Pilot project: removal of marine litter from Europe s four regional seas. Regional Workshop Report Warsaw, Poland, 5-7 November 2014

Transcription

1 Pilot project: removal of marine litter from Europe s four regional seas Regional Workshop Report Warsaw, Poland, 5-7 November 2014 November 2014

2 2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Day one Introduction: to the workshop and to the MARELITT project The problem of DFG in the Baltic Sea region DFG activities already undertaken in the 3 countries Introduction to the MARELITT Baltic project and presentation of project activities Project stakeholders Financing Day Two Next steps The problem of DFG in the Baltic Sea region Addressing the DFG problem Introduction to MARELITT Baltic Day Three Participants The project s benefits and results Nonoperational gear Additional host organisations Past and ongoing DFG activities Scientific institutions Financing Project team Stakeholder consultations Conclusions and actions Actions Annex 1: Workshop agenda Annex 2: List of participants

3 3 1 Introduction The regional workshop took place on 5, 6 and 7 November, 2014, in Warsaw. Part 1 of the workshop, i.e. the first 1.5 days, targeted organisations and individuals that are likely to participate in, or have a direct impact on, the MARELITT Baltic project. Part 2 of the workshop, i.e. the afternoon of the second day, targeted a wider group of stakeholders, including policy makers and potential project sponsors. Part 3, on the third day, was an internal meeting during which the three organisations that are initiating MARELITT Baltic, and a member of the MARELITT project team, gathered to discuss the results of the first two days and agree on the way forward for the initiation of MARELITT Baltic. The overall objective of the regional workshop was to support the set-up of MARELITT Baltic, which is being conceived by three host organisations that have decided to set-up a project consortium to develop MARELITT Baltic: 1. Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy, Estonia; 2. Simrishamn municipality as a part of KIMO Baltic; 3. WWF Poland. The workshop was led by Ewa Milewska of WWF Poland, with the support of Wim Van Breusegem of the MARELITT project team. The workshop provided the host organisations with the opportunity to present the project and to discuss it with project stakeholders. The primary objectives of the workshop are two-fold: 1. To further develop the business case for the project, by: o presenting the draft business case to potential project participants; o allowing potential project participants to discuss, clarify and resolve any outstanding issues for the set-up and the practical implementation of the project. One of the issues that the workshop would confirm, is the roles and responsibilities of each partner in the project. These discussions will assist in finalising the business case for the project. 2. To gain support for the project from policy-makers and potential project sponsors. While the focus of the workshop was on the set-up and practical implementation of the project, a secondary objective of the workshop was to raise awareness and understanding of the issue of derelict fishing gear. To this end, not only policy-makers and potential project sponsors, but also a wide group of stakeholders, e.g. such as certain authorities, politicians, industries or environmental NGOs, were invited to Part 2, i.e. the final sessions of the workshop (see the agenda). The fact that a wide range of stakeholders were represented at the workshop including fishermen, divers, national and local authorities, environmental NGOs, gear manufacturers, had definitely contributed to the success of the workshop. The structure of this report follows day one and two of the workshop. Day one was organised for discussion with the project participant and direct stakeholders; whereas day two aimed to pre inform the interested organisations and potential sponsors (such as regional organisations, politician etc) and offer them a good impression of understanding. The discussion on day one was necessary, prior to welcoming the wider stakeholders, in order to present them with an understanding of MARELITT Baltic in a convincing manner. This set up explains why in some cases two presentations by the same

4 4 speaker. Day three was an informal day to discuss the project progress, of which the main conclusions are covered in this report. 2 Day one MARELITT was presented to all participants of the regional workshop, and an overview of the existing situation was given, with respect to the: problem of derelict fishing gear (DFG) in the Baltic Sea Region; activities that have already been undertaken by each of the 3 host organisations in the 3 countries, Poland, Estonia and Sweden; draft business case, as developed by the host organisations, with the support of the MARELITT team, at the time of the workshop. The planned project activities and the necessary budget were presented, and, subsequently, to make it a successful project, the additional stakeholders that should participate in MARELITT Baltic were also discussed. Day One proved crucial to host organisations by deepening their understanding of how MARELITT Baltic should be tailored in order to reduce the impact of DFG in the Baltic Sea Region, and also provided the opportunity to harmonise their understanding of each of the 3 host organisations. There was ample opportunity for all participants to raise questions and discuss each of the presentations. The discussions were facilitated by both Ewa Milewska of WWF Poland and Wim Van Breusegem of the MARELITT project team. 2.1 Introduction: to the workshop and to the MARELITT project Wim Van Breusegem, of the MARELITT project team, welcomed all participants and asked all of them to briefly introduce themselves. He discussed in detail, all of the workshop objectives and the programme that was, subsequently tailored to meet those objectives. Most of the participants were already familiar with the MARELITT project, but nevertheless, the short presentation on the project proved to be useful to set its context. Wim Van Breusegem briefly presented the various activities that the MARELITT team had already undertaken, and that had led to the development of the draft business case and the draft toolkit on DFG retrieval. He also gave an overview of: the results of MARELITT so far, related to the inventories of marine litter retention and DFG retrieval projects that were prepared for each of Europe s four regional seas; the description and evaluation of those projects; how the intelligence gained from this evaluation was used in the development of the draft business case and the draft toolkits for marine litter retention projects and DFG retrieval. 2.2 The problem of DFG in the Baltic Sea region Marek Szulc of the Maritime University in Sczecin (Poland), gave an extensive overview of the DFG problem and the activities that had already been undertaken to soften the impact. He was fully involved in the 2 DFG retrieval pilot projects that were undertaken by WWF Poland and was therefore well placed to present this overview.

5 5 He pointed out that abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) are nets that are ensnared on hooks or boulders of which there are many in the Baltic, lost anchors, lost cargo, ship wrecks (mostly), and even aircraft, oil rigs and end-of-life vehicles. When fishing gear is towed behind the vessel, the lower part remains in contact with the seabed all the time, and collects everything. When the gear contacts with a boulder or a wreck, the main body of the net can be torn, and the fishermen can lose the entire gear. Ship wrecks, from the World Wars I and II, are a significant problem in the Baltic. Wrecks may also be ships that sank due to adverse weather conditions. There are still a huge number of unidentified ship wrecks in the Baltic the location of which, could be determined using screening devices and information from divers and fishermen. National inventories of wrecks exist in Finland and Poland where, in 1990, a special working group (WG) was established to prepare an inventory for Poland. Until 2003, the WG was not operational, due to the lack of funding. HELCOM set up a working group at the end of October 2014 the first meeting of which will be held on November 2015 in Szczecin. The working group will deal with ship wrecks, lost cargo, hazardous waste and chemical weapons. Wrecks can be used as indicators in reducing the problem, i.e. if under MARELITT Baltic, a wreck is cleaned and does not attract new nets, then fishermen will lose less nets. As for the material of which fishing gear (FG) is made, until the 1960s, natural fibres were used for fishing gear, but then these were replaced with synthetic fibers. Natural fibers degrade (biodegradable), but synthetic fibers (PET, polyamide, polypropylene etc.) do not decompose by bacteria, and retain their properties for a long time (non-biodegradable). Comparative economic advantages of synthetic over natural fibres include durability, resistance to being torn and low weight. By contrast, natural fibre for fishing gear needed to be more durable, and had to be treated, i.e. tarred and treated with special bacteria, which meant more time and money spent on its maintenance. However, from an environmental perspective, natural fibres are preferred, given the fate of synthetic nets that remain in the marine environment. Fibres from cotton, sisal, and linen, are still being used but not often. Nets of animal origin fibres are also used, but not in the Baltic. In the past, bottom trawls were built from sisal. Fishermen did not have mechanical equipment on board and had to retrieve these heavy nets manually which was hard labour. As for the types of fishing gear used in the Baltic Sea, bottom trawls have been used for a long time in Polish fisheries. But then a shift took place, towards the end of the 1940s, to a Danish invention traps. In the 1980s, fishermen then shifted to bottom trawling. Passive nets, in particular gill nets, are anchored and the fish are caught in the textile nets by their gill flaps. They are set during the spring, when the herring migration approaches the coast. Gill nets are also used in deeper waters to catch cod popular in the Bay of Gdansk. Fishermen drop a marker to trace back the gill net and when they retrieve it, they pull out the marker first. Gill nets can be damaged by commercial ships or in gear conflicts between trawling fishermen and the nets then become DFG often, the ship owner cannot trace back the owner of the gill net. Fishing navigation methods have improved greatly. There are different methods to determine position. Magnetic compasses were only routinely used after World War II. Bottom trawlers tow their net for

6 6 hours and then pull it up. If they are lucky, and the nets have not hit a wreck the entire trawl can be retrieved, but many times, trawls are damaged. Therefore, a map was created to show where the hooks are. However, the maps can still be wrong because the methods to determine position are not yet developed and precise, i.e. snagging on the same hook twice can occur the majority of these wrecks have several layers of nets of different size and type snagged upon them. Poor navigation capacities are another cause of DFG. Radar was introduced in the 70s, followed by GPS, which were, originally, not very precise. Meanwhile, using existing GPS systems, fishermen can successfully avoid most hooks. Furthermore, the environmental impact of wrecks is high, i.e. fuel spills including subsequent corrosion of fuel tanks, ghost fishing, and the presence of hazardous materials, e.g. ammunition and toxic gas. The overview of Marek Szulc focussed on Poland, but during the group discussion following his presentation his remarks were complemented with comments from participants from the other two countries. There was common agreement that not yet everything is known on the problem, but that there is sufficient information to undertake immediate action through projects like MARELITT Baltic. Several participants pointed out that the problem of lost or abandoned fishing gear reduces every year and that DFG was more of a problem when there were no fishing quota limits. Better navigation techniques allow more precise location of lost fishing gear and its subsequent retrieval. Better fishing techniques and fishing quotas have reduced DFG, i.e. the extent of the problem, since fisherman do not wants to lose his expensive trawl nets and make more effort to fish effectively. For example, if fishermen lose contact with their fishing gear, because the lines are cut after snagging on a hook, they will try to retrieve the trawling gear by using the latest tools that provide them with exact locations. An understanding of the Baltic region, and of the specifics of the three countries covered by MARELITT Baltic, is necessary to tailor project activities, i.e. they are effective and efficient, and this session clearly showed that the three host organisations have this understanding. 2.3 DFG activities already undertaken in the 3 countries. Representatives of each of the three host organisations provided a brief overview of the DFG activities already undertaken in their countries. WWF Poland has been active for two years in Polish and Lithuanian waters within the framework of the Collecting ghost nets in the Baltic Sea - a project financed by the Baltic Sea 2020 Foundation, in the framework of the pilot project carried out in Poland (2011) and the Collecting ghost nets in the Baltic Sea project carried out in Poland and Lithuania (2012). 28 tonnes of DFG were retrieved from Polish and Lithuanian territorial waters by five fishing vessels over 82 days at sea, and by cleaning up 10 shipwrecks. Under the WWF Poland pilot project 50% of trawl nets were retrieved from wrecks and the seabed. DFG is a common type of marine litter that washes up on shores and is a big problem in shallow waters. The WWF estimates the amount of DFG in the Baltic Sea at 800 tonnes. The WWF, however, does not have adequate data on the ghost catch rate of these nets, i.e. whether or not the nets snagged on the wrecks catch more fish than nets on the sea bottom. However, it is most likely that nets on wrecks catch more fish simply because of the natural behavior of fish.

7 7 All of the retrieved DFG was sent to the landfill since the WWF tried and failed to identify a company in Poland, or in the Baltic region, that could recycle the DFG. Although, one company proposed to turn DFG into fuel using pyrolysis, this proved too expensive. Poland does have has recycling facilities, but recycling DFG does not yet seem to be profitable since the volume of DFG retrieved by individual countries was too small to spark the interest of recyclers. Recycling requires regular supplies of materials of a given quality. Recycling itself is not a technical problem. One of the causes of DFG is the conflict, in certain areas, between trawlers and gill netters. There are, however, clean trawling areas too because DFG is collected by some trawlers during their routine fishing operations. On the basis of the outcomes of the WWF DFG projects, it can be concluded that the amount of nets deposited in the Baltic Sea is considerable and their impact on commercial fish species in the Baltic Sea is substantial from the biological and economical point of view. Sweden has long experience working with the ghost net issues, among other initiatives, e.g. the FANTARED project in the 1990 s. The Swedish Board of Fisheries conducted ghost net dragging research from 2002 to KIMO Baltic Sea, in cooperation with Keep Sweden Tidy, conducted a small-scale ghost net project with dragging in 2012, in two areas in the Bay of Hanö and outside the island of Gotland. Simrishamn municipality currently runs a national project, initiated by KIMO Baltic Sea, focusing on ghost nets and DFG in Sweden. This project will end in June Keep Sweden Tidy engaged a diving company to clean a number of shipwrecks in the summer of Three types of fishing areas can be distinguished: large areas with limited fishing activity: where the problem of DFG is small except for nets hooked on wrecks; conflict areas: are typical gill nets areas where trawlers drag their nets and use gill nets; typical trawling areas: where most of the nets are cleaned up during regular fishing activity. It is necessary to clean wrecks to reduce ghost fishing and to preserve these wrecks as part of the national heritage. In addition, if small-scale fisheries leave the sector, then retrieval will be more difficult and this important data source of information on the location of DFG will be lost. KEST, Estonia, has carried out marine litter assessments in ten key areas on the Estonian Baltic Sea coast. The litter found on the shores has been counted and mapped using a uniform system. Local mapping and clean-up teams have helped KEST with this data collection. The depth of the Estonian water is about m with many ship wrecks most of which are covered in nets. Under MARELITT Baltic, KEST will work together with the environmental inspectorate. The inspectorate has the necessary vessels, but lacks a budget and the manpower, and therefore they are interested to cooperate with KEST. In Estonia, fishermen cannot retrieve DFG without having an inspector on board because leaving fishing gear behind, or not marking it, is a breach of the law. KEST also interviewed many fishermen regarding the location of wrecks and together with the Estonian Maritime Museum have mapped the location of 121 wrecks and supplemented knowledge with documentation on the ship wrecks. The design and construction of the modern port reception facilities, i.e. waste handling facilities in small harbours, has been one of the most important areas of action for KEST since its founding in These facilities have been used by the local fishermen who deposit the litter that is gathered in

8 8 the fishermen's nets as part of their fishing activities. The fishermen also deposit old and/or retrieved nets in these facilities. The Estonian Environmental Inspectorate has retrieved DFG in the three largest inland lakes of Estonia, i.e. Peipsi, Võrtsjärv and Lämmijärv, over a 6-day period. The amount of retrieved DFG was several tonnes mostly gill nets and very few traps. They keep a record of the number of nets retrieved. The Estonian Environmental Investment Centre has financed these retrieval activities. The experience gained from these activities, can also be used in MARELITT Baltic. The Estonian Environmental Inspectorate has approached KEST with a proposal to carry out a joint DFG retrieval project in the Estonian part of the Baltic Sea. During the group discussion that followed the presentations, the routine retrieval of DFG by fishermen, during their regular fishing activities, was discussed at length. According to some participants, trawlers could clean areas during their routine fishing activities, but when they are hooked on a DFG, they will cut it loose and dump it in the sea. Some took the view that fishermen could fish and retrieve DFG in parallel, i.e. if a fisherman is fishing in an area in which there is a hot spot of DFG, they could drag and land it. This would be a very efficient manner of DFG retrieval, i.e. avoiding the costs of, e.g. fuel and staff time, compared to dedicated retrieval trips. Fishermen need to be convinced to drag the DFG on board and land it. According to the WWF Ghost project coordinator, fishermen that participated in the project, continue to land DFG even after the project has ended. It is a matter of raising the awareness of fishermen. One participant pointed out that a fisherman may be penalised for having a net on board that he is not supposed to have, i.e. a net with a smaller mesh size than needed for the fish that he is allowed to catch. In the East Baltic, fishermen are not allowed to use a cod net in the summer, but such a net may be on board since it was retrieved from the sea. Another participant recommended that fishermen record the retrieval in their log books, and show it to the inspectors during inspection. Another participant added that the fishing gear retrieved from the sea is easily distinguished from the ship s regular fishing gear. The advantage of DFG retrieval for a fisherman is that next time he will not run into it or snag his fishing gear. Other participants, including fishermen, pointed at the hygienic and sanitary aspects, considering that DFG is considered to be hazardous waste. To the contrary, one fisherman argued, however, that combining fishing and retrieval of DFG is not actually a desirable practice and should not be promoted. He stated that a fisherman should contribute to reducing the impact of DFG by marking the place, rather than pulling it out because one never knows what will come up, including rubbish. Participants also agreed that it is also a question of space on the boat, i.e. a smaller vessel does not have enough space to put a retrieved net onboard and separate from the catch.

9 9 2.4 Introduction to the MARELITT Baltic project and presentation of project activities Piotr Predki of WWF Poland, who is leading the development of the business case, presented in two of the sessions the MARELIT Baltic project and the activities that the consortium of the three host organisations intends to undertake if the necessary project funding would be secured. He outlined how the business case was developed, starting with the selection of the three host organisations identified by the MARELITT team: WWF Poland; Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy (KEST) and the Municipality of Shimrishamn (Sweden; supported by KIMO Baltic). At a workshop in Brussels, organised by the MARELITT project team, all three organisations decided to work together to develop and implement a regional Baltic project. Subsequently, the three organisations met with the fishermen to discuss the project s concept. This ultimately resulted in the draft business case which was up for discussion at this regional workshop. Under the project, activities are primarily to be carried out in the three countries, but other countries may join the project during its implementation. Piotr explained why the three organisations had chosen to team up. It was deemed a necessity, as the problem of DFG is inherently a regional problem. In addition, regional cooperation opens up opportunities for regional funding, e.g. through the Baltic Sea Region Programme, as well as national funding, e.g. through the EMFF. Furthermore, Baltic Sea region countries already cooperate in solving various environmental issues, through various structures, such as HELCOM. He presented the various measures that would be studied and undertaken through MARELITT Baltic distinguishing between measures that would: prevent: avoid the occurrence of DFG in the environment; mitigate: reduce the impact of DFG in the environment; cure: remove DFG from the open sea and from ship-wrecks. Monitoring and raising awareness are cross-cutting activities that will be undertaken under MARELITT Baltic, and that support the other above mentioned activities. He also highlighted the expected results of MARELITT Baltic: an increased understanding of the DFG problem in the Baltic region; guidance on DFG retrieval; data on actual DFG retrieved; development of a DFG recycling sector, i.e. DFG actually recycled and a set of prevention, mitigation and remedial measures proposed to the relevant stakeholders. One issue was discussed among the participants during the group discussion following the presentations, was the scope of MARELITT with respect to two particular issues: recreational fishing gear and non-operational fishing gear. Poland has no problem with nets being left behind by recreational fishermen, but Sweden and Estonia with high numbers of recreational fishermen often leave their nets behind, thus contributing greatly to some areas DFG. Each Swede may use two gill nets; each Estonian is allowed to use 1 net. In Poland this is not applicable. Another problem with recreational fishing is the angling tourism which has grown substantially and many vessel owners have converted their boats for tourism. These artificial baits snag and lift up the ghost nets into the water column, thereby increasing the ghost net surface area and trapping even more fish. However, it was decided that this DFG could not be covered by MARELITT Baltic.

10 10 Another issue is the vast amounts of non-operational fishing gear which are being stored by fishermen who have left the business. There is more unused fishing gear stored in warehouses than there is lost at sea this may be due to: fishermen leave the profession; fishing restrictions, i.e. fishing gear with certain mesh sizes may not be lawfully used anymore. Unused professional gear will, in some cases, be used by hobby fishermen in rivers, lakes and along the coast. It was concluded that it should be further considered whether or not non-operational gear and its collection could not be covered by MARELIT Baltic given the vast quantities of unused gear, new recycling options may be opened. There are different types of fishing gear, each with their own impact on the ecosystem. FAO compared different fishing gear for their selectivity and ecological impact, and used a scoring system. For some fishing gear, the risk of becoming DFG is greater. To allow prioritisation of the DFG that should be retrieved, an assessment of its impact is required. Under MARELITT Baltic, a methodology must be developed to identify the locations of DFG to prioritise DFG for retrieval, and identify the wrecks needing to be cleaned, using a number of criteria including environmental criteria. If the retrieval focuses on cleaning wrecks in areas where fishermen do not operate, this would mean that they would be sustainably cleaned since they would not attract new nets. Some participants argued for the prioritisation of Baltic Sea protected areas (defined by Helcom): National parks/natura 2000 sites. The wrecks in these areas should be cleaned first. At the same time, this particular challenge was recognised: cleaning wrecks in Natura 2000 areas legally requires an EIA for each wreck, which would extend the processing time waiting for the EIA, before actual retrieval operations can be started. Generally, areas in which no fishing is allowed do not have to be investigated since there will not be many nets. However, there are areas that used to be fished in the past, but are now closed and those areas may have many and hazardous lost nets that would need retrieval. Hot spots for DFG are relatively easily identified in Poland only a few types of gear are used, i.e. mainly trawl nets and gill nets. In areas with a rocky bottom, gill nets are used, and in areas with a flat seabed, trawlers are active. In addition, both types of fishing gear are used in certain fishing grounds depending on the season, e.g. the Pomeranian Bay (Poland). In Sweden, which has more slopes and rocky areas, it is also relatively easy to determine hot spots. The timing of retrieval operations is also important, from an environmental perspective. For example, in Estonia, there are many spawning places from April until mid-june, in which all activities that disturb the seabed are not recommended. The methodology for locating hot spots is based on information regarding which nets are used, and where, since all fishermen are obliged to keep track of their fishing efforts for different types of gear. Maps of fishing grounds and sea bed morphology, with each fishing ground s fishing quota, and consultation with the fishermen, can assist in locating actual and potential hot spots. Once the hot spots have been identified, they should be prioritised using a set of criteria, including environmental criteria. It was concluded, by the participants, that it is relatively easy to define hot spots, but under MARELITT Baltic a methodology must be further developed to locate and prioritise hot spots including wrecks, and to determine the guidelines for DFG retrieval and cleaning wrecks. Much

11 11 knowledge and experience is already available and good starting points are the two Polish reports prepared by WWF Poland. The practical organisation of DFG retrieval operations will differ between the three countries, as each country is specific in terms of the fishing gear mostly used, seabed morphology, etc. The equipment needed to retrieve gear will depend on seabed morphology, thus, a small boat can retrieve gill nets close to the shore, but the retrieval of gill and trawl nets in deeper waters requires a bigger vessel that should, ideally, be equipped with lifts to remove the nets from the seabed. DFG retrieval challenges include the fact that some wrecks are permanently surrounded by fishermen and thus gear, because these wrecks attract a lot of fish often bigger fish. Fishermen that target wrecks buy cheaper nets that they can afford to lose. MARELITT Baltic will need an agreement with fisheries administrators and fishermen s organisations that fishing gear should be removed beforehand from the areas in which wrecks will be cleaned, and explain that if it is cleaned, they will have better catches in the future, and less damage to nets. Recreational fishermen also target wrecks and will require a different approach. In Estonia hobby fishermen often use cheap Chinese gill nets and, professional fishermen in Estonia or Poland may also use them. These nets contribute to the DFG problem, as they do not last long and relatively quickly become more DFG. Better enforcement of fishing regulations is needed regarding, e.g. fishing gear manufacture, reflective materials on poles and permanent reliable markers. Abandoned nets can continue to catch fish for decades because the fish are trapped by the gills in the nets. Thus, the mesh size determines the species of fish caught this way, i.e. small fish, such as herring, can pass through the mesh of most nets. This is termed as ghost fishing. One participant pointed out that the catch capacity of a lost net is about 20 % of its regular fishing capacity and, after 2 years, it goes down to 6 %. Under MARELITT Baltic, a plan for the treatment of retrieved DFG will have to be developed. To date, if there are no recycling options, retrieved DFG may have to be stored, instead of burning or landfilling them. The issues of recycling will have to be researched more participants meanwhile suggested a Slovenian company that recycles DFG and a Danish company that is paying fishermen for the DFG that they land. The company also separates plastics and metals for recycling. 2.5 Project stakeholders Camilla Witt of the municipality of Simrisham gave a brief overview of the stakeholders that should be involved, either directly or indirectly, in MARELITT Baltic, to make it a successful project. She distinguished at least five types of (potential) project stakeholders: 1. project participants (project manager and team members); 2. suppliers (providing equipment, goods or services for a fee); 3. project sponsors (financial or in-kind contribution); 4. policy-makers (project sponsoring and/or policy measures); 5. non-governmental organisations (environmental NGOs, trade associations). Following her presentation, in the facilitated group discussion, specific project stakeholders were discussed to include fishermen, divers, port authorities, recycling companies, scientific institutions and gear manufacturers. Port authorities were considered to be important stakeholders, e.g. they could encourage the collection of DFG, and install port reception containers for DFG that are currently

12 12 non-existent. A collection system of DFG containers should also be established in ports, for transportation to subsequent recycling facilities. The establishment of port reception facilities should be resolved in cooperation with the local authorities. The more difficult issue may be determining who will transfer the collected DFG from the port to the treatment facilities, and who will cover the cost of transport and treatment, since some ports are municipal, some are privatised. Fishermen are legally obliged to report the loss of fishing gear, but this is often not reported because they are not aware of this obligation. In addition, the reporting system should be improved to make it easier for fishermen to report their losses. Reporting should switch from paper to electronic since each boat has a computer on board, and often the internet, thus making electronic reporting possible and more spontaneous. The non-reporting of lost fishing gear may also be due to the concern that another fishermen will pick up the lost net, or that they will be penalised for the loss. Fishermen need to be informed and encouraged to report their losses the loss of fishing gear is not penalised, but it is a financial loss for which a fisherman should be able to buy insurance, although, to date, there are no companies offering insurance for lost fishing gear. Furthermore, a reporting system that includes recreational divers and recreational fishermen could be a further source of information, although they should not be involved in the actual retrieval of DFG. 2.6 Financing Camilla Witt presented, in two sessions, the main cost items of the project while recognising that the project consortium did not yet have sufficient understanding of the actual costs of the project. She emphasised that the cost of a project varies greatly depending on the size of the project, i.e. the number of staff involved, the number of days at sea, the size of project area, the equipment used, e.g. fishing vessels and diving gear, and the communication activities undertaken. She distinguished three types of costs: capital equipment; operating expenses and set-up costs. The most important cost items are likely to be the project manager, the actual retrieval of DFG and the environmentally-sound treatment of the DFG that is collected. While in terms of effort and budget, retrieval is more important, overall, prevention and mitigation measures are equally important under MARELITT Baltic. She also presented a strategy to secure short and longer term funding and discussed potential project sponsors, including governmental organisations and private sector organisations. Governmental organisations include the European Commission through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and Interreg Baltic Sea Region, national authorities, and local authorities, e.g. several fishing ports are operated by local municipalities. Private companies could be project suppliers that provide in-kind contributions, such as gear manufacturers, or waste management companies. 3 Day Two While the focus of Day One of the workshop was on the set-up and practical implementation of MARELITT Baltic, involving discussions among direct stakeholders, the second day of the workshop focussed on policy-makers and potential project sponsors. The idea was to provide them with a quick understanding of the DFG problem, of how MARELITT Baltic could help reduce the impact of DFG, and to convince them to support MARELITT Baltic. At the end of the day, the way forward for the further development of MARELITT Baltic was presented and agreed upon.

13 13 The first sessions of the day were held with only the direct stakeholders, and included presentations and group discussions on the risks and challenges for MARELITT Baltic, and the next steps to be taken to move MARELITT Baltic forward. 3.1 Next steps The planned session on project risks and challenges, and on the measures to address them, was integrated with the session on the next steps that are necessary to move MARELITT Baltic forward. The participants also discussed that MARELITT Baltic could support the development of the fisheries sector into a sustainable sector. Incentives should be given to fishermen that fish in a sustainable manner they should be better paid for their catch. Fishermen realise that, to sustain their business, they should operate in a more sustainable manner the awareness of this in younger fishermen is high. Under the project, it should be explained to fishermen how they can benefit from DFG retrieval, e.g. their reputation, which overall is not very favourable, will improve. Good examples of responsible fisheries should be included in the MARELITT Baltic project. This discussion was necessary, prior to welcoming the wider stakeholders, in order to present them with an understanding of MARELITT Baltic in a convincing manner. 3.2 The problem of DFG in the Baltic Sea region The second part of the workshop was opened with a presentation by Marek Szulc, in which he recapped his earlier presentation on the problem of DFG in the Baltic for the benefit for participants joining on the second day. 3.3 Addressing the DFG problem Jaroslaw Walesa, member of the European Parliament, Vice Chair of the Committee on Fisheries of the European Parliament could not be present in Warsaw, but had presented a video message in which he emphasised the extent of the problem of DFG in the Baltic Sea and expressing his full support for the MARELITT Baltic project. Subsequently, Wim Van Breusegem discussed, in great detail, the issues of DFG identifying Derelict Fishing Gear (DFG); the extent of the DFG problem; existing DFG policies; causes of DFG: direct and indirect; impact of DFG: environmental, health & safety, economic; measures to address DFG: prevention, mitigation, remediation. Marta Ruiz of HELCOM presented the draft Action Plan on Marine Litter, including DFG, which is under development. From the presentation, it became clear that MARELITT Baltic fits perfectly well into this action plan and the HELCOM secretariat will fully support the project. Recently, Piotr Predki delivered a presentation on MARELITT to the Baltic Advisory Council. The MARELITT Baltic consortium will ask for a letter of its support to the project. While MARELITT

14 14 Baltic is not targeting the public at large, it would be good to have their support to help attract funding for the project. 3.4 Introduction to MARELITT Baltic Piotr Predki presented the project to all participants, and made a strong case for them to support the project. He complemented the presentation that he had delivered on the first day, with the outcomes of the discussions afterwards. He also pointed at the added-value of MARELITT Baltic, which is a project that reunites all stakeholders, including environmentalists and fishermen, in a single project, allowing them to actively contribute to improving the quality of the marine environment. He pointed at the fact that the project adopts a regional approach. His presentation was followed by interventions from several participants, who argued why MARELITT Baltic deserves funding, and asked what actions the project consortium could undertake to get this funding. 4 Day Three 4.1 Participants Representatives of the three host organisations, i.e. Piotr Predki and Magdalena Zadrag (WWF Poland), Camilla Witt and Vesa Tschernij (Simrishamn municipality), and Marek Press (Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy), gathered in the WWF Poland offices during Day Three of the workshop to digest and discuss the results of the workshop and, in particular, to agree upon the way forward for the three host organisations. 4.2 The project s benefits and results All host organisations should consider which organisations and individuals can support the MARELITT Baltic project application for funding. It was agreed that the host organisations should aim to communicate, in a clear manner, about the logic of the MARELITT Baltic project and its benefits and results, to the wider stakeholders in order to ensure their support and commitment: The objective of the project is to reduce the impact of DFG on the Baltic Sea, encompassing more than just the retrieval of DFG, i.e. the DFG impacts will be further researched to study how DFG can be reduced through a range of preventive, mitigating and remedial measures. The organisations should communicate the potential environmental, health and safety and economic benefits of the project including the benefits to small-scale fisheries. It is an opportunity to gather the fishing sector and environmental organisations in a single project that benefits everyone although providing benefits should not be emphasised as specific project objective. The results of the project will have at least three different components: prevention, mitigation and remediation. o Prevention measures: 1. System for reporting the location of DFG by fishermen; 2. Assessment of current technical fishing rules and DFG; 3. Unused gear: a. description of system for collection, re-use and recycling b. establishment of a web-based exchange platform for second hand gear

15 15 o Mitigation: 1. Change from plastic to natural materials; 2. Use thicker ropes on the fleet of gill nets, i.e. rope that keeps the net fleet together, making it easier to retrieve the DFG if lost. 3. For small vessels, the weight of the gear is very important: when they are dry, they are light; if they are wet, they are heavy and the risk is that the boats become unstable. Heavier gear may also present a risk, and will also be more expensive. Remediation: 1. Methodology for determining and prioritising retrieval locations; 2. Guidance on how to conduct wreck cleaning and DFG retrieval; 3. DFG retrieved and properly disposed of preferably recycled; 4. Monitoring, the information from which, can be used to underpin policy measures. What will be done with the information, i.e. with each piece of information? The project should only collect information that will be used to underpin policy measures, i.e. information on the quantities and types of DFG, location, age of the nets, catch rate, types of fish and other marine life, origin (country). The age and origin of the nets can be determined by the fishermen. The MARELITT Baltic project provides added value, not least because it may inspire organisations in the other three regional seas to undertake action. The project could thus be replicated in other countries and regions. 4.3 Nonoperational gear One of the issues that came up during the first two days of the workshop was the issue of the vast amounts of non-operational gear. Under MARELITT Baltic, a collection and recycling system for this gear could be studied and potentially established. The system could include a web-based system for the exchange of unused gear, listing contact details of the owners, type and amount of gear, and mesh size, to develop a second hand market. This would have environmental and economic benefits, i.e. fishermen could buy cheaper, but good nets. Nets which cannot be re-used anymore should be recycled. A calculation method, to estimate the amounts of non-operational gear that is stored, could be developed these estimates could help to underpin discussions with recycling companies on the recycling potential of non-operational gear. 4.4 Additional host organisations It was discussed whether MARELITT Baltic would benefit from adding organisations from other countries to the consortium. It was agreed that the three existing organisations have proved to work well together and have the necessary expertise and knowledge. Nevertheless, if any organisations would demonstrate a strong will to join and endorse the MARELITT Baltic project, as currently conceived, a geographical extension could be considered. Potential candidates to date, may include the regional authorities from äland in Finland and WWF Germany, who will be contacted, and if they show a strong interest to join, it will be discussed how they can contribute and can formalise their future involvement, e.g. a letter of intent that specifies their support and how they will contribute once financed.

16 Past and ongoing DFG activities The host organisations must describe past and ongoing DFG activities and how they may contribute to the further development and initiation of MARELIT Baltic. As such, KEST has obtained funding recently for a pilot project on DFG. This pilot project can serve as a preparation for MARELITT Baltic. KEST also refers to the SHIPWARE project, under which an inventory of ship wrecks is prepared for Sweden and Estonia. It was agreed that all three host organisations will prepare a brief description of past, ongoing and future projects, and specify how they contribute to MARELITT Baltic. Various projects have already been described in the business case. 4.6 Scientific institutions It was not entirely clear, during the first two days of the workshop, what role scientific institutions could play, but it was agreed that their role could be three-fold. They could: 1. supply readily-available information; 2. be consulted; 3. use the information that will be gathered by the project. 4.7 Financing WWF Poland is going to further develop its initial overview of sources of financing, based on the information sent by the MARELITT project team. The draft project concept note will be developed further, prior to being submitted to the secretariat of the Interreg Baltic Regional Sea programme, for a first opinion on eligibility. The workshop and the submission of the MARELITT final report should create momentum for the MARELITT Baltic project, thus potentially facilitating funding opportunities. 4.8 Project team The regional project managers will be from WWF Poland, but there will also be national project managers. They should each be supported by a communication manager and an administrator. Expertise in the following areas may have to be hired on an as required basis: legal: contractual, public law; fisheries regulations; waste management and marine environment for each participating port, there should be a DFG coordinator. 4.9 Stakeholder consultations It will be important to consult stakeholders on a regular and structured basis. The host organisations should think about mechanisms for consultation with the stakeholders existing structures may be used, such as the Polish Baltic Sea Fisheries Round Table, which includes, e.g. the fishing sector, and scientists who gather four times per year. New, project-specific structures may also have to be established, such as a steering committee, per country, with representatives from various stakeholders, such as:

17 17 port authorities; relevant ministries and/or agencies: o Fisheries inspectorates; o Environmental ministries and agencies; fishermen and representative organisations; waste management companies; scientists; NGOs; gear manufacturers. Stakeholder consultation meetings that should be held, could include: a National Steering Committee and one regional meeting per year; participation in external events and meetings; one kick-off event; one big event/year (to be planned during summer retrieval activities); several meetings in Brussels. 5 Conclusions and actions In concluding the workshop, participants agreed that DFG is a serious global and EU marine environmental problem, also causing ecological, health and safety and economic impacts in the Baltic Sea Region. They emphasised the complexity of the problem, with a wide diversity of causes and impacts, and identified the stakeholders that should take measures or change their behaviour. The participants recognised that the high participation rate of stakeholders in the regional workshop was a good sign. The participants pointed out that the workshop had confirmed that there is still a lack of precise knowledge on some aspects of DFG, but at the same time, agreed that these should not be taken as a reason for inaction. A wide range of measures can be undertaken immediately at relatively low cost, and it was agreed that MARELITT Baltic is a project that could investigate and develop these measures not just aimed at retrieval of DFG, but definitely also at prevention. The participants considered that, a discussion with the Baltic Advisory Council, could be held on how the fisheries regulations should be tweaked or revised to reduce the problem of DFG. Participants also agreed that MARELITT Baltic should be linked to existing policies, such as the EC Communication Towards a circular economy, and to the HELCOM marine litter action plan which is under development. A major issue repeatedly under discussion was the recycling of retrieved DFG. According to the representative of gear manufacturers, there may be opportunities a view that was endorsed by several participants. The regional workshop, and the follow-up meeting, had the following outcomes: A draft business case, to be further developed by the three host organisations on the basis of the results of the workshop;

18 18 An increased understanding of the issue of DFG among policy-makers and potential project sponsors and the three host organisations; An increased willingness of policy-makers and potential project sponsors to support the MARELITT Baltic project. 5.1 Actions Who Action Due 1. All, i.e. three host organisations, with the support of the MARELITT Team 2. All, but led by WWF Poland Further development of the Business Case for MARELITT Baltic 10/12/2014 Preparation of a project concept note for submission to 2014 Interreg BRSP secretariat 3. All Obtaining a support letter for the project from the Baltic 2014 Sea Advisory Council 4. WWF Poland Overview of sources of financing Simrishamn Development of a method to estimate the amount of 2014 non-operational stored gear.

19 MARELITT BALTIC CONFERENCE AGENDA 5-6 November 2014 Ve ue: Stefa Batory Fou datio, Sapieżyńska a Street, Warsaw, Pola d with simultaneous interpretation in Polish, English and Swedish. PART ONE: THE MARELITT BALTIC PROJECT PROPOSAL: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION Moderator: Ewa Milewska, WWF Poland 5th November 09:00 10:30 Session 1: Introduction 09:00 9:15 Introduction to the workshop: objectives and programme Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT, Brussels 09:15 9:30 Introduction to the MARELITT project Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT, Brussels 9:30 10:00 The problem of Derelict Fishing Gear (DFG) in the Baltic Sea region Marek Szulc, Maritime University, Szczecin, Poland 10:00 10:30 A brief overview of DFG activities already undertaken in 3 countries to reduce its negative impact: Poland Piotr Prędki, WWF Pola d Sweden - Vesa Tschernij, the Municipality of Simrishamn, Sweden Estonia Marek Press, Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy 10:30 10:50 Coffee break 10:50 12:00 Session 2: Introduction to the MARELITT Baltic project 10:50 11:20 Introduction to the MARELITT Baltic project: participants, responsibilities, objectives, results, overview of activities, planning. Piotr Prędki, WWF Pola d 11:20 12:00 Facilitated Discussion 12:00 13:00 Session 3: MARELITT Baltic project participants 12:00 12:20 Types of organisations that should participate in a successful project Camilla Witt, Municipality of Simrishamn 12:20 13:00 Discussion 13:00 14:00 Lunch 14:00 16:00 Session 4: MARELITT Baltic project activities

20 14:00 14:20 Presentation of project activities. Piotr Prędki, WWF Pola d 14:20 16:00 Discussion 16:00 16:20 Coffee break 16:20 17:30 Session 5: Financial aspects 16:20-16:35 Project budget: cost items and costs Camilla Witt, Municipality of Simrishamn 16:35 17:00 The strategy for securing short and longer term project funding Magdale a Zadrąg, WWF Pola d 17:00 17:30 Facilitated discussion 6 th November END OF DAY ONE 09:00 09:10 Introduction to day 2 : programme and objectives Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT, Brussels 09:10 10:00 Session 6: Risks and challenges 09:10 09:30 Potential project risks and challenges and measures to address them. Vesa Tschernij, The Municipality of Simrishamn, Sweden 09:30 10:00 Facilitated discussion - Have all potential risk and challenges been identified? - Are the measures to address the risks and challenges sufficient? 10:00 10:20 Coffee break 10:20 11:00 Session 7: Moving the project forward 10:20-10:35 Next steps necessary to move the project forward Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT, Brussels 10:35 11:00 Facilitated discussion 11:00-11:30 Summary conclusions Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT, Brussels END OF PART ONE OF THE WORKSHOP

21 PART 2: WHY IS THE MARELITT BALTIC PROJECT NEEDED? Moderator: Ewa Milewska, WWF Poland 12:00 13:00 Light lunch 13:00 13:10 Welcome address Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT, Brussels 13:10 13:25 The problem of Derelict Fishing Gear (DFG) in the Baltic Sea region Marek Szulc, Maritime University, Szczecin 13:25 14:00 Addressing the DFG problem: problem statement and potential measures Mr Jarosław Walesa, Me er of the Europea Parlia e t, Vi e-chair of the Committee on Fisheries of the European Parliament Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT Marta Ruiz, Project Coordinator, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission 14:00 14:30 Introduction to the MARELITT Baltic project and its need for support from policy makers and sponsors. Vesa Tschernij, The Municipality of Simrishamn, Sweden 14:30 16:30 Statements from potential co-financers and other types of project stakeholders. 16:30 Summary conclusions of the workshop and next steps Wim Van Breusegem, MARELITT, Brussels

22

23

24

25

26