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

4. Conclusions and opportunities for Scottish Government

Across Scotland’s fisheries and aquaculture industries, an estimated 4,268 tonnes of gear made of PE, HDPE and PP comes to the end of its useful life annually (as shown in Table 5). There is also a backlog of materials in storage. There is no established route for circular waste management at scale. Reprocessing rates are highest for the hard plastics generated from aquaculture, contributing to an estimated 31 per cent recycling rate for Scottish EOL gear overall. However, around 80 per cent of rope and netting ends up in landfill, with most of the remaining quantity being incinerated or stored indefinitely. Where ropes and netting are diverted for reprocessing, the vast majority are currently sent outside of Scotland.

Of 11 known plastics reprocessing facilities accepting the most common fishing and aquaculture gear polymers (PE, HDPE, and PP) within Scotland, three were identified as currently accepting EOL gear and two further facilities might accept EOL gear in the future. In 2024-25, at least 1,040 tonnes of EOL fishing and aquaculture gear were reprocessed into a usable material or product in Scotland. Around 1,000 tonnes came from aquaculture, but the facility which processed this is due to cease trading in 2025. The remaining 40 tonnes came from the fishing industry. Despite being reprocessed in Scotland, it was not from Scottish fisheries.

The total known spare capacity of reprocessors in Scotland that could accept material in the future is 12,500 tonnes per annum, which far exceeds the estimated annual quantity of plastic fishing and aquaculture gear waste.

This research has established that the main barriers to scaling up plastic fishing gear recycling in Scotland are not connected to reprocessing capacity. Rather, they relate to the complex intermediate processing required to make EOL gear compatible with other common PE and PP feedstock. This limits a reliable and affordable supply of clean, usable inputs. In a nutshell, Scotland needs to scale up intermediate processing operations, while bringing down associated costs. This requires collaboration across the supply chain, from design for dismantling, to supporting development of new products and demand for the outputs of reprocessing. A package of complementary measures, based around a clearly articulated vision, would have most impact.

The opportunities for consideration by Scottish Government presented below address different aspects of this challenge, from product design to financial viability, and from market dynamics to knowledge-sharing.

4.1. Support circular design

The complexity of intermediate processing depends on the gear design, such as the co-mingling of polymers and the type of stitching used. For example, replacing nylon stitching with PP stitching in PP ropes, or hand stitching nylon for HDPE nets, makes disassembly easier. The simpler it is to separate and sort gear into single polymers, the faster gear can be pre-processed. Design for circularity reduces intermediate processing costs and increases the annual tonnage that a given workforce can process, leading to a more viable economic model and supporting scaling up.

Sometimes a measure introduced in good faith to address a different negative impact of fishing or aquaculture can inadvertently make recycling harder. One such example is the use of leaded rope in creel fishing to reduce entanglement.

Opportunities:

• Encourage implementation of circular design standards that were developed with the European Committee for Standardisation in November 2024^[96] with consideration of regulatory measures.
• Increase R&D funding for improved gear design to promote circularity and recyclability.
• Review guidance and standards aimed at other aspects of sustainable fishing and aquaculture, such as guidance to address creel entanglement, to assess conflicts with fishing and aquaculture gear circularity and seek solutions.
• Facilitating greater collaboration and communication between industry organisations, gear designers, dismantlers and or reprocessors.

4.2. Support basic pre-processing at port

Convenience of disposal is a priority for the fishing industry; most fishers only have time to drop off EOL gear at the harbour. However, the wider fishing community, including harbours and ex-fishers, have the skills to support initial sorting and dismantling. EOL fishing gear in particular was described as having a complex assembly and mix of polymers, making industry knowledge and familiarity with the gear a potential asset.

Opportunities:

• Fund trials where ex-fishers are paid to do basic initial dismantling of nets at ports, in line with the needs of local intermediate processors.
• Introduce requirements or recommendations for harbours and aquaculture sites to provide collection and storage for EOL gear, with basic intermediate processing (e.g. removal of biofoul and baling) conducted for sites that collect a large tonnage.
• Provide public funding for storage facilities to assist with the above measures.

4.3. Support collection and transportation

There is currently not a strong incentive to collect gear for recycling rather than landfill. Infrastructure to collect and store EOL nets from aquaculture is more advanced, whereas the collection of EOL fishing gear is mainly done through informal networks, leading to sporadic supply. According to reprocessors interviewed, the levels of contamination and intermediate processing vary greatly. This has cost implications for the reprocessors, from arranging collections to conducting more pre-processing activities.

Opportunities:

• Develop a national collection and storage network for EOL fishing gear from ports and harbours. This should consider minimum distance requirements to drop-off points, collection frequencies to prevent overflowing stores, and access restrictions to reduce contamination from general waste.

4.4. Support specialist intermediate processing and reprocessing

Reprocessing EOL plastic fishing and aquaculture gear is subject to the challenge of secondary polymers competing against cheap virgin polymers. There are greater economic barriers for EOL gear reprocessors due to the cost of extensive pre-processing and labour-intensive dismantling. The current high energy prices are exacerbating this issue. The research suggested this is a significant barrier for scaling up reprocessing, with one reprocessing facility choosing to cease operations and many avoiding reprocessing the material.

Opportunities:

• Public or public-private funding for development of one or more specialist intermediate processing hubs, to reduce pre-processing costs for reprocessors and encourage innovation.
• Subsidise energy costs for pre-processing and reprocessing EOL fishing and aquaculture gear.

4.5. Support end markets

Reprocessing outputs were described as materials that could be manufactured into new products of a high value (e.g. consumer products) or low value (e.g. construction materials). Stakeholder engagement suggested that business models producing high value products are currently operating at a small scale. These models are unlikely to be able to address the scale of EOL gear alone due to the low tonnage used per product and the material quality/composition of most gear. Lower value products can be produced at a greater scale, but face challenges competing in the market against virgin and easier-to-recycle materials. A diversity of outputs is likely necessary to increase the tonnage reprocessed, and therefore a variety of end-markets need to be stimulated.

Opportunities:

• Facilitate partnerships between reprocessors and businesses, such as supporting
• businesses to test and develop products using recycled EOL gear or encouraging R&D.
• Strengthen incentives for recycled content in public procurement.
• Develop an accreditation scheme for material which is difficult to recycle, including fishing and aquaculture gear, to support consumer interest by transparently communicating the source of the materials.

4.6. Facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing

The current reprocessing landscape is made up of individual sites that want to address marine waste and have developed unique technical processes to do so. In the UK, pre-processing and reprocessing sites specialise in different types of gear, such as HDPE trawl nets, aquaculture nets, and PP ropes. They have developed niche equipment and processes, in isolation from one another. This contrasts with Sotenäs’ highly collaborative approach. There is a risk that new Scottish facilities could spend effort, and take risks, re-inventing the wheel.

Industry collaboration could enable more tonnages to be reprocessed, by identifying clearer material pathways and key capacity gaps for gear and components. Knowledge-sharing across the value chain could ensure that material supply meets reprocessing requirements.

Risks could also be reduced by provision of more regularly updated and reliable data on expected annual quantities and types of gear, and their material composition. This could inform investment in infrastructure at the right scale.

Opportunities:

• Develop a vision for EOL fishing and aquaculture gear reprocessing in Scotland, and blueprint on how to support it, based on stakeholder engagement.
• Support the development of industry networks for knowledge sharing.
• Support development of reliable forecasts of fishing and aquaculture gear and materials, modelling changes over time in gear types and quantities.
• Improve collection of data on fishing and aquaculture gear quantities, in collaboration with SEPA.

4.7. Reflections and potential future research

This research identified reprocessing sites in Scotland that are a) already reprocessing EOL gear, or b) might be able to in the future with the correct support. Of the 11 sites identified, four did not engage in the research, so the total potential future capacity is still unknown. Data gaps remain around the quantities, types and flows of EOL gear in Scotland. Inconsistencies in EWC codes and a lack of descriptions related to component/gear types limited the SEPA data, making it difficult to determine if waste was from fishing or aquaculture industries. This created inconsistencies with the stakeholder engagement reports that most gear was landfilled for the calculations that included all possible results (i.e. in Table 6).

Stakeholders also noted that gear design changes over time, affecting pre-processing requirements. Relying on EOL quantities estimates from Resource Futures’ previous study in 2021 was therefore a limitation of this study. The available data showed that there was ample supply of reprocessing infrastructure in Scotland. However, it remains challenging to quantify the scale and nature of investment needed in intermediate processing infrastructure. This could be addressed through more detailed assessment of current and predicted fishing gear waste arisings.

The research focused on challenges and opportunities for scaling up the reprocessing of rigid plastics, nets, and ropes in Scotland. Creel gear (small and large potters) was identified in the analysis of gear composition (section 3.1.2) as a large source of waste tonnage. However, reprocessing of creel gear was not addressed in this research, as attention was predominantly on nets and ropes. It is important that reprocessing capacity is researched and developed for all commercial fishing and aquaculture gear, including more difficult-to-recycle items and components.

Further research could be done to support responsible EOL management of creel gear, and there could be future disposal risks from introducing more ropes with lead core.