LWPP Decsion Note

docx

School

Memorial University of Newfoundland *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2600

Subject

Information Systems

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CaptainRose8902

Date: October 2023 BRIEFING NOTE FOR THE MINISTER Combating the Damage of Ghost Gear in Our Oceans Decision Sought Key Issue  What can be done by the Government of Canada to reverse or prevent further damage on marine wildlife and economic prosperity caused by ghost gear in our oceans? Background  Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) accounts for 10% of plastic population in oceans, at average rate of 1 ton per minute (The Hindu, 2020). Ghost fishing gear is the deadliest form of marine plastic; bets and lines have been entangling everything from small fish and crabs to endangered turtles, seabirds, and whales (Laville, 2019). Ghost fishing gear also damages important marine environments such as coral reefs (Nicolas, 2020).  The environment is a shared resource whose preservation or destructiobn affects individual productivity and economic returns (Scheld et al., 2016). The economic expenses are separate from the negative ecological repercussions that might result from the continued capture of animals by derelict gear. Even though fishing mortality is low, derelict gear costs money in terms of gear efficiency (Scheld et al., 2016).  Media and scholars are aware of ALDFG and consider it a global problem affecting marine life and fishing economy (Auld, 2021). Stakeholders call for action to regain economic prosperity and acknowledge significant geographical differences in management strategies among countries that cause misunderstandings or a lack of consensus and conflict (Yang, 2022).  The GGGI published the Best Practice Framework for the Management of Fishing Gear as a practical document aimed at avoiding, minimizing, and resolving fishing gear loss (Baziuk, 2022). Nevertheless, according to a poll of 34 ghost gear stakeholders (16 government actors) from 24 different countries, measures for minimizing gear loss listed in the GGGI’s Best Practice Framework are not being followed, and 67% of respondents believe that existing regulation and law is inadequate (Broderick et al., 2020).  The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment introduced a federal strategy on zero plastic waste (Phase 1), to implement a circular economy approach to plastics, including action to reduce plastic pollution in marine ecosystems. The Canada Wide Action Plan on Zero Plastic Waste (Phase 2) includes specific commitments to reduce plastic waster and pollution generated by marine activities (Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans 2023).  Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) created the Canadian Ghost Gear Program, which includes the Sustainable Fisheries Solutions and Retrieval Support Contribution Program (Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans 2023). Reporting lost or stolen equipment became mandatory (Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans 2023). Page 1 of 4 Prepared by: Abigail Hounsell

 To date, the Ghost Gear Fund has supported 49 projects under four pillar program pillars: 1) ghost gear retrieval; 2) responsible disposal; 3) uptake and piloting of technology to prevent gear loss; and 4) international leadership (Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans 2023). During 2020 and 2021, the Ghost Gear Program has supported the creation of more than 300 jobs that contribute to Canada’s blue economy (Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans 2023).  Several experts, media sources, business enterprises, and government organizations have openly recognized ghost gear in the waters as a cause of extinction and damage to marine wildlife, as well as economic development. Many new projects have developed from acknowledgement, but many have failed in profitability. Without additional rapid involvement, ghost gear will continue to be destructive to marine life, fishing industries and thus the economic prosperity of our country. Options OPTION 1: Prevention of ALDFG through mandatory marking  The first policy option focuses on ALDFG prevention measures. To do this a policy must be enacted to warrant the marking of fishing gear. This can be accomplished by registering unique identification numbers or other marking on fishing gear with a central authority or database.  Mandatory marking results in a more traceable trail of fishing gear, which reduces loss as fishermen are held more accountable for their gear and are less likely to intentionally discard gear into the ocean. This may also aid in the reduction of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.  The use of mandatory labelling on fishing gear can help improve fishery management. Required labelling of fishing gear has the potential to improve data collection, boost transparency, decrease by-catch, and improve traceability.  Legislative and program implications include the need for legal frameworks and regulations to support the policy, which includes the creation of a centralized database to record and track markings, the imposition of penalties for noncompliance, and the establishment of government agencies to monitor and enforce the policy. The policy’s effectiveness is determined by its enforcement and compliance. For the government to achieve desired results with this policy, more methodical development is required then monetary investment.  Required marking can increase the cost of fishing operations by requiring the purchase and application of markings, as well as the costs of keeping records and registering the marks. Small-scale fishermen may experience a greater financial strain due to regulatory costs than larger scale businesses.  An incentive for complying with policy is to formally recognize these fishermen as sustainable or responsible when they comply with the necessary marking policy. This provides fishermen with the opportunity to access new markets that require certification in sustainable practice.  The timing of policy implementation is also an essential consideration. A phase-in period should be considered to allow fishermen to acclimatize to new regulations and obtain the required equipment. Page 2 of 4 Prepared by: Abigail Hounsell

OPTION 2: Remediation of ALDFG through collection and recycling programs  The second policy option of uses on ALDFG remedial methods. Laws must be enacted to encourage the collection and recycling of fishing gear. This may be accomplished by introducing both extended producer responsibility (EPR) as well as deposit and refund systems.  Developing ALDFG collection and recycling operations may necessitate new legislation, policies, and regulations. To require firms to pay for and operate recycling initiatives, EPR systems are to be adopted. Administrative processes to manage fees and refunds will be required for deposit and refund systems.  EPR encourages manufacturers to develop goods that are easier to manage at the end of their useful lives and to accept responsibility for product disposal or recycling. While it is more expensive for large organizations, it is required for sustainable practices and the longevity of their firm in the fishing sector.  Deposit and refund methods entail adding a nominal fee to the purchase of a product, which is refunded when it is returned. In the instance of ALDFG, a deposit and reimbursement system for fishing gear may be implemented, giving fishermen an incentive to return worn gear for recycling.  Gathering and recycling ALDFG can be difficult to transport due to its dispersed form and the requirement to transport it from rural regions to recycling facilities. Several types of fishing gear may be difficult to recycle due to their complicated composition or a lack of available technologies. This strategy gives governments the opportunity to invest in research and development to generate new technologies and materials that are more easily recyclable, durable, and sustainable. Technological innovation can help to reduce the costs and environmental impact of recycling, as well as foster the establishment of a circular economy for fishing gear.  Collecting and recycling programmers necessitate financing for the creation of infrastructure, equipment, and personnel. Collaboration with NGOs, local governments, and the fishing sector can help cut operational expenses. Moreover, implementing the EPR principle can shift the financial burden from governments to producers.  Recycling projects can minimize marine waste while encouraging sustainable fishing methods. Several factors influence the success of collection and recycling programs, including fishermen’s knowledge and cooperation, the availability of recycling facilities, and the demand for recycled items.  To tailor to each community’s needs, the federal government can create national laws, rules, and incentives and allow for regional and local governments to tailor collection and recycling programs to their specific requirements and features as approved federally. Recommendation  The first option presented is the optimal choice of policy. Attempts at remediation will fail if prevention is not addressed. When it comes to balancing public interests, impact, cost effectiveness, fairness, and balancing both short- and long-term considerations, option number one’s prevention of ALDFG through mandatory marking is most effective.  To balance public interest, multiple trade-offs are used, including providing incentives where it is costly to mark gear and sustainable certification that can be awarded, allowing fishers to access markets that require certification. Ghost gear has a significant Page 3 of 4 Prepared by: Abigail Hounsell

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

impact on marine ecosystems and therefore the economic sustainability of the industry, so investment for fishers is a trade-off for a more sustainable industry.  The policy includes mechanisms for enforcing the regulations and ensuring that they are obeyed. The policy also explicitly states the government's duty for implementation and evaluation in terms of providing appropriate databases and incentives. Accountability should not be a problem.  This strategy could reduce illegal fishing, promote good fishing practices, reduce fishing gear losses, and provide other advantages to the ocean environment and economic industries. Long-term results for all stakeholders are deemed positive.  Rather than investing enormous sums of money on retrieval while gear is still being lost and thrown, costs are lowered by investing in preventing it from entering the ocean in the first place. This is one of the least expensive methods of combating ALDFG, and it is a long-term approach.  This policy seeks to remediate marine animals whose habitat has been unjustly destroyed. The policy also provides justice for those in the fishery who follow laws and regulations, as the eradication of illicit fishing tactics will be prohibited. Those who fish legitimately will profit from a level playing field and reduced amounts of overfishing, meaning a more prosperous resource.  The implementation of this policy should not be immediate. Short-term, there will be minor bumps and struggles, but they will not hinder the ability of the policy to flourish in the long term. Minister’s Decision Do you agree? Yes No I would like to receive further briefing. Signature: ____________________ Date: ________________ Page 4 of 4 Prepared by: Abigail Hounsell

WORKS CITED Auld, A. “Scourge of the sea: How 'ghost' fishing gear captures species at risk and takes big bite out of fisheries' bottom line”. Dalhousie News (2021). Retrieved January 25, 2023, from https://www.dal.ca/news/2021/08/03/scourge-of-the-sea--how--ghost--fishing-gearcaptures- species-at.html Baziuk, Joel. “GGGI Annual Report 2020.” Global Ghost Gear Initiative. Global Ghost Gear Initiative, (2021). https://www.ghostgear.org/news/gggi-annual-report-2020 Broderick, Perry et al. “Ghost Gear Legislation Analysis”. Report prepared for Global Ghost Gear Initiative, Ocean Outcomes, and WWF. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature, (2020). https://www.ghostgear.org/news/2021/4/23/awardees-of-oceanconservancys- gggi-inaugural-small-grants-program-announced Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. “Canada's Ghost Gear Fund delivering results for Cleaner Oceans”. canada.ca , (2021). Retrieved January 25, 2023, from https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2021/12/canadas-ghost-gear-funddelivering- results-for-cleaner-oceans.html Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. “Government of Canada.” Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Communications Branch. / Gouvernement du Canada, January 10, 2023. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/ management-gestion/ghostgear-equipementfantome/index-eng.html Laville, Sandra. “Dumped Fishing Gear Is Biggest Plastic Polluter in Ocean, Finds Report.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, (2019). https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-fishing-gear-is-biggest-plastic-polluter-in-ocean-findsreport Nicolas, A. (2020, October 20). Ghost fishing gear. WWF. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/ghost-fishinggear#:~: text=Ghost%20fishing%20gear%20is%20the,habitats%20such%20as%20coral %20reefs Scheld, A. M., D. M. Bilkovic, and K. J. Havens. “The Dilemma of Derelict Gear.” Scientific Reports 6, no. 1 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19671 The Hindu. Impact of ‘Ghost’ Fishing Gears on Ocean Wildlife. YouTube, (2020). https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aBEhZi_e2U Yang, C.-M. “Stakeholders’ perspectives for taking action to prevent abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear in gillnet fisheries”, Taiwan. Sustainability, 15(1), 318. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010318 Prepared by: [Insert Your Name Here]

LWPP Decsion Note

Related Documents