Stakeholder engagement report: An assessment of potential options for improved management of end-of-life fishing and aquaculture gear

Methodology

To enable engagement with a good representation of the sectors, in a variety of locations, and with a variety of business sizes, it was decided that in-person drop-in events would be the most productive way to conduct this work. We also wanted to gather opinions from gear manufacturers, recycling companies, the waste sector, local authorities, and port authorities.

The list of locations was planned to enable interactions with all parts of the sectors, including harbours with mostly creel fishers to those with large pelagic fleets, and at both island and mainland locations. We also took advice from industry on the most suitable locations.

Throughout September and October 2025 we held events at the following seven harbour locations:

• Stornoway
• Troon
• Lerwick
• Mallaig
• Eyemouth
• Peterhead
• Fraserburgh

All events were run from 9am to the evening, mostly until 9pm, to allow the greatest opportunity for all to engage. Venues were chosen to be close to harbours, or to be easily accessible to those we wished to engage with, such as Fishermen’s Missions, council offices, or centrally located hotels. The events were promoted through a variety of routes, including: industry representative bodies; Regional Inshore Fisheries Groups; Fishermen’s Missions; harbour offices; local authorities; Scottish Government Fishery Offices; Scottish Government social media channels; and through local media.

The same format was used at each event. Information panels were used to set out the broad overview of each of the six possible options, and discussions were had with each attendee about the merits or drawbacks of each. The attendees were invited to vote for the three options they thought would work best and that industries would engage with, and also to note down any positive comments or any potential barriers.

To enable as many from the sectors to be able to have their say, an online questionnaire was available asking the same questions and allowing participants to vote and leave comments. The survey was run via Microsoft Forms, and it was anonymous. This was distributed via the same contact groups as listed above, as well as to any participants of the in-person events that had expressed interest for their organisations.

The following six options were presented at the events. These were an outline of how each option could operate. Each option would require further details to be explored with industry if any were to be fully developed into an on-the-ground workable process.

1. A gear collection and processing regional facility: The facility would need to be in a suitable location, allowing ease of access from several harbours. It would require a large footprint of land, with warehouse space, equipment, and electricity and water utilities. The gear would need to be transported to the facility by the owner. Staff would be employed to clean, dry, dismantle, and sort gear into component parts ready for onward processing and recycling.

2. Research and development funding for gear makers and designers: This option would provide funding to improve design of gear and choice of materials. For example, to increase the durability and lifespan of gear, to enable components to be more easily replaced (to extend the lifespan of the gear) or to be more easily recycled, or for gear to require fewer component parts thus reducing the processing burden at end-of-life.

3. A waste management certification scheme: This option would be for harbours, vessels, and fishing businesses. It would enable them to demonstrate good practice and responsible waste management, and receive an accreditation to make their customers aware that they view this as an important aspect of their business. This could be a stand-alone scheme, or incorporated into an existing mechanism or accreditation scheme. Any scheme would have to include audits, using inspections and / or disposal records.

4. Gear collection and processing facilities at harbours: A harbour would need sufficient space to enable a lockable facility and storage on-site. The gear would need to be brought to the facility by the owner. Staff would be employed to process gear to an extent, but perhaps not as fully as in option 1. This option could run in conjunction with option 1, for example, gear could be partially dismantled and non-plastic components removed, ready for further processing and recycling at a regional facility.

5. Localised solutions for gear collection and recycling targets: This option would be specific to individual harbours, and would depend on the facilities and opportunities available locally. This would potentially be most suitable for smaller harbours in more remote locations and without access to wider recycling facilities. For example, a harbour with one main type of gear could dismantle this as far as was possible, and a local recycling initiative could use the materials it was able to process. It may be that not all the components would be usable, but such a partnership could reduce the volume of plastic gear going to landfill in that locality.

6. A deposit return scheme for aquaculture gear: A business would pay a deposit for gear when initially purchased. When replacement gear is purchased, the end-of-life gear would be returned to the manufacturer or distributer at the same time, otherwise the deposit would be lost. The deposit would be refundable when the business was closing or decommissioning a site and was not purchasing further replacement gear. This would ensure gear is not left in the marine environment at the point of end-of-life.