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

Annex A: Broad thematic outcomes reflecting support and potential barriers for each of the six options presented, gathered through the in-person events and online survey

Option presented:

A gear collection and processing regional facility

Broad themes of merits:

General support for a centralised hub where all harbours from a region could have easy access.

Several hubs would be required across the whole country so all regions are covered, including island locations.

Could generate local employment, utilising the existing skills of fishers.

Broad themes of barriers:

The cost of setting up and running such an operation.

Cost of transportation of gear could prevent some participating or would require co-ordination / funding by harbours.

Option presented:

Research and development funding for gear makers and designers

Broad themes of merits:

A positive long-term goal to improve ability to process and recycle end-of-life gear.

Broad themes of barriers:

Could put extra costs onto fishers.

New designs must be as strong and durable as current designs.

Option presented:

A waste management certification scheme for harbours and businesses

Broad themes of merits:

Might be best introduced after other issues such as facilities for recycling have been addressed.

Broad themes of barriers:

Might only be relevant to larger businesses.

Risk that a certification scheme could use money that might be better spent on addressing the issue of improved recycling facilities.

Option presented:

Gear collection and processing facilities at harbours

Broad themes of merits:

Ease of access and removes the need to transport gear e.g. to a regional facility.

Could work in combination with the regional facility option.

Could generate local employment, utilising the existing skills of fishers.

Broad themes of barriers:

The cost of setting up and running such an operation.

Not all harbours would have adequate available space.

Scotland has lots of very small harbours where this may not be a viable option.

This would have to be free to access, no risk of additional costs otherwise people will not use it.

Option presented:

Localised solutions for gear collection and recycling targets, specific to individual harbours

Broad themes of merits:

Expertise on dismantling of gear exists within fishing communities, which could make this option feasible.

Broad themes of barriers:

Possibility that this could only work where these is specific local interest or capacity, and may not be a long-term viable option.

Do not want any increased cost in waste disposal.

Option presented:

A deposit return scheme for aquaculture gear

Broad themes of merits:

Some businesses already return end-of-life gear to manufacturers for storage and potentially pay for this, so this option could be an extension of an existing process.

Broad themes of barriers:

Could lead to higher gear purchase costs for businesses.

The cost of transporting end-of-life gear to suppliers outside the UK.