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

Results

In total, we engaged with 97 individuals. 86 of these attended the in-person events, and 11 responded to the online questionnaire. These included representatives from: the fishing industry (both trawling and creel fisheries); the aquaculture industry; gear manufacturers; fishing companies agents; port authorities and harbour staff; local authority staff; recycling companies; and the waste sector.

From all the votes collected, the option with the largest percentage support (60%) was the regional hub facility for collecting and processing gear. Similarly, the option for facilities at harbours for collecting and processing gear also drew support, with 18%. Both of these were presented as options which would have staff to clean and dismantle gear, ready for recycling, which many of the attendees thought would be viable and could provide local employment. Some attendees mentioned the distance and cost of transporting gear to a regional facility would have to be considered, i.e. if it was further away than a landfill facility. The positive aspect of ease of access to a facility at a harbourside was highlighted. For both options, the possibility of local employment was seen as a positive aspect.

“We’ve a lot of seasonal work, so this could help provide work at quieter times.” Stornoway council staff member

“We always bring our gear in. We’ve always recycled the metal, and we’ll take off floats we can use again, but we’ve no time to be picking apart an old net. Once you’re landed the boys want home.” Fisher, Fraserburgh

Research and development for gear makers and designers drew some interest, at 12%. One attendee commented that there could be a conflict between stopping predators getting to the catch and the desire for ease of recycling gear at end-of-life. Another had the opinion that improvements in design, although a long-term process, could only be a good thing.

A waste management certification scheme, to demonstrate good practice, drew a small number of votes, at 5%. One attendee noted this might only be relevant for large companies, whereas another saw it as an opportunity to incentivise other systems once such a scheme was operating successfully. This options was seen as a potential benefit for fishers working in harbours where they did not feel they were well supported by the harbour authorities as they were competing with more profitable marine sectors.

“There’s not a lot of help here for us, we just do the best we can. Maybe a scheme or something would help but there’s not many boats left here now.” Fisher, Troon

The localised solutions for individual harbours also gained 5% of the votes. This was generally seen to be of interest to those in more remote locations further away from the likelihood of other possible options. The fact that in some locations little fishing occurred in the winter was highlighted at one event, and there could be potential for fishers to participate in local initiatives or for local employment opportunities.

A deposit return option for aquaculture did not gain any votes as the regional processing facilities were seen by some attendees as a solution for aquaculture gear as well as fishing gear.

Table 1 presents the percentage support for each of the six options, as gathered through the in-person events and online survey. Annex A outlines the broad themes that came from the opinion-gathering carried out through the events and survey, reflecting both supportive views and potential barriers to success.