprocessing.

Fishing and aquaculture gear is manufactured to withstand the adverse marine environment, making it extremely hardy and able to stay in use for long periods of time. The exact lifespan of gear varies depending on its type but can be anything from five to 15 years. Further, it is difficult to predict when waste may arise; sometimes, gear becomes obsolete before its EOL due to technological advancements in the sector. This presents more variability within the nature of waste generation throughout the industry.

For the reprocessing of fishing gear to operate efficiently, the reprocessing plants need a minimum amount of waste material to process. One reprocessor stakeholder suggested that anything under 10 tonnes does not make sense to reprocess.

The unsteady rate of waste generation by individual fisheries and aquaculture farms, resulting in small volumes of materials, paired with the lack of storage space for bulking, currently makes fishing and aquaculture gear a less desirable waste stream for recyclers to seek out and accept at their facilities.

While individual actors may struggle to collect large enough quantities of material, local authority-derived data suggests that the desired volumes of material do exist and are currently disposed of at landfill sites, for example, Shetland Council noted 236 tonnes of fishing nets made their way to landfill in the year 2024-25. This could suggest that the waste stream would benefit from collaborative bulking between individual fishing businesses and aquaculture companies.

3.4.2. Collection and transport

The collection and transportation of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear present significant logistical and financial challenges that have been noted to hinder efforts in increasing reprocessing, particularly in remote coastal regions.

Stakeholders suggest that although some harbours provide containers for the collection of EOL fishing gear for the fishing industry to utilise, these are often not emptied frequently enough and are subject to contamination with other waste streams, including household waste. This can often lead to overflowing bins, filled with mixed material, which discourages proper disposal of gear and complicates any recycling efforts made by local authorities or waste management companies.

It is also noted that aquaculture companies operating in rural parts of Scotland face particular difficulties in transporting bulky material to recycling or disposal facilities. The lack of nearby infrastructure and long distances to recycling or intermediate processing facilities add to the complexity and cost of these logistical factors. These companies may often choose to utilise more locally available options, such as landfills or incineration facilities, to cut down on the costs, as well as the carbon emissions associated with transportation.

Due to the limited reprocessing options within the UK, some companies consider sending gear abroad for processing. However, it was suggested that post-Brexit administrative burdens and high transportation costs have made exporting gear to mainland Europe significantly costly. This disincentivises companies in looking at reprocessing pathways for their EOL gear.

Whether domestically or abroad, collecting and transporting EOL gear is costly for both companies and local authorities. The irregular sizes and heavy weight of the material may further complicate logistics and increase the overall cost of any recycling efforts, posing a challenge to increasing reprocessing rates.

3.4.3. Intermediate processing

To increase the likelihood of being reprocessed, EOL fishing and aquaculture gear needs to go through intermediate processing, which may include sorting, washing, drying, decontamination, and dismantling, among others. The types of activities undertaken before reprocessing the material will often affect the quality of the reprocessing output.

Interviewed stakeholders noted that fishing and aquaculture gear comprises many individual components, which are often made from multiple materials, including different types of plastic, rubber, and metal. To supply reprocessors with their desired product, the equipment needs to be disassembled and separated. As the equipment is very robust, any stripping and dismantling is complicated, labour-intensive, and time-consuming.

The reported dismantling time for nets ranged from 10 to 40 hours based on the experience and processes used. Stakeholders note that there is little motivation or resources within the fishing and aquaculture sector to separate EOL fishing and aquaculture gear. The considerable labour that would need to go into the process is not something that either sector or local authorities have access to.

One reprocessor interviewed in Northern Ireland, which did not take EOL gear, explained that it had investigated accepting fishing gear. However, due to the inability to receive pre-processed single polymer material it was deemed un-economical to accept. With a reliable stream of clean post-industrial plastic available (e.g. virgin off cuts from manufacturing processes), they would not be accepting EOL fishing and aquaculture gear in the future.^[71]

Further, the repair culture, especially within the fishing industry, can also hinder separation. Using different types of netting to repair rips or holes in existing nets can introduce different polymers, which can only be identified and sorted with costly polymer identification tools, adding to the challenge. The limited sorting of components and materials can result in pieces of gear being sent to landfill or incineration.

Another process that needs to be undertaken before EOL gear can be reprocessed is the removal of different contaminants, including algae, grass, shellfish, or salt water. This is because contamination may be a significant issue for non-specialist reprocessors, especially those operating dry sites, meaning they are unable to undertake any washing activity, as highlighted by waste sector experts and plastic reprocessors. Stakeholders from the aquaculture sector suggested that a popular method for doing this is pressure washing using fresh water, although more sophisticated methods are also used by facilities specialising in the processing of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear.

A reprocessor in England explained they operate a dry site, meaning they do not have the ability to wash and sort material onsite. While this facility had never been approached to reprocess fishing gear previously, providing they could receive a minimum of 10 tonnes of sorted, shredded and washed ropes, they would be willing to undertake a controlled trial.^[72]

Contaminated material, if not cleaned, risks damaging equipment, losing product, and, in turn, profit. Some reprocessors are more lenient towards contamination; the extent of this varies depending on the end product. Those aiming to produce a high-quality output will want as little contamination of the material as possible. The required cleaning of gear presents a challenge as it requires space and can be time and labour-intensive, similar to the sorting of gear, for which the fishing industry, aquaculture organisations, and local authorities often lack resources and capacity.

The intermediate processing that needs to take place for gear is noted as a barrier to its EOL reprocessing. The lack of time, money, and capacity results in the waste stream being sent to landfills or for incineration by harbours and ports, aquaculture companies, and local authorities, instead of being reprocessed into new products. Hence, scaling up reprocessing may require the provision of support with the intermediate processing of gear, to enable it to be reprocessed.

3.4.4. Financial considerations

The financial cost, through time and energy, required for pre-processing material pushes up overall reprocessing costs making it challenging to run the reprocessing of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear at a commercial scale. One established plastic reprocessor estimated that funding between £3-£10 million would be needed to establish a facility that could commercially reprocess of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear. Although reprocessing facilities engaged with have spoken to funding organisations, there were no investors interested in supporting a facility to move into commercial fishing gear reprocessing. ^[73]

Along with the challenges of finding adequate funding sources, there is a lack of demand for relevant secondary plastics. Reprocessors have described the difficulties of competing with virgin imports and over the last 18 months some have witnessed very cheap virgin materials being imported from China. This has pushed down prices and even pushed people out of using recycled material. ^[74] The high reprocessing costs for EOL fishing and aquaculture gear and the lack of demand for the resultant material is making it more difficult for facilities to produce a profit. Some companies selling products made from reprocessed EOL fishing and aquaculture gear have overcome the issue by selling the origin story of the product, however the scale of their operations are small. Consumers can be willing to pay high prices for products they know are helping to remove plastic waste from the marine environment. While this does work in some cases, it is unlikely to be a long-term viable solution to increase the quantity of reprocessed EOL fishing and aquaculture gear into the wider market.

3.4.5. Limited reprocessing infrastructure

Interviews suggested that the reprocessing of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear in Scotland faces significant infrastructural challenges. While many facilities in the UK are reprocessing the target polymers, currently there seems to be limited uptake for reprocessing materials domestically, resulting in indefinite storage, landfill or incineration being the predominant method of disposal for harbours and ports, aquaculture companies, and local authorities.

While some intermediate processing infrastructure does exist across the UK, such as in the Southwest of England, the geographic distance from Scotland and currently low volumes limits accessibility.

The lack of suitable reprocessing infrastructure for certain materials further restricts disposal options, often leaving landfill or incineration as the only choices.

These challenges underscore the need for localized intermediate processing infrastructure and specialised reprocessors to make sustainable disposal options more accessible to stakeholders looking to dispose of EOL gear and increase domestic reprocessing in Scotland.

3.4.6. Current state of the plastic market

At the time of writing, low market prices for virgin plastic material are reducing the demand for recycled products, creating a challenging economic landscape for recycling businesses, as highlighted by the interviewed plastic reprocessors. Competing with the prices of virgin plastics, recyclers are finding that some material streams are not economically viable for them to reprocess, in many cases, this includes fishing gear.

Generally, EOL fishing and aquaculture gear is not a consistent waste material to work with. The material can be contaminated as well as deteriorated by the natural environment, and each piece of gear may be affected differently. As a result of this, the properties of the end-product can vary in structural strength and aesthetic qualities, resulting in its downcycling to items, including construction material or planters. The poor quality of outputs makes the waste stream less desirable for reprocessors, who usually strive to produce material that will be easy to sell and attractive to the customer, aiming to develop high-quality products.

With no incentive to buy reprocessed material, which in many cases is more expensive than virgin material, reprocessors are finding it challenging to sell high-quality outputs to customers.

In Europe, despite having access to a network of European fishing ports, one reprocessor interviewed explain that they were operating at a fraction of their maximum capacity due the higher costs of their high-quality recycled pellets competing with virgin polymers and the absence of incentives to use recycled material in products.^[75]

This implies that selling EOL gear-derived products may be considerably harder than usual, with stakeholders noting that businesses using EOL gear outputs tend to include the narrative of the materials origin and its connection to conserving the marine environment in their marketing to increase its sale price. Increasing the domestic reprocessing of gear may therefore require the implementation of policies or initiatives to increase demand for reprocessed material, which may in turn create demand for reprocessed EOL fishing and aquaculture gear.

3.5. Reprocessing case studies

Three case studies were developed to highlight real world examples of opportunities and success factors to increasing domestic reprocessing of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear.

The first, Dekmar, is a Scottish specialist start-up that has developed intermediate processing techniques specifically for EOL fishing and aquaculture gear. It aims to establish a commercially viable, vertically integrated system from collecting waste material through to selling value-added products.

The second, Plastic Technology Services (PTS), is an established plastics reprocessing facility in Scotland. Without changing its existing infrastructure, it has run successful trials of reprocessing EOL gear through collaboration with a partner who supplies processed material and buys back the outputs.

The final, and only international case study is Sotenäs. This highlights the potential of public-private collaboration to develop infrastructure and foster innovation to address EOL fishing and aquaculture waste.

3.5.1. Dekmar: Developing new, dedicated infrastructure

3.5.1.1. Overview

Dekmar is a Fraserburgh-based net reprocessing start-up which received a £700,965 grant from the 2024-25 Marine Fund Scotland.^[76] The facility has been testing methods to reprocess fishing and aquaculture nets and ropes and has scaled up its operations over the last two years.

In 2024-2025, Dekmar accepted 20 tonnes of fishing gear and 180 tonnes of aquaculture gear. It used this to experiment with dismantling practices and test how gear could be reprocessed and manufactured into new products.^[77] However, commercially, the gear was predominantly baled and exported for reprocessing. The company’s ambition is to expand its in-house pre-processing, reprocessing and manufacturing of new products.

At the time of research, Dekmar was waiting to expand into larger premises, and for new specialist shredding and extruding machinery to be delivered. This would enable the start-up to reprocess gear on site, at a much greater scale, with a planned maximum capacity of 500 TPA. The new machinery was expected to shred at least a tonne per hour and extrude at 600 kilograms per hour.^[78]

3.5.1.2. Overcoming supply challenges

Though Dekmar has ambitions to scale its business, a key constraint is supply: “It’s challenging to get [the fishing industry] to take the time to release the nets from storage and load trucks to get them to us. This curtails our tonnage; we could be doing three times as much.”^[79]

Dekmar’s supply network is based on the owner's pre-existing relationships from working in the fishing industry. Dekmar keeps down costs for delivery of gear by organising collections through backloads (filling vehicles on return journeys, when they would otherwise be empty). While this works well on the mainland, ferry fees for off-island transport are impacted by the weight of the vehicle and so incur a higher cost for loaded return journeys.

3.5.1.3. Making pre-processing viable

As a start-up focusing solely on EOL fishing and aquaculture gear Dekmar has been able to invest in net and rope dismantling methods. In an interview Dekmar said, “We know of others who have tried to dismantle nets and given up after 150 hours, but we have done it in about 30 to 40 hours… We’ve developed an efficient system, but it’s still a huge amount of work. … Our problem for expansion and increased tonnage is not going to be the machinery; it will be the separation and dismantling hours.”^[80]

Labour time and costs could be decreased if nets were designed for dismantling. For example, machine-stitched nylon through ropes is laborious to unpick, whereas hand-stitched nets can be just as strong and easier to separate. Some gear types and components can be too complex, and therefore expensive, to dismantle and reprocess according to Dekmar, such as lead ropes and some components of trawl nets. The dismantling capabilities, efficiency and cost are therefore closely connected with design choices. Dekmar has been in talks with some gear producers about designing for easier dismantling, but not all are willing to engage.

While Dekmar has used some of its grant funding to explore gear dismantling techniques, it has also had to invest research and development (R&D) time at its own risk and expense. To encourage others to innovate and scale up pre-processing methods, more external support or incentives would be helpful.

On a small scale, Dekmar has seen fisheries in Scrabster taking part in the early stages of dismantling trawl nets. Their motivation is to avoid high skip costs, as well as creating roles for former fishermen who can no longer work at sea. However, this practice is not known to happen elsewhere and there are significant challenges to scaling it up without financial incentives to address the labour costs involved. At present, it relies largely on good will and family networks rather than strong, sustainable commercial incentives.

3.5.1.4. Developing end markets

The price competitiveness of pre-processing and reprocessing outputs is challenging for start-ups such as Dekmar. Their outputs compete against virgin materials and easier-to-recycle secondary materials. Dekmar aims to combat this through vertical integration that will allow it to capture more value from the end products. By undertaking its own injection moulding in house, it can create products with a range of values which they plan to sell direct to market, thus retaining a greater profit margin. Dekmar aims to focus on higher value end products, only selling pellets where there is a surplus, avoiding the need to compete with cheaper virgin material.

Dekmar is in the early stages of reprocessing EOL fishing and aquaculture gear in Scotland but illustrates an opportunity to scale up reprocessing capacity in Scotland, and to retain more of the value from these materials within local economies. However, it has taken significant risks to develop this business model and remains constrained by limited collection infrastructure, dismantling challenges, non-circular gear design, and weak markets for outputs.

3.5.2. PTS: Integrating EOL gear into existing infrastructure

3.5.2.1. Overview

PTS has been active in the UK plastics recycling sector for over 30 years, specialising in post-industrial plastics. Since 1996, the company has operated from a 2.5-acre facility in Dumfries and has an annual processing capacity exceeding 12,000 tonnes.^[81]

PTS specialises in reprocessing PE and PP and has the technical capacity to accept EOL fishing and aquaculture gear. However, until recently it had not accepted this material as it lacked the infrastructure or spare labour to undertake the intermediate processing required. It had not seen a strong reason to take on the commercial risk of experimenting with an inherently challenging feedstock.

3.5.2.2. Creating a blueprint for pre-processing

In collaboration with a company in England that makes products from fishing gear, PTS has recently undertaken a trial to reprocess approximately 40 tonnes of EOL gear.^[82]

Unlike Dekmar, who focused solely on fishing and aquaculture gear from the start, PTS leveraged its existing infrastructure and expertise in more general plastic reprocessing to support a specialist partner’s value chain for fishing gear reprocessing.

PTS worked with the partner to establish a blueprint that set out what the EOL gear material needed to look like to be reprocessed into a high-quality output using PTS’ existing machinery. The partner collected the EOL fishing gear and undertook specialised sorting activities. An agreed quantity of the pre-processed material was then sent to PTS for reprocessing. The material was further shredded, to reduce its size, through PTS’ large-scale shredders.

3.5.2.3. Trialling a commercially viable model

The trial aimed to produce an end product that was traceable. This meant that the EOL fishing gear was not mixed with the normal feedstock. PTS’ partner relies on buying back reprocessed plastics which are 100 per cent sourced from EOL fishing gear, to increase the marketability of the end products they manufacture. Having a guaranteed buyer for the output material reduced the commercial risk for PTS.

This business model was not without its challenges. Small amounts of contamination still present in the pre-processed material caused two gear boxes in PTS’ shredders to break, with a replacement value of over £10,000.^[83] Throughput dropped significantly when reprocessing EOL gear, and the machinery required a thorough clean down after use which further increased PTS’ costs. With each of their extruders valued at over £1m, this trial still presented significant risk to PTS.

PTS’ trial aimed to produce a pellet made out of 100% EOL fishing gear. Mixing the material with regular feedstock could have helped to alleviate some of the challenges experienced. However, in this case the strong traceability was essential to PTS’ partner, to ensure the marketability of their end products.

Currently, PTS does not receive any EOL fishing or aquaculture gear from Scottish sources. No partner has come forward in Scotland wishing to undertake the intermediate processing and receive back the output material for manufacturing. However, with up to 2,000 tonnes per annum of spare reprocessing capacity, PTS is actively seeking suitable feedstock. Provided that Scottish-derived EOL gear meets the required level of intermediate processing, there is potential to scale up operations significantly. PTS has indicated a willingness to expand its capacity further in response to increased demand.^[84]

PTS’ trial demonstrated that, with appropriate pre-processing and secure end markets, EOL fishing gear could be compounded into usable pellets using existing infrastructure.^[85] However, their experience also demonstrated the unique challenges and commercial risks associated with reprocessing fishing gear.

3.5.2.4. Developing end markets

A commonality of PTS’ trial with Dekmar’s business model is that in order to make intermediate processing economically viable, the company undertaking it (PTS’ partner) also captured the downstream value of reprocessed materials, taking back the pellets to manufacture and sell higher value-added products. In both cases, this helped to subsidise the expensive pre-processing stage. However, it is not yet clear whether the partnership model used by PTS is economically sustainable beyond trials.

3.5.3. Sotenäs: Multi-stakeholder approach to reprocessing

3.5.3.1. Overview

The Sotenäs Marine Recycling Centre (SMRC), situated on Sweden’s west coast, collects, dismantles, sorts, and reprocesses marine waste, including discarded fishing gear. The centre was established in 2018 by the municipality of Sotenäs with the aim of putting the circular economy into action.^[86] In 2024, the facility accepted 318 tonnes of marine waste including fishing and aquaculture material. As well as EOL fishing and aquaculture gear direct from industry, this quantity also included abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear and gear collected as litter through beach cleaning activities.^[87] While this is a significant quantity, it is unlikely to represent a high percentage of annual EOL gear arising in Sweden.

3.5.3.2. Establishing a vision

The SMRC was established and operates under Sotenäs Symbioscentrum, a municipal initiative that encourages different industries to work together to reduce waste and reuse resources. The centre is managed by a team of project and innovation leads, supported by a steering group that includes individuals from the local government, universities, and the private sector. Its founding vision was to support the whole value chain for fishing gear to become more circular.^[88]

To combat the build-up of EOL fishing gear, in 2020 the centre launched ‘Fiskereturen’, a national collection system for commercial fishing gear across Sweden. This offered free-of-charge collections and is a joint venture between and funded by Sotenäs Municipality, the Fisherman’s Association Norden, Båtskroten Boat Scarp Service, and Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation.^[89]

3.5.3.3. De-risking innovation through public-private partnership

Sotenäs Municipality was heavily involved in the establishment of the SMRC. It initially supported the centre through the provision of funding for employees as well as buildings and equipment, including boats.^[90] The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management has provided vital funding from its inception. The centre also received external funding from several EU programmes looking to support plastic fishing gear recycling. These included Clean Coastline and Testbed for a Cleaner Sea. These sources of public funding allowed the SMRC to kick-start operations with the goal to make it a commercially viable entity. To be fully commercially viable, SMRC seeks to sell recovered marine plastics to innovative, sustainable and high-profile companies interested in incorporating marine plastics into their products. This is proving to be a challenge for SMRC, due to competing with cheap virgin plastics.^[91]

A collaborative approach between local government, private sector and academia has been key to the success of the SMRC. For example, the centre relies on the knowledge of the fishing industry and fishing gear suppliers on the composition of marine waste. Their insights allow for efficient sorting of materials that end up at the site and provide valuable input into their reuse and recycling potential.^[92]

3.5.3.4. The cost of running the enterprise

The costs to run the SMRC are high. There are four primary sources of cost or revenue: the collection of the material, the transportation of material between collection points and the municipal recycling centre, the pre-processing, and the revenues from the sale of the sorted material, material recycling and energy recovery.^[93]

The single largest expense to SMRC is the sorting and pre-processing of the fishing gear. This cost is estimated to be SEK 24,000 per tonne of sorted material (£1,900 as of September 2025). This accounts for almost 88 per cent of the total cost from collection up to the point where material is either sold for recycling or sent for disposal through energy recovery.^[94]

3.5.3.5. Developing end markets

To encourage the use of marine-derived secondary plastics and facilitate innovation, the SMRC operates Testbed Ocean Waste (TOW). This small-scale initiative allows companies to experiment and test their business ideas. The centre provides specialist equipment, expertise and experience to support businesses to identify suitable polymers, create prototypes, and optimise products, before they take the next step in scaling up production and distribution.

The companies that have made use of TOW range from start-ups to global organisations creating products ranging from furniture and apparel to automotive components.^[95]

The SMRC illustrates a more collaborative and vision-oriented approach to encouraging fishing gear recycling. Compared to the Scottish case studies above, businesses operating in Sotenäs have benefitted from a range of additional forms of support, from access to premises and equipment for trials, to expert advice. SMRC is currently reliant on its external funding and due to the high costs of its pre-processing activities and the challenges of competing with virgin plastic, its yet to reach its goal of being a fully commercially viable. Given the difficulty of cost-effective pre-processing and the challenge of finding viable end markets, this does, however, offer an attractive model that de-risks private sector innovation.