Thematic analysis

THEME: DESIGN

SYSTEMIC CHANGE: Moving to more sustainable circular practices.

 A standardised Circular Economic Approach and System:  All products require clear definitions (including circular design parameters) for the industry, coupled with a suitable ombudsman, tariffs, incentives and oversight of effective transitioning to improved standards.  The ombudsman should have expert representation from across the whole value chain, time in service and management protocols and objectives for current needs.  This body and its objectives should be reviewed as progress is made and ‘mitigation needs’ are further identified.  Circular Economic Approaches should be designed into products (design for dismantling, design for recycling, design for elongated life).  However, at the individual product level each of these design principles may determine a different or competing design approach.  More data from LCA and MFA is required to determine how a product should be redesigned, identifying the best secondary avenue and attributes of the product in meeting this outcome (e.g., designing for reuse will be different from designing for incineration or recycling).  This should include product/polymer type(s), behaviour of polymer/product, LCA/MFA and system impact.  This assessment is required for existing and new products to determine what improvements are being achieved and how this is improving key objectives for Circular Economic practices, e.g., compare Apples and Pears of the industry and identify best products, services and gaps in the market.  A labelling system is required which identifies the details of the products, its components, and how recycling (or recommended secondary activity) can be achieved.  All products (old and new) should be required by law to have an EPD with this level of analysis. CE criteria must evidence the ‘best route of action for each product’ from cradle to cradle to inform such choices at key decision points across the value chain (R&D, product design and manufacturing, maintenance, collection & Recycle, Reuse, Repurpose (RRR), incineration & End of Life (EOL)).   

 Several short – mid-term opportunities were suggested which may mitigate plastic pollution from current marine sector equipment/gear (See table 1).  

New materials are an unknown quantity for those further down the value chain and may impact their current recycled products, e.g., introduction of bioplastics for dolly ropes on seine nets.  More information is required to investigate how design alteration will affect current performance, life expectancy and recycling practices.  

Time and Pace of Change

 There is a need to coherently understand how much change is required technically, in processes and practices?  In order to do this we need an overview of  

1) What is the problem with the plastic and related product design. 

2) What do we want to solve? 

3) How is this best achieved – e.g., objective 

4) Trade- offs (e.g., CO2 emissions over loss of plastics) 

5) What is the right level to manage eco design  

Table 1: Palmer-Abbs(2023) Changes in service model areas, required actions and timings

RRR & EOL Considerations  

Greater support is required for existing collection systems as these have a proven track record and good results in recycling outcomes.  This could be incentives for business to use these systems more for innovation (e.g., via Innovasjon Norge).  Such incentives could be money back on next purchase, rebates on landfill tax, etc.   

Greater collaboration across the value chain in developing product declaration guides are required to establish a waste hierarchy system for current products.  This should be designed to support decision making for the best routes of each product at the RRR and EOL stages (e.g., again learn from the development and application of BREEAM & LCA).  This must include new material science outputs (biodegradable plastics, new HDPEs, additives, toxicity, etc). 

There is a possibility to use social enterprise (e.g., those out of work and in training) in new business models for the dismantling of more complex gear in Norway.  This could adopt a cooperative model whereby individuals can be shareholders and incentivised to work. These can be based more locally to waste collection, be small working groups, and enable the better transportation of voluminous products by reducing their size prior to transportation.  

Recycled plastic costs more (in NOK) than virgin plastic to make.  Whilst many buyers are interested in the ethos of recycled plastic, the additional cost is a disincentive for them to change their purchasing behaviour.  Where recycling is proven to be the best option for plastics from the sectors, incentives or tax deductions are required to drive purchasing opportunities.  EPDs/certificates are more common from market leaders for recycled materials and should be held up for all industry actors as a ‘way forward'. 

Elongating the life of products is best achieved through appropriate maintenance regimes and the recertification of products.  However, as with all product development CE criteria must evidence the ‘best route of action for each product’ from cradle to cradle to inform such choices.   

Choices & Knowledge Exchange 

Transparency is required in knowledge exchange and across the multi-stakeholder working relationship if the sectors are to move towards more sustainable circular practices.   This includes in-depth information on data, processes, outcomes.    

Industry requires explicit information to make informed choices about recycling choices (mechanical, chemical, recovery).  Labelling was suggested to illustrate origins, uses and secondary choices for products.  The recycle triangle and plastic identification (PET) was seen as too generic.  A full understanding of the EU LCA information (e.g., GHG, energy, transport, toxicity, etc) should be offered with key advisory notes on best practice for cradle-to-cradle routes.  In support f this, consideration should be given to closed loop or more open system recycling options.   Much can be learnt from different industries (construction, automaton, clothes, roads) on the most appropriate secondary product uses.  These decisions should not add to the problem of waste and pollution.  Protocols for these decisions must be based on the aforementioned new sustainable circular economic system and support structures.  

It is recognised that the system change under discussion is an evolutionary process and will require many alterations and interventions.  One possibility for design change is the funding of Eco designers to work with industry – however this must be closely monitored and based in science to avoid ‘greenwashing’.   This point can be addressed in part within the SHIFTPLASTICS project in activities in workshop 3.   However, ongoing training courses, product valuation systems, innovation support systems (incl. tax incentives for EPD development and new designs which are evaluated in the system – as mentioned) are also required to shift the market.  Ensure feedback loops are in place in the system to enable the evolution of the systemic itself and updating of requirements in keeping with the evolving objectives.  

THEME: MATERIALS

Each of the materials in the gear has its purpose and function. To achieve strength or flexibility there is a need to combine several material types.  Gears elasticity and floating ability depends on the composition of the materials, this knowledge comes from earlier experiences and is integrated into new design. However, this practice of combining several materials can be problematic for RRR- purposes. Hence, the quality of materials can be discussed in relation to challenges for recycling. A

Most problematic materials, gear/equipment.

From a circularity perspective several materials and gear have limitations. The major concern is nets and equipment that consist of mixed materials, for example:

Table 2: Table 2: Problematic areas for fishing and aquaculture gear

Ways Forward

There are several solutions to the above indicated issues (recourses, procurement and regulations).First and the most radical suggestion is to ban use of mixed materials. However, it is recognized that it is impossible to substitute all the problematic materials/gear in a short term. The quality of locally produced ropes is easy to control, rather than ropes coming from Asian countries.

Second, support the use of homogenous materials, such as nylon (which can be recycled to econyl) nets or HDPE pipes are easy to recycle. However, another issue with HDPE feeding pipes is their contribution to microplastic, since pellets with food are transported with a use of air. However, using water instead of air in pipes will probably generate less microplastic. So microplastic issues should be studied not only from the perspective of the material composition but also from the perspective of methods used in aquaculture. Another possibility is to use other or homogeneous materials for dollyropes.

Third, decisions on substitution of existing materials should evaluate the EOL (LCA and MFA) and the impact they can have on the recycling aspect of the product e.g., impact on current processes and quality of recyclate production. The design of the new products and equipment, in addition to improving the product performance in its primary role should optimise the secondary product use each item.  This must include the most sustainable route for each product and the optimisation of recycling.  Whilst upcycling, reuse and recycling keep a product in use for as long as possible and is a high priority for circularity, establishing the most sustainable route requires a full LCA to ensure the ‘right decision’ is evidenced.

Finally, the users should demand equipment made of materials that are more suitable for recycling purposes. Fishermen would like to market their products that are caught sustainably with the use of sustainable materials, but they do not want to risk their income if new equipment is not sufficient. A possible outcome is the ability to influence research and development in this field. However, more environmentally friendly equipment and gear can be more expensive.

 Quality control measures

 All products sold on the market should have a data sheet that provides an overview of the material composition.

 In aquaculture, the quality of equipment is strictly regulated. However, if the net, is made of a material that is not recyclable in the first place, then it will still not be recyclable when it is repaired.

As for fishing gear, a challenge comes with the size of the gear. For example, a large fishing seine can be as long as several international football pitches. If during repair the inserted part will be of different material, then it should be dismantled, and the quality should be checked before it can be recycled.

The quality and material composition check are a practice adopted by Nofir. With use of a plastic scanner, Nofir tests the material composition of nets during their dismantling.

General information: key things that may be of importance (RRR and EOL considerations)

1. Importance of MFA and LCA when developing new materials or substituting the old ones.

1. Users demand more environmental-friendly equipment that can be also recycled.

2. It is important to identify the value chain that the recycled plastic can enter and what types of products can be produced. These new products should substitute the production of products that still use virgin oil-based plastic.

2. Post-oil plastics. How do new materials fit the same purposes as oil-based plastics?

3. Plastic/gear production in Norway to ensure better quality control (Selstad produces ropes in Norway). The question is if we can produce plastic in Norway for aquaculture.

4. EU Regulations and Green Deal set many frames for materials and recycling processes. However, there should be more focus on what materials can be used together to increase the possibility to recycle gear and equipment: “design for recycling”.

5. The importance of going beyond technical advances, working long-term for changes in attitudes, values, and narratives.

THEME: GOVERNANCE AND POLICY

Legislative Framework

Acting on – and adhering to – laws and regulation is a key issue and challenge. A legislative framework that takes into account the shared network responsibility for dealing with the issue of plastics, is considered important. This would then be a common ground for a governance ‘motivating’ governance approach, that fosters communication between actors within industries and between industries.  

Defining Concepts 

There is a general need to introduce circularity into various acts and regulations. A more fundamental challenge for legislation, however, is the need to standardise the concepts of bioplastics and circularity, respectively. Furthermore, legislation should address both existing and new materials for fishing- and aquaculture gear. To this end, legislation should both limit plastic use and encourage the use of new materials. Requirements and standards for the amount of recycled materials in new products is an important issue in this respect. 

Governance with knowledge

Laws and regulations should be based on a precautionary principle. But successful governance also requires knowledge-based management and political will. The EU taxonomy is an important (and detailed) backdrop for developing legislation. The taxonomy related to regulating climate change is also an important framework in this respect, when focussing on circularity as a concept. While it is important to regulate collection points for waste, it was pointed out as a challenge that the Extended Producer Responsibility is focussed on waste collection, not recycling. It was pointed out that “kontrollforskriften” is lacking a reference to fisheries and aquaculture industry. 

Governance And Leadership

A governance system should have several concurrent objectives. A main target is to reduce the loss of fishing gear in the ocean, as well as the amount of plastic waste in landfills. To this end, reducing the production of virgin plastics is considered important, as well as promoting gear designs for circularity and longevity. Regulating across the value chain is an important governance aim (taking into account material flow analyses as regards plastic waste collection), although special attention should be given to the design phase and the EOL phase. Furthermore, attention should be directed at harmonizing reporting standards between EU and national regulations.

 Balancing the need for change, and the need for a stable/predictable governance system should be an overall objective.

The opportunities for developing business models (at the strategic level) stems from the fact that value chains are seen as symbiotic, i.e., possibilities for business development is found in the connections between fisheries/aquaculture and other sectors. It is also pointed to that currently, the customers of the aquaculture industry value proper waste handling higher than the industry itself. Herein lies unexplored opportunities for business models.

Culture of Knowledge

 Building a culture for knowledge coordination is seen as prerequisite for good governance, this is, nevertheless, something that’s not easily institutionalised. In terms of practical governance tools, the industry in particular calls for a balance between incentives and sanctions for undesirable practices. Systems of taxation is central to this. Some pointed out that the introduction of Land rent (“grunnrenteskatt”) has led to uncertainty and less focus on research and development. Tax reduction schemes when participating in circular value chains can be documented, is mentioned as one possible approach forward. A general simplification of procedures for participating in incentive/subsidy schemes is called for.

 Subsidising the collection of other actors/companies’ waste would be beneficial, something which underlines the importance of an increased focus on the traceability of lost fishing/aquaculture gear. However, incentives for the storage of waste are also needed. The Port Reception Facility directive would be one area to look at in this respect. Returnable deposit fees connected to port facilities could also be something to consider. More specific demands should also be put on waste companies.

Hopefully, a producer responsibility scheme will cover the costs of recycling fishing gear that is not economically viable today. Reducing the cost of easy to recycle products, while introducing higher fees for non-recyclable products is an option.

THEME: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Knowledge creation and knowledge sharing

In order for actors across the value chain to better fulfil their roles and responsibilities, there is an urgent need for more knowledge about the environmental consequences of different industry practices, and for this knowledge to be made accessible to all actors. At present, even when knowledge exists, it is often ineffectively shared. For example, it can be very difficult for a fisherman to assess and compare the environmental impacts of different products when making purchase decisions. In order to make the information relevant to such decisions accessible, more standardization is needed. If a product is required by law to include standardized indicators of its total environmental impact across the value chain, fishermen can make informed decisions.  Traceability of measurements is also important in order for data to be transparent and trustworthy.

A public body could take an active role in organizing knowledge dissemination across the value chain. Public bodies must also improve their collection of primary data, for example about the origins of the waste they collect.

Actors from academia potentially play a vital role in creating and sharing knowledge.  As observers from outside industry and government, they are in a better position to adopt a holistic view of the value chain than actors focused on their own narrow role within it.  Academic research should focus on holistic solutions and strive to become more practice-oriented.

A lot of tacit knowledge exists in the fishing industry.  For example, many fishery practices are handed down from generation to generation or transmitted verbally among fishermen but not codified or widely shared.  Academics could play a role in gathering and codifying some of this tacit knowledge and make it more accessible.

Coordination and collaboration

There is a need for better coordination and collaboration among all actors in the value chain. Government regulatory agencies often neglect to communicate with one another.  One solution for this could be to set up a new overarching body or mechanism to connect and coordinate the different agencies.  A mentality change in the direction of holistic thinking is also needed among the regulators.

In fact mentality change is needed across the ecosystem:  in public waste companies, in industry, and among fishermen.  Sometimes fishermen lack confidence in waste collection systems on land because of a lack of knowledge or negative experiences in certain harbours; waste companies could actively help to build trust with fishermen by providing them with better information.  Industry actors must adopt a proactive attitude to participating in environmental discussions.

Collaboration between academia and practitioners should be strengthened.  Academics are often distrusted by practitioners and vice versa. The key to building trust is to organise more collaborative projects involving academics and representatives from the fishery and aquaculture sectors.

Incentives and regulation

There is a high willingness in the industry to adopt new, environmentally friendly technologies, but cost is a barrier.  Regulators should encourage adoption of such technologies by providing economic incentives, e.g., tax incentives.  At the same time, industry structure is changing in the direction of more consolidation and more foreign owners.  Remotely based owners may not feel the same obligation to support the local community as local owners have traditionally done; new regulation may be necessary to encourage responsible governance

Incentives are also relevant in public sector institutions. Local monopolies on waste management are a barrier to innovation; regulation should favour more competition.  The “self-cost principle”, which dictates that public waste management companies charge fees that exactly cover their costs, should be modified so as to provide better incentives to control costs and pursue innovation.

Academics should be incentivized to reach out to practitioners and bridge the gap between academia and industry.  For example, university researchers could be required to devote a certain amount of time and resources every semester to collaborative projects with practitioners.

Finally, regulators should keep in mind that pursuing economic growth at any cost is a reckless policy. Regulation aimed at slowing growth in specific sectors, including the fishery and aquaculture sectors, may be necessary for the sake of protecting the environment.

Business innovation

Business innovation has the potential to cut across the themes above and strengthen knowledge sharing, coordination, and incentives. Leasing is a business model with potential for expansion, as it can theoretically improve resource use and accountability compared to the dominant model of users owning their equipment outright.  There is an underexploited latent demand for consultancy services focusing on channelling information relevant for decision-making to managers in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.  The judicious use of artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques may help consultants and other information providers transfer knowledge efficiently.

One way of fostering collaboration and a holistic mindset in the private sector is to develop diversified businesses that combine expertise from different parts of the value chain in-house. Helgeland Plast exemplifies this approach

THEME: SOCIETY AND CHANGE

Knowledge and change in attitudes

 ‘Increasing knowledge and altering peoples’ attitudes, values and narratives go hand in hand.’

Simultaneously as society in general, and fishing and aquaculture sectors specifically, are in urgent need of gaining increased relevant knowledge to sustainable product design, usage and recycling, we also are in great need of attitude changes, and this will take time. Changes in education should thus take place from the early childhood ages until higher education. Because attitude and value changes probably depend on childhood education. However, attitude changes can also take place through the pathway of introducing smaller technical innovations in the fishing and aquaculture industries. For instance, a campaign invented small bags that the fishers could tie to their waists, and that fishers then could use to depose small rope leftovers. These bags facilitated the recycling for these fishers because their need of quick actions when out at the open sea in bad weather was considered. However, these kinds of innovative small campaigns could catalyse larger changes in practices and mindsets about the importance of recycling, the idea is that through new practices we change.

Transitions in the Education System

The educational system further needs to epistemologically change in addition to improving technical education and coursing. We need interdisciplinary thinking to become the standard, Institutes of circularity could be organized, where different sets of questions are posed. New narratives must be facilitated and created about how we approach circularity.

Clear societal communication

Clear communication from governmental agencies and other actors is crucial to enhance recycling practices. A traffic light system could be an element, and also a classification system of repairability, perhaps similar to the energy classification system. Simpler and easy instructions about how to follow regulations and recycle.

A new value system in our societies is in the long term a necessity. For instance, while it must be made profitable to recycle, prolong usage and to design longer lasting products, making it too expensive to have waste, may enhance the risk of people dumping it on the ocean. In addition, putting price on things will probably not be enough; we also need to work on what we value. There is a contraction in a global society where sustainability is the goal, while simultaneously we continue to be and create a society based on competition. To encourage new values, positive associations instead of shame and guilt might enhance the mobilizing effects. Along with new values, stronger orientations towards empathy must be cultivated.

 Visibility of decision making, choices and social justice

 ‘Reducing distance to increase visibility of choices made (or not made) and to enhance social justice’

Distance, either geographical or else, to the consequences of ones’ actions is a hindrance to making good and sustainable choices. Exposing individuals and society to the visuals, smells, and narratives of environmental disasters or malmanagement of plastic leftovers is an important step to generate awareness and alter behaviour and choices.

When this is not possible, other possibilities are there to increase visibility. When a consumer buys a product, the product could have a label facilitating visibility about whether materials used are recycled or not. This is an important factor to generate consumer awareness, however, it needs to be preceded by educational changes (see first theme), so that individual consumers and collective entities can critically assess whether the labels provide good enough information or not, because there is always a risk of ‘green washing’. New directives against greenwashing are coming from the European Union, but it will take some years before implementation in Norway. In Norway, municipalities and counties need to be made financially, and in terms of broader competences, ready to monitor the aquaculture sector, and whether such as old cages are in fact recycled or stocked in bays where pollution probably occurs. It is not easy for municipalities with pressured economies to be able to engage properly in these kinds of monitoring activities.

Connected to this idea, there is a risk when substantial improvements happen locally, that we get a ‘displacement effect’, relocating environmental damages or social suffering elsewhere. For instance, increased accountability in Norway, could lead to the altering of value and supply chains, possibly making impoverished people lose their employments elsewhere. Thus, changes must have a global social justice scope, even if extremely complex to gain knowledge about every aspect of change in the value chain. LCA and MFA are very important and must be strengthened, and also made available to customers and society in general.

CREATING TRANSITION PATHWAYS

DESIGN hierarchy and approach   

1. Develop a smart system and management protocols Transitioning to more circular practices is an evolutionary process.  To build the correct strategic and operational bodies, adequately develop knowledge and data in support of this change, and the systems required to enlist the right kind of decision making takes time.  Much of what we know today may well change in the near future, therefore establishing a learning system suitable to reflects and adapt to systemic change is required.  This requires a conceptual framework of the system, shared learning and insights from other systems, Digital Product Passport (DPP)or EPDs of all products and services, relevant and supporting legislation & guidance (e.g., fully sketched out parameters and guidance on EPR etc, and the ability to achieve processes & system gains (data access & knowledge development).  

 2.Develop operation guidance in tandem with developing a smart system for circular economic change a number of tools are required to act as guidance.  This includes carefully linked regulatory services to the strategic aims of the smart system, the associated development of CE support mechanisms, appropriately set laws, that are reflected by, and actioned through, suitable tariffs and incentives.

3.Develop infrastructure and support systems, at the practical level the strategic and operational system(s), parameters and associated guidance must engender suitable action in key areas current seen as ‘high priority’ in the pursuit of circular practices for the sectors.  These include increasing the availability of suitably monitored repair facilities, by this we mean those which adhere to best practices and not cheaper less circular options.  Improved EOL collection, EOL separation facilities which follow waste hierarchy protocols and optimise the best route of action for sector waste.  National best practice guidelines are required with suitable monitoring bodies – these should learn from current best practice in market leaders in RRR, incineration, etc.  Only the optimised routes for circular practise should be selected based on LCA/MFA supported DDP/EPDs e.g., Collection avenues – RRR options (mechanical, chemical, eco-industrial network).

4. System feedback loops: the system should ensure consistent and accurate feedback is embedded in the smart systems structure, representation of key sectors, and progressive evaluation systems inform decision making and system updates as required.  Establishment and governance of the system should be transparent, collaborative and reflexive of key circular economic principles addressing both current and future needs in keeping with national and global SDA criteria.

MATERIALS

 1. Quality, lifetime and knowledge:  A customer should have knowledge about the material composition and what recycling opportunities gear or equipment have. Knowledge about and control of products and materials can be achieved through control and compliance and possibility to avoid usage of mixed materials. Control and compliance of what is bought and a check on whether the material is suitable for recycling can be done through guidance (by Producer Responsibility Organization, fishers' organizations) and supervision and control (by the government).

 2. Additives for plastics: There is a need to map what roles and functions additives have and how they affect the environment (via LCA and MFA). Toxicological analysis and governmental control and restrictions are important at this stage. The question is how to regulate additives that have a function to prolong the use of equipment and protect the cover material against aging. Here the role of R&D and policy mechanisms are important for both fisheries and aquaculture. More research is needed both on material components and plastic/biopolymers, additives, and replacement options, including the possible use of natural components (e.g., vitamins, and natural organic compounds).

 3. Fees and incentives to increase circularity rate (policies): Any fee introduction requires a quantification of the harmful effects in order to defend the fee. Incentives can be introduced at the production stage. For example, the manufacturers who produce gear that are easy to recycle, can get a lower remuneration, compared to producers who do not consider recyclability. Eco-modulating in EPR, means that it is more expensive to produce problematic gear than gear that is easy to recycle (Eco-modulation of the remuneration for producer responsibility). Furthermore, it can be necessary to ban composites equipment with toxic anti fouling additives. The challenge with a ban is a possible absence of good alternative products i.e., the production of new material can be much worse for the environment than the actual use old material. It is important to have knowledge about substitutions before banning a specific material.

 4. Customer’s demands for recyclable equipment: Customers can demand equipment that is more suitable for recycling purposes. However, this demand is also controlled by the material price and quality. The transition should be knowledge based in order to do the right thing the second time around. The government can also play a role here. The authorities may set requirements for public procurement, (for example, the material you buy must be as much reusable/recyclable as possible).

 5. Innovation and research: are needed for recycling technology and prefer the one that can assist high-end products. There are three different recycling types: mechanical, chemical and thermal. The question is how these existing methods can contribute to the high-end product or to the production of new gear that complies with certification requirements and standards.

6.Measuring success: To measure that the above-mentioned stages to evaluate whether the vision/goals have been reached, it is possible to implement environmental monitoring (via authorities and/or industry) and target indicator (for example lifetime of gear, volume for landfill and incineration, and percentage of recycling plastic in new gear).

GOVERNANCE AND POLICY

1. Governance in general: Governmental bodies key role is to ensure that the framework of relevant laws and regulations are amended, and that monitoring schemes are implemented.

2. Funding the design phase of the value chain. Government bodies have an important role in funding the research and development of new materials. An effective development relies on a partnership between industry driven R&D and Science partners, however.

3. Industry commitment. Both the aquaculture and fisheries industries need to commit to a reduced use of plastic materials and must play an active role in the development of new and alternative materials. Such commitments are not forged only through a regime of governmental sanctions, but also depends on the introduction of incentives for adopting new practices and contributing to material development. While governance institutions are sensitive to the demands of the general public, industry actors rely on the demands and preferences of their customers. This probably points to an important role for the governance institutions in shaping customer expectations to the use of plastic materials and their substitutes. The “system to be governed” also need to take the waste companies into consideration, as a key actor in dealing with circularity. 

4. Flexibility, evaluation, and adaptation. New regulations and incentives aimed at modifying current practices among industry partners need flexibility when introduced. It is important that new governance instruments are routinely evaluated for effects to be assessed, and adjustments to be made, if needed. Again, collaboration between governance institutions and industry partners is important. Regulations and incentives should be sensitive to not being perceived as “unfair” and have a universal appeal, securing industry commitment and the adaptation of practices.   

5. Industry responsibilities. New governance instruments, whether regulatory or incentive building, imply some common responsibilities among the industry’s activities that needs highlighting. Documenting and reporting on circular practices and mitigating the use of plastic materials is important for evaluating and adapting the introduction of new governance instruments. While challenges related to material design would be a prime focus for both the aquaculture and fisheries industries in this respect, the issue of logistics should be considered as the most pressing issue for the waste companies. Governmental institutions main task is that of controlling and “auditing” the industry as a part of the evaluation process.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.The vision is a value chain that is well-coordinated and transparent and characterized by clearly defined roles and responsibilities, a value chain in which each individual actor has both the knowledge and incentives necessary to make decisions that minimize environmental costs. At present, information asymmetries between different stakeholder groups complicate the adoption of new, environmentally friendly technologies.  For example, it can be difficult for fishermen to assess the environmental footprint of different types of fishing gear because the information is not available to them in an easily accessible format.  Meanwhile, elsewhere in the value chain, siloed thinking among regulatory agencies inhibits a coordinated approach to regulation, which also reduces efficiency.

2. Government role:  In order for the vision sketched above to materialize, government agencies must promote knowledge exchange across the value chain.  This can be done by establishing forums where decision-makers from different parts of the value chain can share knowledge and ideas.  Another possibility is to sponsor the development of a central, freely accessible knowledge database covering topics such as regulations and the plastic footprint of products.  It is hard to guarantee that a centrally created knowledge database will deliver the information users want, but even if it doesn’t, it might inspire others to develop new channels for knowledge sharing.  Artificial intelligence (AI), carefully applied, may help to distribute relevant knowledge across the value chain in a user-friendly format.

3. Academic role:  Academia can play an important role in a well-coordinated value chain by bridging knowledge gaps among practitioners. The SHIFT-PLASTICS project itself illustrates the role academics can play as facilitators of knowledge exchange. More research funding should be used to incentivize academics to engage more in stakeholder interaction and innovation. Potential contributions by academics include mapping the roles and responsibilities of actors in the fishery value chain and identifying problems and challenges in the sector.

4. Governance and change agency: The problem of regulatory agencies working in silos instead of coordinating with one another can be addressed by introducing a missions-oriented policy to guide their work.  Such a policy encourages agencies to work together toward the shared goal of solving one or more societal challenges.

5. Policy and tools: Crucially, the government must use its power to shape the incentives of other stakeholders.  This can be done by means such as offering tax subsidies on recycled products, banning certain materials outright, empowering waste management companies to make decisions that improve circularity, and stimulating competition among waste companies to spur value creation.

SOCIETY AND CHANGE

1.  LCA and MFA are critical tools:  LCA and MFA must be part of all value/ product choices from the beginning.  Products must be designed to last longer, and be composed by a larger part of recycled plastic. Governments, producers and customers alike share the responsibility for pushing forward these changes.

2. Labelling of products:  Products must be labelled so that consumers/buyers can critically assess MFA and LCA.  This is a crucial part of the transparency that is required in order to change the attitudes of producers and customers.  Consumers need to have the tools to critically assess these labels, for instance to critically assess when “greenwashing” occurs.  This is why education goes along here, through educational changes, we can learn to demand high levels of transparency and how to assess whether the MFA and LCA are good enough.

3. Change of attitudes and values:  It must be expensive to not recycle, however not too expensive, as people may dump waste in the ocean.  This illustrates the complexity of making sustained and profound change.  As long as we do not change our value systems, rules and regulations, we may end up worsening a situation.  Again, this is witness to the importance of generating an educational system that promotes critical thinkers, asking different kinds of questions than today.

4. Clear communications and instructions: about how to recycle. Government and producers need to improve communication about recycling so that there are less mistakes or doubts about how to do it, and how this makes a difference. 

6. Expose people to the consequences of not recycling:  so we can change mindsets and what we value (open day for schools, other kinds of applied knowledge). Distance reduces empathy and understanding of the consequences of certain choices. People living in spaces far from where consequences of pollution are felt more severely, may need to be exposed to the realities far from them, in order to change ways of being and doing.

SHIFTPLASTICs Workshop Team

Megan Palmer-Abbs (NRI): WP lead, design and lead for workshop, author & media director

Arild Gjertsen, Jens Ørding Hansen, Julia Olsen, Susanne Normann (NRI):

workshop facilitators, analysis, report co-authors

with Torunn Honsi (WNRI): workshop facilitator

Marta Anna Løvberg (NRI): Videographer

Produced in collaboration with SHIFTPLASTICs project team and partners: