Options for Reducing Plastic Leakage to the Marine Environment from Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture 1 This report is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction 2 and Development/The World Bank, with contributions from Hatfield Indonesia and Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS © 2021 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org SOME RIGHTS RESERVED The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. AT T R I B U T I O N Suggested Citation: World Bank (2022). Options for Reducing Plastic Leakage to the Marine Environment from Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. F O R F U RT H E R I N F O R M AT I O N pubrights@worldbank.org Options for Reducing Plastic Leakage to the Marine 003 Environment from Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Acknowledgements 004 This report was prepared by a World Bank team led by Katelijn Van den Berg and Celine Lim, and a core team comprising of Sapta Ginting and Andrew Harvey. Valuable contributions were received from Ambroise Brenier, David Adeyemi Aromokeye, and Yadranka Farita. The team would like to thank officials in the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, particularly from the Directorate General for Marine Spatial Management, Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, Directorate General for Aquaculture, and also officials in the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime and Investment Affairs for their valuable feedback on the study and the finalized report. Consulting firms Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management and Hatfield Indonesia provided general support for the completion of this report. The report was funded by the Indonesia Oceans Multi-Donor Trust Fund, established in 2017 at the request of the Government of Indonesia with the support of the Governments of Norway and Denmark. The Oceans Multi-Donor Trust Fund provides technical assistance to implement oceans policy, reduce marine debris, and strengthen coastal resilience. 005 Contents 008 020 006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MENU OF OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 010 INTRODUCTION 022 Action 1. Operationalize plastic waste management in the capture fisheries and 014 aquaculture sectors SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE 024 Action 2. Prevent ALDFG BASE 028 Action 3. Prevent ALDAG 015 Capture fisheries in Indonesia 032 Action 4. Recover ALDFG and 017 Marine aquaculture ALDAG 040 034 Action 5. Promote a circular economy for end-of-life fishing INDICATIVE IMPLEMENTATION and aquaculture equipment TIMELINE 037 Action 6. Improve monitoring 042 and reporting of EOLFG, ALDFG and ALDAG REFERENCES ANNEX 1 - 049 ANNEX 2 - 052 ANNEX 3 - 056 MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRESS IN ACTION PLAN COORDINATION TEAM FOR REDUCING PLASTIC MARINE 056 Operationalize plastic waste HANDLING MARINE DEBRIS DEBRIS FROM FISHERIES AND management in Indonesia’s AQUACULTURE fisheries sector 053 Capture fisheries 057 Prevent ALDFG 054 Aquaculture 057 Prevent ALDAG 058 Recover ALDFG and ALDAG 058 Promote a circular economy for end-of-life fishing and aquaculture equipment 058 Improve monitoring and reporting of EOLFG, ALDFG and ALDAG Tables and Figures TABLES FIGURES 007 053 Table 1 016 Figure 1 Key elements of a mass ALDFG risk rating for fishing balance approach to gears in use in Indonesia. monitoring ALDFG. 054 Table 2 018 Figure 2 Approaches, indicators, Sources and fates of marine scope and methodologies for plastic within Indonesia’s monitoring aquatic debris from marine aquaculture sector, aquaculture indicating (A) total weight of plastic waste generated by different production systems; and (B) the proportion of plastic waste entering terrestrial (green) and marine (blue) pathways 041 Figure 3 Indicative timetable for implementing the proposed actions. 053 Figure 4 Components of fishing gear contributing to the mass balance method Acronyms and Abbreviations AIP Aquaculture improvement project 008 AIS Automatic Identification System ALDAG Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Aquaculture Gear ALDFG Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear ASC Aquaculture Stewardship Council ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASIC Asian Seafood Improvement Collaborative BAP Best Aquaculture Practices CMMAI Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment COLREG Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea EOLFG End of Life Fishing Gear EPR Extended producer responsibility EPS Expanded polystyrene FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FSS Fleet separation scheme GAQP Good Aquaculture Practices GGF Ghost Gear Fund GOI Government of Indonesia GSA Global Seafood Alliance HDPE High density polyethylene ICT Information and communication technology INDOGAP Indonesian Good Aquaculture Practices KEMENHUB Kementerian Perhubungan - Ministry of Transportation KEMEN-PUPR Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat - Ministry of Public Works and Housing KLHK Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan - Ministry of Environment and Forestry MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MMAF Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries NGO Non-Government Organization NPOA-MPD National Plan of Action on Marine Plastic Debris PA Polyamide Nylon 6/Nylon 66 009 PE Polyethylene PP Polypropylene PPI Pangkalan Pendaratan Ikan - Fish Landing Quay PPN Pelabuhan Perikanan Nusantara - Archipelagic Fishing Port PPP Pelabuhan Perikanan Pantai - Coastal Fishing Port PPS Pelabuhan Perikanan Samudra - Oceanic Fishing Port TWG Technical Working Group UN United Nations VGMFG Voluntary Guidelines for Marking of Fishing Gear WPP Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan - Fishery Management Area TKN-PSL Tim Koordinasi Nasional Penanganan Sampah Laut - National Coordination Team for Handling Marine Debris 010 Executive Summary The Government of Indonesia’s National Plan of Action on Ma- This report aims to enhance the evidence available to support 011 rine Plastic Debris (NPOA-MPD 2017-2025) outlines the ambi- efforts to improve management, retrieval and recycling of EO- tious objective to reduce marine plastic debris by 70 percent LFG and ALDFG in Indonesia. It includes details on the devel- by 2025. One of the five pillars of this plan is dedicated to “re- opment and testing of a methodology to assess gear-specific ducing sea-based leakage” that contribute at least 20 percent risk of ALDFG impacts, to establish baselines for the elements of all marine plastic debris in Indonesia. Abandoned, Lost and relevant to managing EOLFG and ALDFG and, in the longer Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) and Abandoned, Lost and term, to monitor and evaluate the impacts of prevention, miti- Discarded Aquaculture Gear (ALDAG) are major components gation and/or curative actions. of sea-based sources of marine debris, and cause significant impacts on the environment, economy, livelihoods and food This report presents options for reducing ALDFG and ALDAG in security. The scale of these impacts on fisheries, marine eco- Indonesia, and improving the management and use of EOLFG. systems and human users has prompted international action, A synthesis of the evidence base is provided, and informs the including under Sustainable Development Goal 14. development of a menu of options in the form of time-bound prioritized actions under six broad categories: ALDFG and ALDAG management and mitigation strategies have the potential to contribute to Indonesia’s goals for marine 1. Operationalize plastic waste management in the capture plastic waste management and debris reduction, while also fisheries and aquaculture sectors; providing economic opportunities. End-of-life fishing gear (EO- 2. Prevent ALDFG; LFG)—fishing gears and fishing gear components that through 3. Prevent ALDAG; wear and tear need to be replaced—can be a major source of 4. Recover ALDFG and ALDAG; material stock for recycling provided such materials are land- 5. Promote a circular economy for end-of-life fishing and ed ashore and not disposed of or discarded at sea. Many of aquaculture equipment; and the materials used in modern fishing gears such as nylon, poly- 6. Improve monitoring and reporting of EOLFG, ALDFG and ethylene and polypropylene are recyclable materials that can ALDAG. be processed into raw materials for secondary products. 012 Introduction The Government of Indonesia’s (GoI) National Plan of Action The impacts of fishery and aquaculture plastic pollution on 013 on Marine Plastic Debris (NPOA-MPD 2017-2025) outlines the environment, economy, livelihoods and food security the ambitious objective of reducing marine plastic debris by are significant. ALDFG compromises fisheries sustainability 70 percent by 2025. Sea-based leakage contributes at least through losses of gear and catch, as well as adverse impacts 20 percent of all plastic waste that leaks into Indonesia’s ma- to marine habitats, target and non-target species, gear efficien- rine environment (World Bank, 2018). Sea-based leakage in- cy and associated fisheries profits (DelBane et al., 2019; Mac- cludes pollution from maritime activities such as aquaculture, fadyen et al., 2009; NOAA, 2016; Scheld et al. 2016). Under cer- shipping, fisheries and tourism, as well as debris transported tain conditions, ALDFG can travel long distances (Brown et al., by ocean flows. Recognizing the significance of this source, 2005) and continue to ensnare and capture marine organisms one of the five pillars of the NPOA-MPD 2017-2025 is focused for years or decades, a phenomenon known as ‘ghost fishing’ on “reducing sea-based leakage”. (FAO, 2016; Good et al., 2010; Kaiser et al., 1996; NOAA, 2015). Ingestion of hooks, lines, nets or weights by marine wildlife Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) is a causes harmful effects (McCauley & Bjorndal, 1999; Moore major component of sea-based sources of marine debris. et al. 2013; Zabka et al., 2006) that can result in population ALDFG comprises as much as 50 percent of all marine debris level impacts on marine mammals, seabirds, turtles and other (e.g., Consoli et al., 2021). Global ALDFG leakage is estimat- wildlife (e.g. Boren et al., 2006; Franson et al., 2003; Good et ed at 1.14 Mt per year (Eunomia, 2016; Gilman et al., 2021), al., 2009; Hanni & Pyle, 2000; Orós et al. 2016; van der Hoop though data limitations may mean that actual quantities are et al. 2013), and significant commercial losses from fisheries even greater (Richardson et al., 2021b). It is estimated that 5.7 (Goodman et al., 2021). This potential to entangle, ensnare or percent of all fishing nets, 8.6 percent of all traps and 29 per- be ingested over long distances and timescales results in dis- cent of all lines are abandoned, lost or discarded each year proportionately higher impacts to marine wildlife compared to (Richardson et al., 2019). other types of debris (Gilardi et al., 2010; Laist, 1995; Wilcox et al., 2016). Fishery and aquaculture plastic litter can cause sig- Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Aquaculture Gear (ALDAG) is nificant damage to marine ecosystems and benthic habitats another important sea-based source of plastic leakage. The (Gilman, 2015; Macfadyen et al., 2009; NOAA , 2015), present cultivation of marine and aquatic species, including seaweed, hazards to navigation and safety at sea (Hong et al., 2017), uses plastic components such as buoys, ropes, harvest bins damage marine infrastructure and submarine cables (IPCC, and feed sacks. The primary pathways for plastic leakage from 2021), transport invasive alien species (Enrichetti et al., 2021), aquaculture include mismanagement, deliberate discharge, reduce the socioeconomic value of coastal areas (English et extreme weather and catastrophic events such as tsunamis al., 2019) and transfer toxins and microplastics into marine (Huntington, 2019). While aquaculture tends to be a more lo- food webs with associated risks to human health from sea- calized source of plastic in comparison to capture fishers, the food contamination (Barnes et al., 2009; Foley et al., 2018; GE- total volumes are significant (e.g., Skirtun et al., 2022) and are SAMP, 2015; Rochman, 2015). likely to increase given the rapid expansion of the aquaculture sector (Tian et al., 2022). The scale of these impacts on fisheries, marine ecosystems ties. End-of-life fishing gear (EOLFG)—fishing gears and fishing and human users has prompted international action. The gear components that through wear and tear need to be re- 014 United Nations (UN) has called upon members to take action placed—can be a major source of material stock for recycling to reduce ALDFG (FAO, 2016a; UNEA, 2014; 2016; 2018), and provided such materials are landed ashore and not disposed to support UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of or discarded at sea. Successfully addressing marine plastic Goal 14 which asks members to significantly reduce marine debris in Indonesia will require an improved understanding of pollution (UNSDG, 2018). In addition, the Food and Agriculture the life cycle and end-of-life management of Indonesia’s fish- Organization of the UN (FAO) has emphasized the need for ing and aquaculture gears, and a framework to evaluate the ef- fishing gear marking and ALDFG reporting and recovery via fectiveness of interventions to prevent, minimize and mitigate its Committee on Fisheries, Code of Conduct on Responsible the generation and effects of plastic leakage from the fishery Fisheries and Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing and aquaculture sector (Kuczenski et al., 2021; Richardson et Gear (FAO 2016a; 2018; 2019b), and the International Maritime al., 2021a; Gilman et al. 2021). Organization has outlined actions to reduce ALDFG from fish- ing via vessels (IMO, 2018). This report presents options for reducing ALDFG and ALDAG in Indonesia, and improving the management and use of EO- Managing and mitigating plastic pollution from fisheries and LFG. It draws on the findings of two accompanying reports: aquaculture has the potential to contribute to Indonesia’s (i) Evidence base – Capture fisheries and; (ii) Evidence base marine plastic debris targets while also providing economic – Marine aquaculture. A synthesis of the key findings and rec- opportunities. Many of the materials used in modern fishing ommendations contained in these reports is presented, and gears such as nylon (PA), polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene developed into a menu of options in the form of time-bound (PP) are recyclable materials that can be processed into raw prioritized actions. This report also outlines a proposed pro- materials for secondary products (Chen et al., 2020). These cess for monitoring and evaluating reductions in sea-based circular economy approaches have been tested and proven sources of plastic marine debris, including appropriate indica- (e.g., Juan et al., 2021; Charter et al., 2022), and have potential tors and methodologies. to contribute to Indonesia’s goals for marine plastic reduction, while also providing alternative incomes for coastal communi- 015 016 Synthesis of the Evidence Base CAPTURE FISHERIES IN INDONESIA (159 ports) and WPP-573 (135 ports). Five provinces account 017 This section provides an overview of Indonesia’s capture fish- for 48.6 percent of Indonesia’s annual fish capture production eries sector, and a synthesis of the evidence available for the (Jawa Barat 13.0 percent, Aceh 11.3 percent, Jawa Timur 11.2 sector’s generation and leakage of plastic waste—both to the percent, Jawa Tengah 8.0 percent and Banten 5.1 percent). marine environment in the form ALDFG and to the terrestri- al environment from accumulation of EOLFG. For additional Use of plastic detail, the reader is directed to the accompanying report Evi- Almost 40 percent of Indonesia’s fishing vessels use gillnets dence Base – Capture Fisheries. and entangling nets. These are predominately drifting gillnets, with a smaller number of set anchored gillnets and trammel The capture fisheries sector nets also in use. Dominant gear types also include hooks and The dynamics and distributions of Indonesia’s fisheries are lines (30 percent) and traps and pots (11 percent). Other gears an important consideration in identifying priority locations comprise a smaller proportion of the fishing fleet, including for ALDFG management. The national fishing fleet consists of seines (6 percent), lift nets (5 percent), surrounding gear (5 171,744 vessels with inboard engines. Of these, 65 percent are percent) and trawls (2 percent). smaller than 5 GT, 88 percent are smaller than 10 GT, and 98 percent (168,043 vessels) are smaller than 30 GT. There are Encircling nets, gillnets, and entangling nets together ac- a further 181,178 vessels with outboard motors and 190,923 count for 90 percent (75,958 tonnes) of the plastic fishing non-motorized vessels. Indonesia has 576 official fishing gear material deployed by Indonesia’s fishing fleets. The ports, with eight of these classified as Type A Oceanic Fishing weight of plastic material deployed is a function of both num- Ports (PPS, Pelabuhan Perikanan Samudra), 14 classified as ber of vessels and gear type. While encircling gears (e.g., ring Type B Archipelagic Fishing Ports (PPN, Pelabuhan Perikanan nets and purse seines) represent only 5 percent of the fleet, Nusantara), 28 as Type C Coastal Fishing Ports (PPP, Pelabu- they account for 56 percent (47,212 tonnes) of the total weight han Perikanan Pantai) and 526 as Type D Fish Landing Quay of fishing gears deployed. Gillnets and entangling nets repre- (PPI, Pangkalan Pendaratan Ikan). The majority of fishing ports sent 34 percent (28,746 tonnes), hooks and lines 4 percent are concentrated in Fishery Management Area (WPP, Wilayah (3,647 tonnes), and traps and pots 2.4 percent (2,015 tonnes) Pengelolaan Perikanan) WPP-712 (174 fishing ports), WPP-572 of the total weight of fishing gears deployed by Indonesia’s fisheries. Drivers and risks of ALDFG and EOLFG material deployed and replenished annually, and its ecological Approximately 30 percent of all fishing gears in Indonesia impacts. While hook and line (pancing) are the most vulnera- become ALDFG or EOLFG every year. Precise estimates are ble fishing gears in Indonesia, with 45 percent discarded and hindered by the absence of shore-based monitoring of end-of- 55 percent lost every year, the total weight of plastic material life and lost gear. Interviews with fishers suggest that about replenished every year by these fisheries is only 365 tonnes, or 70 percent of the total weight of deployed fishing gears are 2.2 percent of all fishing gear material replaced in Indonesia. retained and reused every year. Around 18 percent of gears are In contrast, gillnet and entangling net fisheries replenish 8,623 damaged beyond repair or reach their end-of-life, and remain tonnes (51.6 percent) and purse seine fisheries 7,080 tonnes onshore for (i) storage by fishers or fishing companies; (ii) re- (42.4 percent) of material every year. Vulnerability to loss and sale to waste collectors; or (iii) final disposal in landfill. The damage is greatest for gears that: (i) are made of relatively remaining 12 percent become ALDFG, with fishers reporting light materials; (ii) operate unattended for extended periods; that 11 percent of gears are lost at sea and only 1 percent are and (iii) are set on the seabed. These include set anchored gill- deliberately discarded. nets, entangling nets, traps and pots. Indonesia’s gillnet fishers report multiple factors that contribute to gear loss, including Gillnets, entangling nets, encircling nets, pots and traps pose snagging on submerged obstructions, gear conflict with other the greatest ALDFG risk. ALDFG risk (Figure 1) is a function of vessels, and poor weather. Risk of loss and damage increas- 018 a gear’s vulnerability to loss and damage, the total weight of es when gears are poorly marked, when they are set in areas 01.1.1. Single vessle purse seine 0.51 01 01.1.2. Group operated purse seines 0.49 ENCIRCLING NETS 02.1. Beach seine 0.04 02 02.2.1. Danish seine 0.16 SEINE NETS 02.2.3. Boat seine* 0.12 02.2.4. Boat seine* 0.15 02.2.5. Boat seine* 0.15 03.1.2. Demersal otter trawl 0.20 03 03.2.1. Midwater otter trawl 0.14 TRAWLS 03.2.3. Shrimp trawl 0.17 05.1. Portable lift net 0.00 05 05.2.1. Boat operated lift net* 0.06 LIFT NETS 05.2.2. Boat operated lift net* 0.05 05.3. Shore - operated stationary lift net 0.04 06.1 Cast net 0.04 06 FALLING GEAR 07.1. Set gillnet anchored 07 07.2. Drift gillnet 0.64 GILLNETS AND 07.5. Trammel net 0.51 ENTAGLING NETS 08.2. Pot 0.49 08 POTS AND TRAPS 09.1.1. Handline and hand operated poleand-line* 0.06 09 09.3. Set longline 0.10 HOOK AND LINES 09.4. Drifting longlines 0.10 09.5. Trolling line 0.02 10.5. Pushnet 0.09 10 10.6. Scoopnet 0.02 MISCELLANEOUS OTHER GEAR Relative risk rating 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Figure 1. ALDFG risk rating for fishing gears in use in Indonesia. that do not have adequate fleet separation schemes, and when MARINE AQUACULTURE fishing grounds are overcrowded (i.e., too many licenses per This section provides an overview of Indonesia’s marine area). The greatest ecological impacts are associated with aquaculture sector, and a synthesis of the evidence avail- set anchored gillnets, set anchored trammel nets, plastic pots able for the sector’s generation and leakage of plastic waste and drifting gillnets. These impacts include entanglement of to the marine environment. marine wildlife, ghost fishing, transport of invasive species, smothering and damage of habitats, and diminished aesthetic The marine aquaculture sector and recreational value of coastal resources. Systems of marine aquaculture production vary enormously in type and scale across Indonesia. The sector is large and Different strategies are required to address ALDFG and EOLFG. rapidly expanding. Around eleven million tonnes of marine All fishing gears eventually either enter the marine environment and brackish water aquaculture products are produced an- as ALDFG, or reach their end of operational life and are disposed nually, of which seaweed (mainly Eucheuma spp.) accounts of onshore as EOLFG. ALDFG retrieved from the sea is difficult for 82 percent, with milkfish (Chanos chanos) and white-leg to recycle because the challenges of separating mixed materi- shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) accounting for most of the als (e.g., different types of plastics and metals) are compound- remaining production (7.2 percent and 6.1 percent respec- ed when gears have become entangled and contaminated with tively). The three main production systems are coastal ponds, 019 marine life and other marine debris. EOLFG has greater potential floating cages and pens, and seaweed lines. Indonesia’s ex- for repair, reuse or recycling as part of the circular economy. Fur- tensive and semi-intensive coastal ponds produce around 1.5 thermore, as EOLFG is an inevitable consequence of fishing gear million tonnes per annum (predominantly milkfish and white use, the improved collection and management of EOLFG will con- leg shrimp), with intensive ponds producing a further 0.5 mil- tribute to reducing rates of ALDFG generation. Purse seine and lion tonnes of shrimp every year. Floating cages and pens are gillnets are reported to have the highest reuse and recycling rates typically constructed using expanded polystyrene (EPS) or in Indonesia, due to their construction from nylon. high density polyethylene (HDPE) floats, and produce around 20,000 tonnes of grouper, barramundi and other finfish annu- The lack of an established collection and distribution chain is ally. A variety of seaweed production systems are in use, with the main constraint to EOLFG recycling in Indonesia. Strategies most using polypropylene ropes. In South Sulawesi and Nusa for managing fishing related waste vary widely between ports. Tenggara Timur, farmers typically suspend rafts at or near the Most EOLFG is disposed into intermediate waste storage facili- surface from bamboo frames or plastic floats, in Central Su- ties where it is mixed with the general waste stream and eventu- lawesi off-bottom “long-stake” systems are common whereas ally transported to landfill. This mixing and contamination affects in Bali “short-stake” systems predominate. the condition of EOLFG, and increases costs associated with sorting and cleaning. Contaminated and poor quality EOLFG is Use of plastic unable to compete with the ready supply of good quality waste The greatest rates of plastic consumption occur in Indone- material from other sectors, contributing to low rates of recycling. sia’s extensive coastal ponds. These farms consume approx- imately 453 kg of plastic per tonne of product, consisting pri- Collection and safe disposal of EOLFG from Indonesia’s purse marily of plastic seed bags, pipes and aerators. Due to more seine and drift gillnet fisheries would account for 51.6 percent sophisticated production methods, intensive coastal ponds of the plastic material replenished annually. These fisheries use only 43 kg of plastic per tonne of product. Floating cages generate the greatest weight of end-of-life material, with much and pens consume on average 144 kg of plastic per tonne of of this available for landing ashore and recycling. Improved man- product, primarily in the form of nets. In comparison, seaweed agement of purse seine and drift gillnet waste would account for longlines use the least plastic at around 10 kg per tonne of 90 percent (around 76,000 tonnes) of the total weight of fishing product, and comprised primarily of expanded polystyrene gears deployed in Indonesia’s fisheries. floats, buoys, polypropylene ropes, and plastic bottles. Drivers and risks of ALDAG Indonesia’s marine aquaculture generates an estimated 865,544 tonnes of plastic waste every year. More than half of this is reused (305,747 tonnes) or sold (196,715 tonnes), bringing risk of future indirect leakage to terrestrial or marine environments. A significant proportion enters landfill (189,347 tonnes) or is otherwise disposed of on land. As much as 82,067 tonnes is estimated to leak to marine environments annually (Figure 2). A B Floating Cages 2,918 mt FATE Intensive Ponds Lost at sea 20,938 mt Floating Cages Discarded at sea Discarded on beach Seaweed Lines 96,883 mt Reused Seaweed Lines Disposed in landfill Burnt Intensive Sold Extensive Ponds Ponds Stolen 744,804 mt Other Extensive Ponds 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 020 Figure 2. Sources and fates of marine plastic within Indonesia’s marine aquaculture sector, indicating (A) total weight of plastic waste generated by different production systems; and (B) the proportion of plastic waste entering terrestrial (green) and marine (blue) pathways. Seaweed farms pose the greatest risk of plastic leakage. Nets contribute to ghost fishing and entanglement, whereas Despite having low rates of plastic consumption per tonne expanded polystyrene floats persist in the water column and of product, the large number of farms and high total produc- contribute to microplastic pollution. Around 2,755 tonnes of tion (c. 9 million tonnes in 2018) results in a large absolute plastic material from cages and pens are sold, burnt or enter quantity of plastic being consumed. Most of this plastic leaks landfill every year, with most of this being nylon nets. Much to marine environments (81,903 tonnes), with only 14,979 like purse seine nets, these materials have high potential for tonnes disposed onshore. Seaweed farms tend to be located recycling if sufficient quantities and economies of scale can in shallow coastal areas where they are exposed to wave ac- be achieved, and provided that waste nets are separated from tion. Farms are typically artisanal operations with low profit general waste streams to minimize contamination and costs margins, and consequently many components are homemade, of cleaning. Given the high rates of loss from cages and pens, reused or not specifically designed for use in aquaculture (e.g. efforts to improve design, construction and resilience are likely plastic bottles). These high rates of plastic leakage could be to have the most significant impact on reducing plastic leakage. addressed through (i) use of more robust and sustainable ma- terials, especially for floatation; and (ii) improved infrastruc- The risk of plastic leakage from coastal pond aquaculture ture design to increase resilience to strong wind and waves. A is low. While extensive coastal ponds generate the greatest key challenge will be identifying cost-effective alternatives to proportion of Indonesia’s plastic aquaculture waste (744,805 the plastic bottles and expanded polystyrene floats that are in tonnes), direct leakage to marine environments is very low. common usage. Ponds are typically located above sea level, and hence the main cause of leakage is infrequent catastrophic events such Floating cages and pens are also high risk. Cages tend to as storm surge or flooding. Abandoned farms where plastic be located in relatively exposed deeper waters where they has been improperly secured or decommissioned may also depend on water currents to maintain stock health. In these leak plastic to marine environments. The main sources of locations they are vulnerable to damage and abrasion from plastic material include the fry and seed bags that are some- tides and storms, resulting in both periodic losses as well as times reused to reinforce pond walls, as well as windblown chronic leakage. An estimated 141 tonnes of plastic materi- losses during waste incineration and landfill. Improved waste al is lost from Indonesia’s cage farms annually, with a further management systems and awareness, rather than improved 22 tonnes discarded onto nearby beaches and landing sites. infrastructure design, are likely to have the greatest impact on Many of these materials have a high risk of ecological impact. reducing plastic leakage from coastal ponds. 021 022 Menu of Options and Recommended Actions This chapter presents a menu of options to address plastic waste gears and materials; (ii) the potential for end-of-life fishing and leakage from Indonesia’s marine capture fisheries and aquacul- aquaculture materials to contribute to the circular economy; and 023 ture sectors. Options are presented in the form of time-bound, pri- (iii) the gaps in current data and knowledge that are required to oritized and sequenced actions, that have been identified based design and implement preventative and curative measures. The on: (i) the risk of leakage and impacts associated with different proposed actions are broadly separated into six categories: 1. Operationalize plastic waste management in the capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors; 2. Prevent ALDFG; 3. Prevent ALDAG; 4. Recover ALDFG and ALDAG; 5. Promote a circular economy for end-of-life fishing and aquaculture equipment; and 6. Improve monitoring and reporting of EOLFG, ALDFG and ALDAG. ACTION 1. OPERATIONALIZE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CAPTURE FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE SECTORS This action aims to strengthen the enabling environment for operationalizing and accelerating plastic waste management in Indonesia’s fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Two sub-groups of actions are proposed: (i) sector-led planning to enhance management of plastic use and loss; and (ii) funding the management of plastic use and loss. Sector-led planning to enhance Perumahan Rakyat) (e.g., Director of Sanitation and Solid Waste 024 management of plastic use and loss Management) and Ministry of Transport (KEMENHUB, Kement- Indonesia’s National Plan of Action on Marine Plastic Debris erian Perhubungan) (e.g., Director Maritime Navigation and Di- (NPOA-MPD) 2017-2025 outlines the ambitious target to reduce rector Sea and Coast Guard). Representatives from subnational plastic marine debris by 70 percent by 2025. This high-level ac- governments, the fishing and aquaculture industry (including tion plan is implemented primarily via Presidential Regulation 83/ representation of small- and large-scale operations across the PERPRES/2018 on Handling of Marine Waste and under the di- various capture fishery and aquaculture subsectors), academia rection of the National Coordination Team for Handling of Marine and NGOs could also participate to maximize technical capacity Waste (TKN-PSL, Tim Koordinasi Nasional Penanganan Sampah and stakeholder engagement. Laut)—a cross-sectoral team consisting of 16 Ministries and led by the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment 1.02 Establish a Technical Working Group for ALDFG, EOLFG (CMMAI) (see Annex 1). and ALDAG. The Technical Working Group (TWG) could support the National Task Force via main functions that could include: Indonesia’s capture fisheries and aquaculture sectors are diverse, (i) advising on policies and strategies necessary to implement complex and make a significant contribution to the nation’s ma- the Action Plan; (ii) developing detailed implementation plans, rine plastic debris. To support the TKN-PSL and to accelerate including white papers, terms of reference and work plans; (iii) progress towards objectives outlined in the NPOA-MPD 2017- reviewing and addressing any technical issues associated with 2025, specific capacity and capabilities to manage maritime and implementation of the Action Plan; (iv) targeting the use of fund- fisheries plastic waste could be strengthened within the Ministry ing and other resources; and (v) designing and implementing a of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF). Specific activities could monitoring and evaluation framework to measure progress, out- include: (i) Establish a high-level National Task Force to improve comes and eventual impacts of the Action Plan. The TWG could management of plastic use and disposal in the fisheries and be composed primarily of MMAF technical officers (e.g., from DG aquaculture sector; and (ii) Establish a Technical Working Group Capture Fisheries, DG Marine Spatial Management, DG Aquacul- for ALDFG, EOLFG and ALDAG. ture, DG Monitoring, Control and Surveillance, and Agency for Re- search and Human Resources) as well as relevant experts from 1.01 Establish a high-level National Task Force to improve CMMAI and research organizations. management of plastic use and disposal in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. This Task Force could facilitate the imple- Funding the management of plastic mentation of actions proposed in this report, including by en- use and loss suring that adequate resourcing is available and by coordinating A key issue associated with successful implementation of any with TKN-PSL and the institutions responsible for implementing plan is raising and allocating the necessary resources. A possible specific actions. The Task Force could work in close coordina- approach to financing the management of plastic use and loss tion with TKN-PSL, and be comprised of senior officers from in Indonesia’s capture fishery and aquaculture sectors could be MMAF (e.g., Director of Fishing Vessels and Gears, Director of the development of a specific funding mechanism. Such a mech- Ports, and Director of Licensing and Fisher Affairs), Ministry of anism could support actions that would otherwise be ineligible Public Works (KEMEN-PUPR, Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan for or incompatible with state budget or other recurrent funding mechanisms. Specific funding mechanisms have been success- 025 fully applied worldwide to address fishing waste, and could pro- vide a model for similar schemes in Indonesia. One such example is the Government of Canada’s CAD 8.3 million (c. USD 6.6 mil- lion) Sustainable Fisheries Solutions and Retrieval Support Con- tribution Program, also know as the Ghost Gear Fund.1 1.03 Design and implement a Ghost Gear Fund (GGF) for Indo- nesia. A funding mechanism could be established to provide ded- icated financial support to address the management of fishing and aquaculture waste and, where necessary, its retrieval from the marine environment. Use of funds could include: (i) research to map derelict gear hotspots and monitor their recovery; (ii) de- velopment and piloting of new technologies and processes to reduce the vulnerability of fishing gear and aquaculture equip- ment and minimize its impact on the marine environment; (iii) investment into methods for responsible disposal for end-of-life fishing gear and aquaculture equipment, including recycling and waste processing; (iv) improving reporting and monitoring of ALDFG and ALDAG; and (v) enhancing environmental awareness, particularly amongst small-scale fishers, aquaculture producers and coastal communities. The proposed GGF could channel fi- nance from a wide range of sources, including GoI, universities, private companies, NGOs and donors. With careful planning and robust accountability mechanisms, the GGF could also leverage additional finance from both domestic and international lenders and benefactors. 1 https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/management-gestion/ghostgear-equipementfantome/program-programme/projects-projets-eng.html ACTION 2. PREVENT ALDFG Preventing ALDFG is widely recognized as more cost effective than mitigating its impacts or recovering materials from the marine environment (GGGI, 2021a,b). This action aims to reduce the rate of ALDFG leakage to the marine environment. Six sub-groups of actions are proposed: (i) planning, technical management and coordination; (ii) identifying the economic drivers of fishing gear abandonment and discard; (iii) assessing fishery-specific risks and selecting technical measures; (iv) strengthening policy and regulatory frameworks; (v) evaluating and implementing technical 026 measures; and (vi) enhancing awareness about capture fisheries plastic pollution and its management. Planning, technical management 2.01. Strengthen cross-ministerial capacity to coordinate the and coordination development and implementation of technical measures. While EOLFG and ALDFG originate within the fisheries sector, develop- The main reasons why fishing gears are abandoned, lost or other- ing circular economy solutions will require a multidisciplinary and wise discarded include: (i) inherent weakness of materials mak- cross-ministerial approach. The National Task Force could play ing gears vulnerable to damage and loss (especially for some an important role facilitating these linkages, with technical sup- passive gears such as set anchored gillnets and fish/crustacean port provided by the TWG. Given the complexity of the issue and pots); (ii) interactions between fleets operating on the same fish- the need for innovative solutions, there is a need to strengthen ing grounds (e.g., collision between active gears and passive relevant national expertise as well as to learn from international gears resulting in damage); (iii) inadequate marking of fishing experience. One option could be an FAO Technical Cooperation gears which increases the likelihood of passive gears being over- Project2 (FAO Fisheries Division - Fishing Technology and Opera- run and makes locating and retrieving lost gears more difficult; tions Team, and FAO Development Law Branch) to provide short and (iv) limited capacity of fisheries authorities to monitor ALDFG term (<2 years) technical support that could allow the GOI to take at sea due to the large and widely dispersed fishing fleet. Resolv- advantage of FAO’s international expertise in this area of work, in- ing these issues will require ALDFG mitigation measures to be cluding application of FAO good practices. A series of workshops tailored to the specific needs of each fishery. could enable the work program to de defined, including mapping priorities, setting objectives, identifying technical support and A wide variety of technical measures are available to prevent ALD- backstopping needs, identifying key team members and experts, FG, differing markedly in their complexity, cost and effectiveness. and defining roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, the introduction of technical measures into a fish- ery may increase the costs of fishing, resulting in reluctance of li- 2.02 Strengthen MMAF’s capacity to implement technical mea- cense holders to comply. It is therefore critical to invest sufficient sures: Preventing ALDFG is a novel area of work that will require time and effort into designing and planning to ensure that techni- multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral thinking and the application cal measures: (i) are proportionate to the scale of the issue being of best practices. Technical training is likely to be required to addressed; (ii) have been adequately tested and demonstrated strengthen the capacity and capabilities of MMAF to design and to deliver the desired management objectives; (iii) minimize, as implement technical measures to address ALDFG. The series far as possible, the economic burden placed on vessel operators; of workshops discussed above could provide an opportunity to and (iv) can be effectively monitored to assess levels of compli- make a preliminary identification of capacity gaps and needs. ance. Two main groups of actions are identified: (i) strengthen cross-ministerial capacity to coordinate the development and im- plementation of technical measures; and (ii) strengthen MMAF’s capacity to implement technical measures. 2 As an FAO member, GOI has the right to request FAO technical support through an FAO Technical Cooperation Project (TCP). A national TCP (as opposed to regional TCP would provide the necessary focus on technical support to design of technical measures, policy and regulations). Identifying the economic drivers of 2.04 Undertake fishery-specific risk assessments. Building on fishing gear abandonment and discard the preliminary assessments described in the accompanying Ev- idence Base reports, fishery-specific risk assessments could be Designing and implementing successful measures to prevent implemented in priority fisheries identified by MMAF. FAO best ALDFG will require a good understanding of the factors driving practices (as detailed in the VGMFG and its annex on Risk As- fishing gear abandonment and discard. While factors such as sessment) could inform the design and implementation of these gear design, gear conflicts and monitoring and enforcement ca- risk assessments. pacity are important, it is also critical to consider social and be- havioral factors. Most notably, in some cases operational factors 2.05 Select technical measures. The baseline data obtained via may create strong economic incentives to deliberately discard the fishery-specific risk assessments could assist MMAF to eval- fishing gear, or to abandon gears that have become entangled, uate the benefits and costs of a broad range of ALDFG technical damaged, or otherwise difficult to retrieve. For example, when a measures. Key considerations could include ensuring that any fisher invests time into recovering gears that have become en- proposed technical measures (i) are proportional to the scale of tangled, they also incur an opportunity cost in the form of fore- 027 the issue being addressed; (ii) represent value for money; and (ii) gone fishing. Similarly, if a fisher is to invest resources into gear can be effectively implemented. Candidate technical measures maintenance — one of the most important factors influence gear include international examples of good practice such as (i) ves- longevity — they must perceive a clear return on that investment. sel and gear marking; (ii) collision regulations and amendments; Identifying these factors could enable incentive and disincentive (iii) EOLFG-ALDFG reporting requirements; (iv) fleet separation structures to be designed and appropriately priced to promote de- schemes to reduce vulnerability of fishing gear to loss and dam- sired behavior changes and to complement technical measures. age; and (v) spatial-temporal closure of fishing grounds to reduce At the same time, lost fishing gear represents an economic loss interactions between fleets and/or marine fauna. Due consider- to the industry. An improved understanding of these losses and ation could also be given to ensuring that any economic impacts their value could aid in identifying opportunities to enhance stake- and hardships on affected fishing fleets are clearly identified and holder buy in and engagement with ALDFG reduction efforts. understood. 2.03 Assess the economic drivers of gear abandonment and 2.06 Survey fishing vessel operators. Fishery-specific surveys discard. Building on the information presented in the accompa- of fishing vessel operator is a key part of the risk assessment nying Evidence Base reports, analytical studies could be imple- process. These surveys can help to determine current waste dis- mented to improve information on the economic drivers of gear posal practices and quantify the weights of plastic waste3 gener- abandonment and discard, and to inform the development of ap- ated by vessels within each fishery. Feedback obtained from the propriate mitigation strategies and incentive structures. fishing industry could provide critical inputs to the design and im- Assessing fishery-specific risks and plementation of technical measures, and contribute to maximiz- selecting technical measures ing levels of compliance from vessel operators. A well designed implementation strategy for vessel operator surveys could assist Excellent guidance on conducting robust risk assessments is MMAF to establish dialogue and engagement with the industry provided in FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for the Marking of Fish- on this issue. ing Gear (VGMFG). While the assessments presented in the accompanying Evidence Base reports provide a preliminary un- derstanding of the nature and severity of risks associated with different fishing gears, further work is required to inform manage- ment measures and to obtain input from stakeholders on find- ings and the design of technical measures. These assessments could help to evaluate the feasibility and affordability of proposed technical measures, and to prioritize and gauge the need for such measures based on best available science. 3 MARPOL Annex 5 defines plastic garbage as all plastic waste generated during fishing operations, including fishing gears as well as other types of plastic waste. Strengthening policy and regulatory Evaluating and implementing technical frameworks measures While international laws to prevent pollution by garbage from Informed by the findings of fishery-specific risk assessments, ap- ships exist in the form of the International Convention for the propriate technical measures could be selected to resolve high Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex V, these are risk EOLFG and ALDFG issues. The technical measures selected generally applicable to large fishing vessels (>400 GT) and hence should be proportional to the scale of the issues to be addressed. have limited utility to address issues of EOLFG and ALDFG within If a proposed technical measure has a high likelihood of affecting the specific contexts of Indonesia’s fishing fleet. A solution more the cost of fishing operations, strategies to minimize economic tailored to Indonesia’s specific context and needs could be pur- hardships on affected fishing fleets could be identified. FAO’s sued through national law and regulation, including by establish- role as a neutral, evidence-based arbiter could assist MMAF in ing reporting obligations according to vessel size and gear type. making difficult decisions with respect to the implementation of new measures. Before any technical measure are rolled out, their 2.07 Analyze the policy and regulatory gaps for EOLFG-ALDFG. satisfactory performance in specific fisheries could be evaluated 028 In parallel with the risk assessments and selection of technical through pilot testing. Comparative fishing trials aboard commer- measures described under actions 2.04, 2.05 and 2.06, a policy cial fishing vessels provide an effective strategy for evaluating and legal gap analysis could help to identify the pathways via the performance of technical measures, and could be conducted which regulations could be promulgated (e.g., via amendments as a pre-condition to wider implementation and roll out. to existing regulations or development of new regulations). Pro- posed regulatory changes could be informed by the results of 2.10 Develop and pilot standards for a national gear marking risk assessments to ensure that changes are proportional to the system. Gear marking systems have proven effective at reduc- scale of the issue being addressed. Specific regulatory gaps that ing ALDFG in many fisheries worldwide. Fishery-specific risk could be considered include those relating to (i) requirements for assessments may indicate the potential utility of gear marking vessel and gear marking; (ii) obligations for reporting of plastic in Indonesia. International experience and best practice—includ- waste (including EOLFG, lost gears, and retrieved ALDFG); (iii) ing that detailed in FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of obligations to land and report EOLFG and retrieved ALDFG at des- Fishing Gear— could provide useful guidance to the development ignated fishing ports; (iv) the use of de-ghosting technologies to of technical standards for gear marking in Indonesia and to any minimize the adverse ecological impacts of ALDFG; and (v) other national-level amendments of international agreements such technical measures identified as a result of fishery-specific anal- as the Convention on the International Regulations for Prevent- ysis (e.g., gear and vessel design, gear marking, fleet separation ing Collisions at Sea (COLREG). When designing gear marking measures, etc.). standards, key considerations may include the merits of unique marking to clearly distinguish different fleets and fisheries, and 2.08 Evaluate opportunities to link waste reporting obligations the use of lights or other electronic aids to improve detection of to the terms and condition of fishing license. If risk assessments set fishing gears. Where appropriate, measures could be linked indicate that the nature and severity of risks are sufficient, oblig- to COLREGs and any Indonesia-specific amendments, includ- atory reporting of EOLFG, lost gear and retrieved ALDFG may be ing through the promulgation of notices to mariners for specific required. In this case, incentive structures could be established to fishing operations and areas. Draft national standards for vessel promote compliance. One option is to link reporting obligations and gear marking could be piloted within select high risk fisheries to the terms and conditions of a fishing license. This would re- to monitor compliance, obtain feedback from stakeholders, and quire legal analysis to identify how and where existing laws and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed technical standards. regulations could be amended. Technical support from FAO De- velopment Law Service could assist MMAF to identify relevant 2.11 Select and develop de-ghosting technologies. Fishery-spe- examples of global best practice and to draft regulatory inputs for cific risk assessments may indicate a high risk of ecological review and consideration. impact (e.g., ghost fishing) associated with ALDFG from par- ticular fishing fleets (e.g. set anchored gillnets, fish and crusta- 2.09 Prepare draft policy and regulatory amendments. Drawing cean pots). To mitigate this risk, de-ghosting technologies could on inputs from the risk assessments and legal gap analysis, draft be identified, tailored to local contexts and needs, and piloted policies and regulations could be prepared for consideration and aboard commercial fishing vessels via comparative fishing trials. inputs from senior officials and other stakeholders. A wide range of de-ghosting technologies have been successfully Enhancing awareness about capture fisher- deployed in global fisheries, including the use of biodegradable ies plastic pollution and its management fishing gear, components (e.g., trap door fastenings), and fishing Technical measures are likely to affect the behavior of fishers by, aids (e.g., fish aggregation devices). If comparative fishing trials for example, influencing where and how they are allowed to fish. demonstrate that a de-ghosting technology is effective at reduc- Communication with affected fleets will be an important element ing ghost fishing, the measure could be considered a candidate of successful implementation, not only to demonstrate and dis- for regulation. Indonesia’s universities and academic institutions seminate new measures, but also to obtain stakeholder inputs could provide valuable expertise and capacity to develop and and feedback during planning and evaluation phases. evaluate de-ghosting technologies. 2.13 Develop Best Practices: Drawing on the outcomes of ac- 2.12 Evaluate Fleet Separation Schemes (FSS). Fishery-specific tivities 2.01-2.13, Best Practices could be developed by GOI, with risk assessments may indicate that ALDFG is exacerbated by in- technical assistance from academic institutions and in close teractions with maritime shipping or between different fleets op- consultation with the various sub-sectors of Indonesia’s fishing 029 erating on the same fishing grounds. Shipping interactions can be industry. FAO’s Fishing Technology and Operations team could be particularly problematic in areas where visibility is restricted and a valuable partner in the drafting of Best Practices, which could where ships have limited ability to take collision avoidance action be submitted by the GOI to FAO’s Committee on Fisheries as an (e.g. due to narrow or shallow shipping channels). One solution is information paper. In addition, the GOI could consider involving mandatory fleet separation via spatial or temporal closure of an the fishing industry as a drafting partner and co-author of the area to one or more fishing fleets. However, such closures have Best Practices, establishing a strong example of industry partner- the potential to impose significant economic hardships on ves- ing with government to solve ALDFG issues. sel operators due to restricted access to fishing grounds and fish resources. These impacts should be clearly identified and under- 2.14 Develop ALDFG outreach and communication products. stood before a FSS is implemented. Moreover, alternative techni- A range of communication products (e.g., radio, TV, brochures, cal measures may be equally effective at reducing interactions etc.) could be developed to raise awareness about ALDFG and to while having less economic impact on fishing operations. Such support the implementation of technical measures. These prod- alternatives include amendments to COLREGs, Notices to Mar- ucts could include communication related to any specific Notices to iners, and Vessel Traffic Service over VHF radio. These alterna- Mariners or amendments to Indonesia’s regulations and COLREGs. tive measures could be evaluated in parallel with FSS to evaluate costs, benefits and trade offs and to identify the most effective options. 2.13 Roll out technical measures. Before any technical mea- sures are rolled out, their satisfactory performance in specific fisheries should be evaluated and confirmed. Comparative fish- ing trials aboard commercial fishing vessels are an effective method for evaluating performance, and could be a pre-condition to regulating a technical measure in Indonesia. Once comparative trials have demonstrated that a proposed technical measure is effective at delivering its targeted objectives, MMAF in collabora- tion with relevant Ministries could prepare the draft policies and regulations necessary to support its implementation. Technical support from FAO’s Development Law Service could assist GOI in identifying regulatory amendments and incorporating internation- al experience and best practice. ACTION 3. PREVENT ALDAG ALDAG is similar to ALDFG, in that prevention is more cost effective than mitigating impacts or recovering materials from the marine environment (GGGI, 2021a,b). This action aims to reduce the rates of ALDAG leakage to the marine environment. Seven sub-groups of actions are proposed: (i) improving aquaculture equipment design; (ii) identifying the economic drivers of abandonment and discard; (iii) assessing risks associated with specific production systems; (iv) planning marine aquaculture to minimize spatial conflict; (v) improving fallowing and decommissioning of aquaculture sites; (vi) 030 strengthening capacity to manage plastic use and disposal; (vii) enhancing awareness about marine aquaculture plastic pollution and its management; and (viii) integrating ALDAG into third-party certification schemes. Improving aquaculture equipment design Identifying the economic drivers of One of the key reasons why aquaculture equipment is lost to the aquaculture gear abandonment and discard marine environment is the use of unsuitable, poorly designed or Designing and implementing successful measures to prevent fragile components. Key examples include the plastic bottles that ALDAG will require a good understanding of the factors driving are widely used as floats and cage collars used in finfish cages. aquaculture gear abandonment and discard. While these include factors such as component design and materials described 3.01 Develop technical standards for aquaculture infrastruc- above, it is also critical to consider social and behavioral factors. ture. Technical standards could be established for the materials, Most notably, operational factors may create strong economic components and systems (e.g. moorings) used in Indonesia’s incentives to deliberately discard or abandon equipment that has aquaculture sector. These standards would aim to make aqua- become damaged or worn. For example, if an aquaculture opera- culture systems more robust and less vulnerable to equipment tion is to invest resources into component maintenance — one of failure and plastic loss, including as a result of extreme weath- the most important factor influencing longevity — a clear return er events. Priority focus could be directed towards the subtidal on that investment must be perceived. Identification of these fac- aquaculture production systems (e.g. seaweed longlines and fish tors will ensure that incentive and disincentive structures can be cages) that are associated with the highest ALDAG risk. designed and appropriately priced to promote desired behavior changes. At the same time, lost gears represent an economic 3.02 Develop technical regulations for aquaculture infrastruc- loss to the industry. A good understanding of the value of these ture. Once technical standards for aquaculture infrastructure losses can provide opportunities to enhance stakeholder buy in have been established, regulations and enforcement systems and engagement with ALDAG reduction efforts. could be developed to support their adoption and implementa- tion. 3.04 Assess the economic drivers of gear abandonment and discard. Building on the information presented in the accompa- 3.03 Research and develop domestically-produced aquaculture nying Evidence Base reports, analytical studies could be imple- components. Research and development could be conducted mented to improve information on the economic drivers of gear to identify cost effective alternatives to single use plastics and abandonment and discard, and to inform the development of ap- high risk materials (e.g. plastic bottles or expanded polystyrene propriate mitigation strategies and incentive structures. floats). These alternatives could be pilot tested to refine designs and determine commercial feasibility. Assessing risks associated with specific quires a lot of space, and finfish cage farming often occurs in production systems busy bays close to coastal communities. Both activities are like- Preliminary risk assessments presented in the accompanying ly to increase in scale over the coming decade. This increasing Evidence Base report suggest that two main approaches are congestion of coastal areas increases the likelihood of collisions available to address ALDAG in Indonesia. For high-risk operations with floating aquaculture facilities and resulting damage and loss such as cages or seaweed farming, measures should focus on of buoys, moorings and other equipment. reducing the loss and abandonment of plastic at sea. Strategies could include: (i) providing advice and, where appropriate, mini- 3.08 Minimize spatial conflict with other marine users. Marine mum specifications for materials and design; (ii) conducting risk spatial planning and zoning can be used to segregate marine ac- assessments as a part of site-level environmental impact assess- tivities and minimize the risk of spatial interactions such as acci- ments to identify and mitigate aquatic debris loss; (iii) ensuring dental collision with fish cages or seaweed farms. Indonesia has that preemptive maintenance is carried out to repair or replace already established a robust marine spatial planning framework components before they fail; and (iv) enhancing farmer knowl- that delineates major zones such as general use and conserva- 031 edge and awareness of ALDAG impacts and good practices. For tion areas. General use areas could be further zoned to clearly lower risk operations such as coastal ponds, efforts should focus delineate and segregate different activities, and further minimize on responsible management and disposal of waste. interaction risks. 3.05 Develop a risk assessment framework for Indonesia’s 3.09 Improve marking of aquaculture facilities. Technical stan- aquaculture sector. Building on the preliminary risk assessments dards could be established for the marking and illumination of presented in the accompanying Evidence Base report, a compre- floating aquaculture facilities to minimize the risk of collision hensive risk assessment framework could be established for all and damage. This could include marking of individual facilities, production systems in Indonesia. This risk assessment could as well as marking the boundaries surrounding intensive aqua- adopt a broad scope by incorporating elements beyond plastic culture zones. The development of technical standards could be pollution such as biosecurity. However, a modular framework informed by risk assessments to ensure that the most vulnerable would ensure that risks associated with plastic loss and impact and high risk facilities are prioritized. Technical standards could are also adequately considered. address marking for the purposes of both identification (e.g., to enable the owner of buoys, floats or other major components to 3.06 Develop risk assessment and contingency planning mod- be identified) and detection (e.g., radar reflectors, lighting, etc.). els. Once a risk assessment framework has been established, For larger facilities, automatic identification system (AIS) trans- specific practical risk assessment models and contingency plan- mitters or other locator beacons could be considered. ning approaches could be developed for the various types and scales of aquaculture in Indonesia. These models would identify Improving fallowing and decommissioning the potential risk associated with specific operations, and define of aquaculture sites the responses to be implemented should problems develop. Like many other countries, Indonesia has a high turnover of aqua- These models could be applied at the site level for large scale culture sites. Reasons include the temporary fallowing of sites as aquaculture operations, or at the regional level for clusters of part of a site rotation strategy, as well as the permanent cessa- small-scale operations. tion of activities if the site proves unsuitable or operators go out of business. While some decommissioning is conducted system- 3.07 Strengthen capacity for risk assessment and contingency atically, it is often haphazard and incomplete, resulting in equip- planning. Training and capacity-building on risk assessment and ment and plastic materials being abandoned, unmanaged and at contingency planning could be delivered to small- and large-scale high risk of leakage to the marine environment. This applies to operations. Training could be delivered by the private sector, but both subtidal and supralittoral sites, with the majority of plastic could also be integrated into existing academic and vocational lost from coastal ponds resulting from incomplete or inadequate training courses in subjects related to aquaculture. decommissioning plans. Planning marine aquaculture to minimize 3.10 Ensure responsible decommissioning of redundant aqua- spatial conflict culture sites. The system for aquaculture permitting and licens- Despite Indonesia being the world’s largest archipelagic state, ing could be adapted to require decommissioning plans to be sea spaces are increasingly congested, particularly in inshore clearly defined prior to the granting of license. While the Director- areas where competition between aquaculture, tourism, marine ate General of Aquaculture has overall authority for aquaculture traffic and capture fisheries is high. Seaweed aquaculture re- licensing, decommissioning requirements could be implemented at both national and provincial levels depending on the scale of Enhancing awareness about marine aquaculture operation involved. aquaculture plastic pollution and its management 3.11 Apply fiscal instruments to ensure responsible decommis- Reducing plastic pollution from aquaculture will require stakeholder sioning. In addition to incorporating decommission plans into awareness about the issue, including the consequences of plastic the aquaculture licensing process, GOI could consider applying pollution on ecosystem functioning and human wellbeing. This is financial bonds or withholding taxes to ensure that the costs of particularly important for small-scale aquaculture operators and responsible disposal (e.g. re-purposing, recycling or approved their dependent coastal communities who may be both a source of disposal methods) are built into the cost of operation. Fiscal plastic waste as well as impacted by its downstream affects. instruments may not be appropriate for all types and scales of aquaculture in Indonesia, and their design could be informed by 3.14 Enhance awareness amongst aquaculture famers and coast- the results of risk assessments to ensure that productions sys- al communities. Local awareness campaigns could be developed tems with the highest risk are considered. targeting aquaculture operators and coastal communities. Develop- 032 ment of key messages could be informed by risk assessments to Strengthening capacity to manage plastic address priority issues. use and disposal Training and capacity building at the aquaculture sector level would Integrating ALDAG into third-party enhance awareness of operators and farmers about their envi- certification schemes ronmental responsibilities and the consequences of non-action. The ecolabelling of seafood, mainly though the third-party certifica- tion and assessments of individual aquaculture sites and business- 3.12 Develop technical guidelines for plastic waste manage- es, creates an important market driver for responsible aquaculture. ment within the aquaculture industry. Guidelines could be devel- Producers in Indonesia have adopted a number of certification oped to promote good waste management practices throughout schemes, including the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), the aquaculture value chain. These could include specific guid- Global Seafood Alliance Best Aquaculture Practices (GSA-BAP) ance on: (i) developing and maintaining inventories of the plastics and Asian Seafood Improvement Collaborative (ASIC). MMAF has in use by installations; (ii) reducing the use of high risk materials established the Indonesian Good Aquaculture Practice (IndoGAP) such as EPS; (iii) technical standards to minimize risks, such as by with consideration of the FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquacul- enclosing friable materials such as EPS in rigid, durable, non-toxic ture Certification and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations HDPE shells to minimize leakage; (iv) ensuring plastic materials of Shrimp Good Aquaculture Practices (ASEAN Shrimp GAqP). To are recyclable, including by ensuring that mixed material com- date, most aquaculture certification schemes have focused on is- ponents can be disassembled and separated; and (v) adopting sues associated with biological waste (e.g. the release of metabolic and implementing solid waste logbooks. Guidelines could be waste, pathogens and genetic material), but have yet to fully address developed by GOI, with technical assistance from research and non-biological wastes. The ASC is currently considering how to in- academic institution and strong consultation with the various corporate waste management into its standard (e.g., Huntington, sub-sectors of Indonesia aquaculture industry. These could then 2019). Actions could be taken to more fully integrate plastic waste be developed into specific codes of practice or guidelines for management into aquaculture improvement projects (AIPs) and cer- each production system, and embedded within in an updated ver- tification in Indonesia. sion of the Indonesian Good Aquaculture Practices (IndoGAP). 3.15 Evaluate the feasibility of upgrading MMAF’s IndoGAP certi- 3.13 Develop specific codes of practice for different produc- fication to include risk assessment, management and recovery of tion systems. While the technical guidelines described above plastic waste. If there is potential to expand the IndoGAP certifica- are likely to be generic across the different types and scales of tion, these actions could be integrated alongside other actions such aquaculture, they could be further developed into specific codes the development of technical standards for aquaculture equipment of practice for each production system. Codes of practice could (Action 3.01), risk assessment (Action 3.05) and capacity-building be developed in consultation with industry producer associa- (Action 3.12). tions to obtain stakeholder feedback and inputs, and to promote stakeholder cooperation and engagement. Existing good practice 3.16 Facilitate aquaculture producers to engage in improvement guidelines could provide a useful starting point (e.g., WWF-Indo- and certification programs. International certification schemes are nesia, 2014). increasingly considering how to implement ALDAG and solid waste management principles into their certification standards. Aquacul- ture operations could be encouraged to engage in AIPs and to under- go third-party certifications that include best management practices for plastic use and disposal. Ultimately, market demand will have the greatest influence on a producer’s interest in certification schemes. However, support programs could be established—including tech- nical guidance and training schemes—to assist producers to meet certification standards. 033 ACTION 4. RECOVER ALDFG AND ALDAG While preventing ALDFG and ALDAG is preferable to remedial actions, nonetheless efforts to recover derelict gear can play an important role in an overall strategy by (i) reduce the impact of derelict fishing and aquaculture gear on the environment; (ii) contributing to the wider issue of marine plastic debris; and (iii) increasing stakeholder awareness and engagement. Different recovery strategies will be required for different size and 4.03: Plan recovery missions. At the hotspots identified, the Task 034 types of vessels and gears. A tiered strategy could be adopted, Force could commission vessels that are fit for purpose (i.e., of with selected vessels that have the appropriate equipment and sufficient scale and with suitable equipment) for the type of ALD- expertise undertaking ALDFG recovery missions in offshore lo- FG likely to be encountered. For example, in some locations nets cations, and coastal communities engaging in fishing for litter and traps could be recovered by dragging grapnels, while at more schemes to recover derelict fishing gear and other marine debris sensitive sites such as shallow coral reefs, recovery by trained in inshore locations. The action aims to enhance the recovery teams of divers may help to avoid further habitat damage. The of ALDFG and ALDAG from the marine environment. Three sub- Task Force could determine suitable rates to pay recovery ves- groups of actions are proposed: (i) operationalizing ALDFG and sels, which could be tendered via a competitive bidding process ALDAG recovery; (ii) implementing fishing-for-litter schemes; and to ensure value for money. Mission planning could include the (iii) establishing fit-for-purpose port reception facilities. preparation of recovery plans that promote best practice and safety in recovery, handling, landing and treatment of retrieved Operationalizing ALDFG Recovery material. As a short-term action to mitigate the current problem and ac- cumulation of ALDFG in the environment, a task force could be 4.04: Implement recovery missions. Once plans are agreed, re- established to coordinate recovery actions. If risk assessments covery missions could be carried out and brief post-mission re- demonstrate that the preventative measures described above ports provided to the Task Force detailing the location, resources (Actions 2 and 3) are effective, remedial measures will eventually used, the weight and type of material retrieved, and the onshore become unnecessary and the Task Force could be disbanded. collection and treatment of recovered material. The Task Force could regularly review planning and implementation processes 4.01 Establish a Ghost Gear Recovery Task Force. A Ghost Gear to ensure that best practices are applied and to capture lessons Recovery Task Force could be established to coordinate recovery learned in order to optimize future missions. missions. The Task Force could be led by MMAF, and include oth- er Ministries and organizations. The Ministry of Environment and Implementing Fishing-for-Litter schemes Forestry (KLHK, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan) Fishing-for-Litter schemes are well established in many coun- could be a valuable member due to its waste management man- tries, where they support the recovery of marine litter by small- date, while NGOs could contribute valuable technical capacity and large-scale fishing operators. Such schemes could be par- and resources. ticularly relevant in Indonesia where a significant component of fishing and aquaculture waste is plastic bottles that may be indis- 4.02: Identify ALDFG and ALDAG hotspots. To prioritize recov- tinguishable from other post-consumer waste that contributes to ery efforts and resources efficiently, ALDFG and ALDAG hotspot marine litter. locations could be identified. The risk assessment process could provide an entry point for MMAF to engage with the fishing indus- 4.05 Design and implement a Fishing-for-Litter scheme. Fish- try, which is likely to have valuable information and intelligence ing-for-Litter schemes can encourage fishers to land all waste that could help identify hotspots. This activity could generate a generated and recovered during fishing operations. Designing a list of prioritized provinces and sites, including an understanding scheme could involve providing fishers with reusable sacks, es- of the types of ALDFG and ALDAG that are likely to be encoun- tablishing incentive structures (e.g., payments for verified weight tered, to enable targeted recovery operations to be implemented. of waste landed), collecting waste in port reception facilities, and monitoring and reporting. A pilot scheme could be established Establishing fit-for-purpose port 035 in selected priority ports before wider roll-out. Risk assessments reception facilities could help to identify priority ports, such as those with trawl fleets 4.07 Install fit-for-purpose port reception facilities. In the ports that regularly bring marine litter onto deck during hauling. Fol- where Fishing-for-Litter schemes are established, waste recep- lowing successful pilots, the scheme could be scaled up, with a tion facilities could be installed to receive the waste landed by network of collection systems established to encourage wider Fishing-for-Litter participants. A network of waste reception and participation in marine litter collection. collection systems could be established connecting small land- ing sites to larger ports that could function as waste collection 4.06 Promote Fishing-for-Litter schemes. Fishing-for-Litter hubs. Incentives and waste collection must be managed and schemes could be promoted alongside wider marine litter aware- monitored carefully by port operators to ensure it is only dealing ness campaigns to fishers and coastal communities—this could with marine litter collected by fishers as part of the Fishing-for-Lit- include integrating with existing marine litter awareness-raising ter scheme, and not general municipal waste. efforts under the MPOA-MPD. Adequate communication and pro- motion of Fishing-for-Litter schemes will be critical to maximize stakeholder awareness and engagement. Schemes could help to drive behavior changes regarding marine litter, including storage and onshore disposal of waste generated onboard (e.g., food packaging) or recovered during fishing. ACTION 5. PROMOTE A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR END-OF-LIFE FISHING AND AQUACULTURE EQUIPMENT A circular economy is restorative and regenerative by design, keeping resources in use for as long as possible, extracting the maximum value from them whilst in use, and then recovering and regenerating products and materials at the end of their service life. Consequently a circular economy offers a way to improve competitiveness and resource efficiency. The Action aims to enhance the circularity of end-of-life fishing gear and aquaculture equipment. Two sub-groups of actions are proposed: (i) establishing 036 EOLFG value chains; and (ii) improving fishing gear circular design. Establishing EOLFG Value Chains points (for volumes to be transported efficiently) and material A circular economy could be developed for EOLFG to make it less handling (to separate and clean material). The informal sector likely this material becomes ALDFG. At the end-of-life, materials plays an important role in the circular economy through the col- should have clearly defined directions to follow before they be- lection and segregation of waste plastic and other materials. Pol- come waste, including repair, reuse, refurbishment, recycling icies that recognize and protect the livelihoods and human safety for secondary materials, or up-cycling/ down-cycling to alter- of informal waste collectors are essential. The informal waste native use. collection sector could be engaged in recycling initiatives as key participants in the EOLFG value chain. To sustain a circular economy, sufficient value and volume of ma- terial is required to maintain economic viability. Where this is not While Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes can be achieved by the private sector alone, public sector interventions effective at encouraging waste recovery in some sectors, there may be required to address constraints or stimulate investment. could be challenges implementing such schemes in the fishing An important consideration is the opportunity cost associated sector. These challenges include a high reliance on imported fish- with engaging in fishing gear waste processing rather than other ing gear, and the highly dispersed and low value nature of fish- waste streams. Purse seine and gillnets are the fishing gears with ing waste. Improvement in ALDFG monitoring, waste collection the highest reuse and recycling rates as these gears are often systems and recycling markets are likely to be essential prerequi- constructed from Nylon, a medium value material. Initial pilots sites to effective EPR schemes. As an alternative, gear buy-back could prioritize these fisheries. schemes could be established for relatively large capital gear items such as trawl and seine nets. Collection of waste could be Several enterprises and pilot initiatives in Indonesia (see accom- facilitated through the installation of fit-for-purpose port recep- panying Evidence Base reports) demonstrate that fishing gear re- tion facilities that are able to receive different waste streams and cycling businesses are viable, but margins are tight and support maintain separation. is needed to scale up existing operations. In particular, the unpre- dictable supply and variety of plastic types associated with fish- 5.01 Implement EOLFG value chain pilots. Pilots could be estab- ing gear waste highlight the importance of integrating approach- lished at key ports where risk assessments have identified suffi- es into wider circular economy initiatives to enhance viability and cient volumes and rates of EOLFG generation. Gillnet and seine economies of scale. net fisheries could be prioritized, as these gears are constructed from materials that have the highest reuse and recycling value. An active informal waste collection sector and plastic recycling Pilots could be implemented in coordination with local port and enterprises are well-established in Indonesia. These tend to focus waste management operators in order to develop fit-for-purpose on the simplest and most plentiful waste streams from municipal EOLFG collection facilities and treatment systems, and to estab- waste and industry. The collection and recycling of fishing gear is lish the incentive structures needed to sustain fishing gear waste comparatively difficult and so must be facilitated with collection value chains. Pilots should consider all key steps and stakehold- ers in the value chain, including (i) deposit of EOLFG by fishers; 5.04 Establish fit-for-purpose EOLFG port reception facilities. (ii) collection, sorting, cleaning and drying by waste collectors; Port reception facilities are already being progressed by GOI as (iii) pickup and transport by recyclers or middlemen; (iv) crushing, part of MARPOL Annex V implementation. Port facilities are re- washing and pelletizing by recyclers; and (v) transport of plastic quired for: pellets to plastic manufacturers. • Net repair areas FAO guidance recommends that small- and medium-sized fishing ports have dedicated net repair facil- 5.02 Scale up recycling and treatment initiatives. Based on ities, with 500m2 allocated in artisanal ports and 1,000m2 lessons learned from the pilot value chains, incentives could part-covered areas allocated in coastal and offshore fishing be introduced at a wider scale to facilitate EOLFG collection and ports (Sciortino, 2010). treatment systems. Incentives could be direct (e.g., subsidies) or • ALDFG and ‘Fishing for Litter’ waste: Port reception facilities indirect (e.g., tax relief on sales resulting from EOLFG material). could be installed to receive material from Fishing for Litter 037 Subsidies could be used to, for example, ensure a minimum price schemes and ALDFG recovery missions. This material is for recycled materials that covers the cost of production, helping to likely to be mixed and often contaminated (e.g., with oil or de-risk the venture and encourage waste operators to receive EO- marine growth), difficult to clean and separate, and therefore LFG. Incentive schemes require careful design to ensure that levels may need to be disposed of through incineration. If waste is of support are appropriate and good oversight to ensure schemes paid for as (e.g., via a scheme similar to that implemented by are not exploited. Once value chains with sufficient economies of the Government of South Korea), reception facilities could scale are established, it may be feasible to reduce or remove in- be established at larger ports that are adequate for the vol- centive structures. Currently, Indonesia’s EOLFG collectors are umes of waste anticipated. Cement reception facilities are neither organized nor registered. Initiatives could support waste ideal, and indeed several ports identified in the accompa- collectors to organize more effectively, for example through co- nying Evidence Base report already have cement areas for operation schemes with local authorities, and improve linkages waste reception that are not currently in use. Assessments between informal waste collectors, recyclers, plastics manufac- could be implemented on a port-by-port basis to determine turers and other stakeholders along the EOLFG value chain. the relative scale of material and adequacy of existing facil- ities before new facilities are constructed. At smaller ports 5.03 Implement EOLFG buy-back schemes. A buy-back scheme where volumes of waste will be less, or when there is no is a form of EPR that incentivizes suppliers to develop ongoing need to distinguish who has deposited the waste, dedicat- relations with their customers through the promotion of return, ed skips with secure lids would suffice, though ideally these repair and replacement services. Such arrangements are com- could be separate from general waste to enable better mon- monplace amongst fishing and aquaculture net suppliers in itoring of the volumes received. many countries, for example the Government of South Korea has • EOLFG collection facilities: Separate, dedicated EOLFG col- implemented a purchase scheme for EOLFG and marine litter re- lection facilities could be installed at key fishing ports where ceived at port collection points . While in Europe, private sector 4 significant volumes of EOLFG have been identified. Prioriti- buy-back schemes are common for large and relatively high-val- zation could be given to ports that are home to significant ue gear items such as purse seines and trawl nets, with net sup- purse seine and trawl fleets. Fit-for-purpose facilities include pliers offering discounts on repaired and new nets when EOLFG skips with secure lids that could enable waste EOLFG to be are returned. In this way buy back schemes can encourage cus- transported to treatment centers. EOLFG reception facilities tomer loyalty while also ensuring that EOLFG is returned for reuse could be moved between ports as EOLFG accumulated over or recycling. Consultation could be initiated with gear suppliers to many years is cleared and volumes settle down to annual re- define how a buy-back scheme could function in Indonesia. In the placement rates. The installation of dedicated EOLFG collec- short-term it may be most feasible to implement a government tion facilities would improve separation of these materials buy-back scheme that could be introduced relatively quickly and from general waste streams, and facilitate the development include smaller items such as gillnet and handline, while simulta- of EOLFG value chains. Particular consideration could be neously facilitating the longer-term development of viable, private given to larger ports that receive foreign fishing vessels, and sector EPR schemes. that are required to have and promote facilities for process- 4 NOWPAP MERRAC, 2015: http://merrac.nowpap.org/merrac/publication/select_marineLitter_list ing EOLFG and recovered marine litter from these vessels. lar economy, including through the use of a high proportion of In particular, the Port State Measures Agreement ratified reused or recycled materials and gradual elimination of all virgin via Presidential Regulation 43/PERPRES/2016 specifically plastics. Particular emphasis could be placed on designs that do not reduce performance, durability or product lifetime. Potential identified PPS Nizam Zachman Jakarta, PPS Bitung, PPS areas of research identified in the accompanying Evidence Base Bungus, and Benoa Sea Port. reports include: (i) developing new nets and/or ropes from EO- • Village-level facilities: In addition to port reception facilities LFG trawl and seine nets; (ii) designing floats and weights from in larger fishing ports, PPI and smaller landing facilities in EOLFG that could provide a viable alternative to the plastic bottles coastal villages may also require infrastructure to collect, and other materials commonly used in fishing and aquaculture; store and process EOLFG, recovered ALDFG and other re- and (iii) developing new products from EOLFG materials such as plastic decking, chairs or tables. Research and design programs covered plastic litter. FAO guidelines (Sciortino, 2010) rec- are likely to require the involvement of diverse stakeholders from ommend a small (50 m²) platform with integrated stores industry and academia in order to address the challenges asso- 038 (e.g. 2 x 6 m²). ciated with EOLFG. A fund could be established and promoted to encourage innovation and partnerships, with funding made avail- Improving fishing gear circular design able through open calls for proposals thar are evaluated by an A key challenge to enhancing circularity in fishing gear design assessment panel. is to develop products that use a less diverse range of material types. Mixed materials within fishing gears (whether associat- ed with different components, or where two materials are inter- weaved together) inherently reduce the likelihood and feasibility of materials being re-used or recycled. 5.05 Promote research and development of fishing gear cir- cular design. Research and development programs could be established to identify fishing gear designs suitable for a circu- ACTION 6. IMPROVE MONITORING AND REPORTING OF EOLFG, ALDFG AND ALDAG While an international framework exists for reporting of waste by fishing vessels in the form of MARPOL Annex V, these apply primarily to large-scale vessels (>400 GT) and are not sufficiently tailored to the contexts and needs of Indonesia’s fishing operations. Similarly, international frameworks for reporting of waste from aquaculture are not yet well developed. To address plastic leakage from capture fishery and aquaculture nesia. By facilitating information sharing, dialog and coordination, 039 sectors, Indonesia could establish national regulations that go the TWG could increase the likelihood that e-reporting and e-mon- beyond the minimum standards outlined in MARPOL Annex V to itoring system designs are fit for purpose and able to tackle a establish waste reporting requirements for all vessels operating range of concerns that can arise from the fishing, licensing, port within its maritime jurisdiction, as well as for aquaculture instal- authority, fisherfolk, coast guard, maritime affairs, waste man- lations. This action aims to enhance monitoring and reporting of agement domains. plastic use and disposal by the capture fishery and aquaculture sectors. Four sub-groups of activities are proposes: (i) planning, 6.02 Strengthen capacity for e-reporting and e-monitoring. In technical management and coordination; (ii) developing e-report- order to prepare for piloting, a series of targeted training work- ing and e-monitoring prototype systems; (iii) piloting e-reporting shops could be implemented to ensure that each sector has a and e-monitoring for capture fisheries; and (iv) evaluating report- clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities in devel- ing for aquaculture. oping and implementing e-reporting and e-monitoring. Training could be made available for personnel directly involved in e-re- Planning, technical management and porting and e-monitoring pilots (which may include MMAF, KE- coordination MEN-PUPR, fishing gear companies and fishing license holders). Monitoring and reporting of EOLFG and ADLFG in Indonesia The National Task Force could oversee this process, including by could be based on a mass balance approach, with checks and e.g., integrating plastic waste e-reporting and e-monitoring into balances built into various stages of the fishing gear lifecycle existing catch documentation and traceability processes. (Annex 2). Such a system would require information on gear re- plenishment rates obtained from suppliers and/or vessel opera- 6.03 Analyze the policy and regulatory gaps for e-reporting and tors, and a fishery independent system to monitor the weight of e-monitoring. To ensure effective implementation of an e-report- plastic materials landed by large-scale (>30 GT) fishing vessels. ing / e-monitoring system, a gap analysis could be carried out Estimates could be further improved if (i) a system is put in place of the policy and legal frameworks via which plastic waste and for monitoring and reporting lost fishing gears, and (ii) vessel plastic pollution is managed. A particularly focus could be the operators are required (e.g., through linkages to the terms and limitations of MARPOL Annex V for waste management of fish- conditions of a fishing licensing) to report landed plastic weights ing vessels, and consideration of the national legislation needed an lost gears. Electronic reporting (e-reporting) and electronic to improve waste monitoring and reporting for vessels 30-400 GT. monitoring (e-monitoring) offer potential opportunities for effi- Programmatic approaches could be identified for vessels to (i) re- cient and effective data capture, provided they are designed with port offloading of their EOLFG, retrieved ALDFG and other types of consideration of stakeholder needs and supporting regulatory plastic garbage (see IMO definition) prior to arrival, (ii) report lost frameworks. fishing gear at the time of loss, indicating time, location, depth and the cause of loss, and (iii) transmit information to the relevant 6.01 Improve information sharing and coordination for e-re- authorities, including the design of appropriate forms. The gap porting and e-monitoring. The effective management, monitor- analysis could inform the draft of legislation and regulations for ing, reporting and safe disposal or recycling of EOLFG and ALDFG consideration by senior management. Technical assistance from requires synergy between sectors and line ministries. The TWG, FAO Development Law Branch could assist MMAF to incorporate supported by representatives from academia and industry, could international best practice and lessons learned. bring together the diverse range of expertise that resides in Indo- Developing e-reporting and e-monitoring equipment for pilot evaluations in selected ports and fisheries; prototype systems (ii) design and procurement of e-reporting and e-monitoring sys- tems; (iii) development of standard operating procedures, includ- E-reporting of plastic waste from fishing involves the electronic re- ing operating manuals for end users and clearly defined roles and cording of information by vessel captains and crew and fisheries responsibilities for key actors; (iv) initial testing and evaluation managers according to pre-determined data collection protocols (dry run) of hardware and software systems; (v) pilot implementa- and forms. It includes the reporting of: (i) EOLFG and retrieved tion and field evaluation in selected ports and commercial fishing ALDFG; and (ii) all other plastic waste that is generated during vessels for a period of two years; (vi) periodic progress reporting fishing operations and considered as plastic garbage. E-moni- on pilots by TWG to the national task force; (vii) preparation of toring, on the other hand, is the use of electronic equipment to a plan for national roll out, including identification of long-term automatically record information on plastic waste generated by staffing, operation and maintenance resources. If risk assess- fishing activities and to track trends in disposal behavior such as 040 ments and pilots identify that specific reporting requirements are the quantities disposed onshore or discarded at sea. E-reporting needed for gear loss (only one aspect of ALDFG), specific sub- is typically used to collect data on plastic waste disposal by high- routines could be incorporated into the e-reporting system, with risk fishing fleets, while e-monitoring is typically used to address consideration given to any applicable provisions under MARPOL compliance with fisheries regulations. Effective e-reporting and Annex V Regulation 10.6 to ensure that coastal State responsibil- e-monitoring strategies depend on information and communica- ities to report gear loss to the International Maritime Organization tion technology (ICT) systems and processes that minimize the are adequately addressed. burden on data reporters, including through use of flexible and easy-to-use “off the shelf” technologies. Piloting e-reporting and e-monitoring 6.04 Establish baseline data to support e-reporting and e-mon- for capture fisheries itoring: Reliable baseline data will be required to inform the selec- A decision to roll out an e-reporting and e-monitoring system for tion of priority fisheries and ports for pilot implementation, and plastics in the fisheries sector is likely to have economic conse- to evaluate progress. The accompanying Evidence Base reports quences for fishing operators as well as for the work program of identify data gaps that currently constrain the ability to quantify government officers in fisheries, compliance, marine transporta- and identify the main ports and fleets generating waste. Baseline tion and solid waste management, amongst others who will be data could be improved, including by (i) improving disaggregat- required to operate and maintain the systems. ed data on fishing vessel size and number and fishing gears per port; (ii) updating Indonesia’s catalogue of fishing gears, with a 6.06 Evaluate and approve national rollout. Information ob- focus on updating information on material types and quantities tained during the development, and piloting of e-reporting and to provide a more robust estimate of the weight of plastic mate- e-monitoring systems (Actions 6.01-6.05) could provide decision rial deployed in Indonesia’s fisheries; and (iii) select priority ports makers with the evidence base and supporting information (e.g., and fisheries for monitoring and e-reporting pilots informed by costs) to evaluate the potential of these systems to be deployed risk assessments. at national scales. 6.05 Develop, pilot and evaluate e-reporting and e-monitoring 6.07 Develop communication strategy and products. National systems. Informed by risk assessments and other outputs of Ac- role out of e-reporting and e-monitoring systems could be sup- tions 2.01-2.12, a shore-based monitoring and reporting system ported by a communication strategy targeting the affected pri- could be designed, costed, procured and evaluated in selected vate sector and wider general public and affected private sector. ports and fisheries. The design phase could define data models, Communications could include information on the requirements reporting form templates, and software specifications for desk- and obligations for e-reporting and e-monitoring. top, tablet or mobile phone platforms. Given the technical nature of this activity, inputs may be required from the TWG as well as an Evaluating reporting for aquaculture ICT specialist for technical oversight, preparation of terms of ref- The challenges of monitoring debris from aquaculture are quite erence and procurement specifications. Critical milestones and different from that of capture fisheries. This is mainly due to outputs could include: (i) procurement of key infrastructure and the different nature of loss—primarily persistent, low-level leak- age of single use plastics with intermittent catastrophic losses 6.10 Develop community-based reporting of ALDAG. A commu- of material due to storms or flooding. As a result reporting and nity-based framework could be established involving local stake- tracking are likely to be more expensive and less cost-effective holders and aquaculture operations to monitor ALDAG at the lo- than for the capture fisheries. However, aquaculture debris is like- cal level. Communities could be enabled to monitor and report ly to more localized than ALDFG, as most of Indonesia’s marine marine pollution or other problems that affect them as a result of aquaculture occurs in coastal areas. The challenges of monitor- local aquaculture production, and systems could be established ing plastic leakage from aquaculture could be addressed via two to ensure an adequate response from the aquaculture industry. different strategies: A community e-reporting system could be developed, with rep- 1. Routine reporting and monitoring of aquaculture-derived resentatives from the aquaculture industry providing valuable debris within priority locations. Risk assessments could be inputs into the design of such a system. used to identify locations that have high levels of aquaculture 0 41 activity, or are particularly vulnerable to plastic pollution (e.g., sites of biological significance such as marine protected ar- eas). Using a standard protocol, monitoring could be imple- mented by subnational governments, private sector, NGOs or other stakeholders. 2. Short-term monitoring following catastrophic events that could generate losses and discharge of aquaculture debris to the marine environment (e.g., following coastal flooding, storms or tsunamis). There is limited global experience designing and implementing systems for reporting and tracking aquaculture debris. This, com- bined with the continuous low-level and largely coastal nature of loss, suggests that a step-wise approach could be taken to ensure that strategies adopted in Indonesia are appropriate and cost-effective. 6.08 Undertake a feasibility study for aquaculture debris report- ing. Studies could be implemented to evaluate the feasibility of a national aquaculture debris reporting system. Such a system could be integrated with or deployed alongside other marine de- bris monitoring systems (e.g. from capture fisheries). 6.09 Implement aquaculture debris reporting. Voluntary or man- datory reporting system could be implemented, with a priority focus on capturing information about aquaculture infrastructure failure and major loss of equipment to the marine environment. Reporting could include details about the date, circumstances of loss, nature of the equipment or debris, and potential risk it might pose to other maritime users or the environment. 042 Indicative implementation timeline An indicative implementation timetable is presented in Figure 3 including of the sequencing of precursor activities and critical paths. Name 043 1.01 Establish National Task Force for managing the use of plastic in fisheries & aquaculture 1.02 Technical Working Group (TWG) for EOLFG, ALDFG and Plastic Garbage from fisheries 1.03 Design and run an Indonesian Ghost Gear Fund (GGF) 2.01 Building cross-ministry capacity to provide oversight and coordination 2.02 Building technical capacity within MMAF Directorates to implement the work program 2.03 Fishery Specific Risk Assessments (PS-GNS-FPO) 2.04 Desk-based analysis of Risk Assessments and identification of technical measures 2.05 Field Surveys of vessle operators and license holders 2.06 Policy and legal frameworks for technical measures 2.07 Linking e-reporting and e-monitoring of plastic waste to Fisheries Act and to fishing vessel licensing 2.08 Preparation of draft policy, legislative amendments and regulations 2.09 Development of National Standars for Marking of Vessel and Fishing Gears 2.10 Selection and design of deghosting technologies 2.11 Fleet Separation Schemes 2.12 Roll out of technical measures 2.13 Development of best practices for management of fishing gear 2.14 Outreach and communication products related to ALDFG 3.01 Technical standards for aquaculture infrastructure 3.02 Technical regulations for aquaculture components 3.03 R&D into domestically-produced aquaculture components 3.04 Aquaculture risk assessment framework 3.05 Aquaculture risk assessment & contigency planning models 3.06 Training in risk assessment & contigency planning 3.07 Minimize spatial conflict with other sea users 3.08 Marking of aquaculture facilities 3.09 Responsible decommissioning of redundant aquaculture sites 3.10 Use of EPR or other financial mechanisms to ensure responsible decommissioning Name 3.11 Technical guidelines for plastic waste management in aquaculture industry 3.12 Codes of good practice & guidance 3.13 Awareness-building 3.14 Development of the IndoGAP certification standard to include marine plastics 3.15 Platics waste management in 3rd party aquaculture certification 4.01 Ghost Gear Recovery Working Group 4.02 Ghost gear hotspot identification 4.03 Ghost Gear Recovery Planning 4.04 Ghost Gear Recovery Missions 4.05 Establish a Fishing for Litter scheme 4.06 Fishing fot Litter promotion and awareness-raising 4.07 Port Reception Facilities 5.01 EOLFG Value Chain Pilots 5.02 EOLFG Recycling & treatment incentives 5.03 EOLFG Buy back scheme 5.04 EOLFG Port Reception Facilities 5.05 Fishing Gear Circular Design 6.01 Establish a team (E-R/E-M) to provide technical oversight, coordination and backstopping 6.02 Build capacity in E-R & E-M systems 6.03 Indonesian Policy & Regulatory frameworks for platics waste from fishing vessles 6.04 Completion of preparatory (baseline) data to support E-R and E-M reporting 6.05 E-R/E-M System evaluation 6.06 National Roll out of E-R/E-M systems 6.07 Community-based reporting of ALDAG 6.08 Aquaculture debris reporting: feasibility study and design 6.09 Aquaculture debris reporting: Implementation 6.10 Community-based reporting of ALDAG Figure 3. Indicative timetable for implementing the proposed actions. 044 References Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C. & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global 045 environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364(1526): 1985-1998. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0205 Boren, L.J., Morrissey, M., Muller, C.G. & Gemmell, N.J. (2006). Entanglement of New Zealand fur seals in man-made debris at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Mar Pollut Bull 52(4): 442-446. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.12.003 Brown, J., Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., M.J. \& Tumilty, J. (2005). Ghost Fishing by Lost Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission (Fish/2004/20). Institute for European Environmental Policy \& Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. Burgess, H.K., Herring C.E., Lippiatt S., Lowe S., & Uhrin A.V. (2021). NOAA Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project Shoreline Survey Guide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. Charter, M. & Carruthers, R. (2022). Products from waste fishing nets: accessories, clothing, footwear, home ware and recreation. Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD) Chen, W.-Q., Ciacci, L., Sun, N.-N., & Yoshioka, T. (2020). Sustainable cycles and management of plastics: A brief review of RCR publications in 2019 and early 2020. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 159; 104822. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.104822 Consoli, P., Sinopoli, M., Deidun, A., Canese, S., Berti, C., Andaloro, F. & Romeo, T. (2021). The impact of marine litter from fish aggregation devices on vulnerable marine benthic habitats of the central Mediterranean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull, 152, 110928. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110928 DelBene, J.A., Bilkovic, D.M. & Scheld, A.M. (2019) Examining derelict pot impacts on harvest in a commercial blue crab Callinectes sapidus fishery. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 139, pp. 150-156. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.014 EC (2013). Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter. 117 pp. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/76da424f-8144-45c6- 9c5b-78c6a5f69c5d/language-en https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/2021/beach_debris_ mornitoring_2020_report_english-_1_july_2021.pdf English, E., Wagner, C. & Holmes, J. (2019). The Effects of Marine Debris on Beach Recreation and Regional Economies in Four Coastal Communities: A Regional Pilot Study. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, USA. Enrichetti, F., Bavestrello, G., Betti, F., Rindi, F., Tregrosso, A. & Bo, M. (2021). Fate of lost fishing gears: Experimental evidence of biofouling colonization patterns from the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Environ Pollut 268: 115746. doi:10.1016/j. envpol.2020.115746 Eunomia (2016). Plastics in the Marine Environment. Eunomia Research and Consulting, Bristol, UK FAO (2016a). Abandoned, lost and discarded gillnets and trammel nets: methods to estimate ghost fishing mortality, and the status of regional monitoring and management> Written by Eric Gilman, Francis Chopin, Petri Suuronen and Blaise Kuemlangan. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 600. Rome. Italy. 79 pp. ISBN 978-92-5-108917-0. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5051e.pdf FAO (2016b). Report of the Expert Consultation on the Marking of Fishing Gear, Rome, Italy, 4–7 April 2016. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1157. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5729e.pdf FAO (2018). Voluntary guidelines on the marking of fishing gear. Rome. 88 pp. Licence: CC BY‐NC‐SA 3.0 IGO. http://www.fao. org/3/ca3546t/ca3546t.pdf Foley, C.J., Feiner, Z.S., Malinich, T.D. & Höök, T.O. (2018). A meta-analysis of the effects of exposure to microplastics on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Sci Total Environ 631-632: 550-559. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.046 046 Franson, J.C., Hansen, S.P., Creekmore, T.E., Brand, C.J., Evers, D.C., Duerr, A.E. & DeStefano, S. (2003). Lead Fishing Weights and Other Fishing Tackle in Selected Waterbirds. Waterbirds 26(3): 345-352. doi:10.1675/1524-4695(2003)026[0345:lfwaof] 2.0.co;2 GESAMP (2015). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 90. IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, pp. 96. Gilardi, K. V., Carlson-Bremer, D., June, J. A., Antonelis, K., Broadhurst, G., & Cowan, T. (2010). Marine species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net removal. Mar Poll Bull 60: 376–382. doi: 10.1016/j. marpolbul.2009.10.016 Gilman, E. (2015). Status of international monitoring and management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear and ghost fishing. Mar Policy 60: 225-239. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.016 Gilman, E., Musyl, M., Suuronen, P., Chaloupka, M., Gorgin, S., Wilson, J. & Kuczenski, B. (2021). Highest risk abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear. Nature Scientific Reports 11: 7195 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86123-3 Global Ghost Gear Initiative (2021a). Best Practice Framework for the Management of Fishing Gear. 2nd Edition. Prepared by Huntington, T of Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd. In press. Global Ghost Gear Initiative (2021b). Best Practice Framework to Reduce Aquatic Debris from Aquaculture (A-BPF). Prepared by Tim Huntington of Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd for GGGI. In press. Good, T.P., June, J.A., Etnier, M.A. & Broadhurst, G. (2009). Ghosts of the Salish Sea: threats to marine birds in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits from derelict fishing gear. \textit{Mar Ornithol}, \textit{37}, 67-76. Good, T.P., June, J.A., Etnier, M.A. & Broadhurst, G. (2010). Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats to marine fauna. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 39-50. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.005 Goodman, A.J., McIntyre, J., Smith, A., Fulton, L., Walker, T.R. \& Brown, C.J. (2021). Retrieval of abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear in Southwest Nova Scotia, Canada: Preliminary environmental and economic impacts to the commercial lobster industry. Mar Pollut Bull 171: 112766. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112766. Hanni, K.D. & Pyle, P. (2000). Entanglement of Pinnipeds in Synthetic Materials at South-east Farallon Island, California, 1976-- 1998. Mar Pollut Bull 40(12): 1076-1081. doi:10.1016/s0025-326x(00)00050-3 Hong, S., Lee, J. & Lim, S. (2017). Navigational threats by derelict fishing gear to navy ships in the Korean seas. Mar Pollut Bull 119(2): 100-105. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.006 Huntington, T (2019). Marine Litter and Aquaculture Gear –White Paper. Report produced by Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. 20 pp. https://www.asc-aqua.org/what-we-do/programme- improvements/gear-management/#marine-litter-and-aquaculture-gear-asc-white-paper ICPC (2021). Fish Aggregation Devices: Risks to Submarine Cable Deployment and Operations: An Annex to Government Best Practices for Protecting and Promoting Resilience of Submarine Telecommunications Cables. International Cable Protection Committee, Portsmouth, UK. IMO (2018) Action Plan to Address Marine Litter from Ships, Resolution MEPC.310(73), 26 October 2018. International Maritime Organization Marine Environmental Protection Committee. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/marinelitter/ Documents/IMO%20marine%20litter%20action%20plan%20MEPC%2073–19-Add-1.pdf 0 47 Juan, R., Domínguez, C., Robledo, N., Paredes, B., Galera, S., \& García-Muñoz, R. A. (2021). Challenges and Opportunities for Recycled Polyethylene Fishing Nets: Towards a Circular Economy. Polymers 13(18): 3155. doi:10.3390/polym13183155 Kaiser, M., Bullimore, B., Newman, P., Lock, K., Gilbert, S. (1996) Catches in ‘ghost fishing’ set nets. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 145, 11-16. doi:10.3354/meps145011 Kuczenski, B., Vargas, C., Gilman, E., Musyl, M., Geyer, R. & Wilson, J. (2021). Plastic gear loss estimates from remote observation of industrial fishing activity. Fish., 23: 22-33. doi: 10.1111/faf.12596 Laist, D.W. (1995). Marine debris entanglement and ghost fishing: a cryptic and significant type of bycatch. Proceedings from Solving Bycatch: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, September 25-27, 1995, Seattle, Washington. Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., and Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. ISBN 978–92-5–106196- 1. United Nations Environment Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Nairobi and Rome. McCauley, S., Bjorndal, K. (1999) Conservation implications of dietary dilution from debris ingestion: sublethal effects in post- hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Conserv. Biol., 13(4): 925-929. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98264.x Moore, M.J., van der Hoop, J., Barco, S.G., Costidis, A.M., Gulland, F.M., Jepson, P.D., Moore, K.T., Raverty, S. & McLellan, W.A. (2013). Criteria and case definitions for serious injury and death of pinnipeds and cetaceans caused by anthropogenic trauma. Dis Aquat Org 103(3): 229-264. doi:10.3354/dao02566 NOAA (2015). Report on the Impacts of “Ghost Fishing” Via Derelict Fishing Gear. NOAA Marine Debris Program, Silver Spring, MD NOAA (2016). Report on Marine Debris Impacts on Coastal and Benthic Habitats. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, Silver Spring, MD Orós, J., Montesdeoca, N., Camacho, M., Arencibia, A. & Calabuig, P. (2016). Causes of Stranding and Mortality, and Final Disposition of Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta) Admitted to a Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Gran Canaria Island, Spain (1998-2014): A Long-Term Retrospective Study. PLOS ONE 11(2): e0149398. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0149398 Richardson, K, Hardesty, B.D., Wilcox, C. (2019). Estimates of fishing gear loss rates at a global scale: a literature review and meta‐analysis. Fish and Fisheries 20:6, pp. 1218-1231. doi: 10.1111/faf.12407 Richardson, K., Hardesty, B., Vince, J., Wilcox, C. (2021a) Global causes, drivers, and prevention measures for lost fishing gear. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 690447. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.6900447 Richardson, K., Wilcox, C., Vince, J., & Hardesty, B. D. (2021b). Challenges and misperceptions around global fishing gear loss estimates. Marine Policy 129: 104522. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104522 Rochman, C.M. (2015). The Complex Mixture, Fate and Toxicity of Chemicals Associated with Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow,\& M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter (pp. 117-140). Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_5 Scheld, A.M., D.M. Bilkovic, and K.J. Havens, K.J. (2016). The Dilemma of Derelict Gear. Scientific Reports 6, Article Number 19671. 7 pp.. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19671 Sciortino, J.A. (2010). Fishing harbour planning, construction and management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 539. Rome, FAO. 2010. 337p. 048 Skirtun, M., Sandra, M., Strietman, W.J., van den Burg, S.W.K., De Raedemaecker, F. & Devriese, L.I. (2022). Plastic pollution pathways from marine aquaculture practices and potential solutions for the North-East Atlantic region. Mar Pollut Bull, 174, 113178. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113178 Tian, Y., Yang, Z., Yu, X., Jia, Z., Rosso, M., Dedman, S., Zhu, J., Xia, Y., Zhang, G., Yang, J. & Wang, J. (2022). Can we quantify the aquatic environmental plastic load from aquaculture. Water Res, 219, 118551. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2022.118551 UNEA (2014). Resolution 1/6 Marine plastic debris and microplastics. Resolutions and decisions adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme at its first session on 27 June 2014, Nairobi, Kenya. http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/17285/K1402364.pdf UNEA (2016). Resolution 2/11 Marine litter and microplastics. Resolutions and decisions adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme at its second session on 23-27 May 2016, Nairobi, Kenya. http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/11186/K1607228_UNEPEA2_RES11E.pdf UNEA (2018). Resolution 3/7 Marine litter and microplastics. Resolutions and decisions adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme at its third session on 4-16 December 2017, Nairobi, Kenya. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22773/K1800210%20-%20UNEP-EA-3- RES-7%20-%20Advance.pdf UNSDG (2018). Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. Targets and Indicators of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg14 van der Hoop, J.M., Moore, M.J., Barco, S.G., Cole, T.V.N., Daoust, P., Henry, A.G., Mcalpine, D.F., Mclellan, W.A., Wimmer, T. \& Solow, A.R. (2013). Assessment of Management to Mitigate Anthropogenic Effects on Large Whales. Conserv Biol 27(1): 121-133. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01934.x Wilcox, C., Mallos, N.J., Leonard, G.H., Rodriguez, A. \& Hardesty, B.D. (2016). Using expert elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife. Mar Policy 65: 107-114. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.014 World Bank (2018). Indonesia Marine Debris Hotspot Rapid Assessment: Synthesis Report. World Bank Group and Coordinating Ministry of Marine Affairs, Government of Indonesia. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ en/983771527663689822/pdf/Indonesia-Marine-debris-hotspot-rapid-assessment-synthesis-report.pdf WWF-Indonesia (2014). Better Management Practices - Manual for Small Scale Fishery. Seaweed Farming - Cottonii (Kappaphycus alvarezii), Sacol (Kappaphycus striatum) and Spinosum (Eucheuma denticulatum). World Wide Fund for Nature - Indonesia. Zabka, T.S., Haulena, M., Puschner, B., Gulland, F.M.D., Conrad, P.A. \& Lowenstine, L.J. (2006). Acute Lead Toxicosis in a Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) Consequent to Ingestion of a Lead Fishing Sinker. J Wildl Dis 42(3): 651-657. doi:10.7589/0090-3558-42.3.651 049 050 ANNEX ANNEX 1 Members of the National Coordination Team for Handling Marine Debris 051 Via Presidential regulation 83/PERPRES/2014 on Marine Debris Management, the Government of Indonesia has established a National Coordination Team for Handling Marine Debris (TKN- PSL, Tim Koordinasi Nasional Penanganan Sampah Laut). The various members of the TKN-PSL are listed in the table below, together with a summary of roles and responsibilities relevant for the management of EOLFG, ALDFG and ALDAG. POSITION / INSTITUTION KEY ROLE(S) Minister of Coordinating Ministry for The Lead of National Task Force of TKN PSL - Submits a report on the Maritime and Investments Affairs (CMMAI) or implementation of the Action Plan to the President at least once a year or at Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Kemaritiman any time if necessary dan Investasi (KEMENKO-MARVES) Minister of Ministry of Environment and Daily Chief Executive of TKN PSL together with the leaders of national task Forestry (MEF) or Kementerian Lingkungan force of TKN PSL to submit a report on the implementation of the Action Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK) Plan to the President at least once a year or at any time if necessary • Director-General of Waste Management, Secretary of TKN PSL and lead of the implementing team of Hazardous Waste and Toxic Materials or the national task force Direktur Jenderal Pengelolaan Sampah, Limbah, dan Bahan Beracun Berbahaya (KLHK) • Director-General of Pollution Control Advisor of implementing team of the national task force and Environmental Damage or Direktur Jenderal Pengendalian Pencemaran dan Kerusakan Lingkungan (KLHK) • Assistant Deputy for Empowerment Assistant Secretary of TKN PSL and Assistant of Lead for of Science and Maritime Technology the implementing team or Asisten Deputi Pendayagunaan Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi Maritim (KEMENKO-MARVES) POSITION / INSTITUTION KEY ROLE(S) • Director of Waste Management or Direktur Coordinator of working groups 2 for land-based waste management Pengelolaan Sampah (KLHK) And secretary-I of implementing team • Director of Pollution and Damage Secretary II of implementing team Control of Coastal and Marine or Direktur Pengendalian Pencemaran dan Kerusakan Pesisir dan Laut (KLHK) • Deputy for Coordination of Human Advisor of implementing team of the national task force Resources, Science and Maritime Culture or Deputi Bidang Koordinasi SDM, IPTEK dan Budaya Maritim (KEMENKO-MARVES) Minister of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) or Member of TKN PSL Kementerian dalam Negeri (KEMENDAGRI) 052 Minister of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) or Member of TKN PSL Kementerian Luar Negeri (KEMENLU) Minister of Ministry of Finance (MF) or Member of TKN PSL Kementrian Keuangan (KEMENKEU) • Head of Center of State Revenue Policy Coordinator of working groups 4 for mechanisms for or Kepala Pusat Kebijakan Pendapatan strengthening institutions, supervision, and legal entities Negara (KEMENKEU) Minister of Ministry of Industry (MI) or Member of TKN PSL Kementerian Perindustrian (KEMENPARIN) Minister of Ministry of Transportation or Member of TKN PSL Kementerian Perhubungan (KEMENHUB) Minister of Ministry of Marine Affairs and Member of TKN PSL Fisheries (MMAF) or Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan (KKP) • Director of Coastal and Small Island Coordinator of Working Groups 3 for waste management in Utilization or Direktur Pendayagunaan coastal and marine Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil (KKP) Minister of Ministry of Public Works and Member of TKN PSL Housing (MPWH) or Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat (KEMEN-PUPR) Ministry of Health (MH) or Kementerian Member of TKN PSL Kesehatan (KEMENKES) Minister of Ministry of Education and Culture Member of TKN PSL or Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (KEMENDIKBUD) Coordinator of Working Groups 1 for National Movement to • Director of Elementary School Raise Awareness of Stakeholders Development or Direktur Pembinaan Sekolah Dasar (KEMENDIKBUD) POSITION / INSTITUTION KEY ROLE(S) Minister of Ministry of Research, Technology Member of TKN PSL and Higher Education (MRTHE) or Kementerian Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi • Director of Research and Development Coordinator of working group 5 – Research and System - Ministry of Research, Development Technology and Higher Education Direktur Sistem Riset dan Pengembangan – Kementerian Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi Minister of Ministry of Communication and Member of TKN PSL Informatics (MCI) or Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika (KEMENKOMINFO) Minister of National Development Planning Member of TKN PSL 053 Agency (NDPA) (Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional / BAPPENAS) Minister of Ministry of Cooperatives and Member of TKN PSL Small and Medium Enterprises (MCSME) or Kementerian Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil Menengah (KEMENKOP-UKM) Minister of Ministry of Tourism and Creative Member of TKN PSL Economy (MTCE) or Kementerian Pariwisata dan Ekonomi Kreatif (KEMENPAREKRAF) Cabinet Secretariat (CS) of the Republic Member of TKN PSL of Indonesia Head of Indonesian Maritime Security Agency Member of TKN PSL (IMSA) or Badan Keamanan Laut Republik Indonesia (BAKAMLA) ANNEX 2 Monitoring progress in reducing plastic marine debris from fisheries and aquaculture 054 The Evidence Base from Capture Fisheries report that accompany this Options Paper has attempted to quantify the leakage of marine debris to the marine environment from fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the amount of plastic material being landed as EOLFG. These estimates were hindered by the current limited availability of data on plastic usage and disposal. This section provides an overview of proposed methodologies to improve the data available to establish baselines and to monitor progress over time. For additional detail, the reader is directed to the accompanying reports Evidence Base – Capture Fisheries. CAPTURE FISHERIES A ‘mass balance approach’ is proposed to estimate EOLFG and ALDFG weights and monitor changes over time. This approach requires information on the quantity of new material entering the fishery (replenishment rate), the quantity of material ex- iting the fishery as EOLFG, and the remaining quantity which represents ALDFG (Table 1, Figure 4). Table 1. Key elements of a mass balance approach to monitoring ALDFG. [Total Wt. FG Deployed] = [Wt. Baseline FG] + [Wt Replenished FG] [Wt Replenished FG] = [Wt. of EOLFG] + [Wt. ALDFG] 055 ELEMENT OF MASS BALANCE DESCRIPTION [Wt. Baseline FG] Weights of floats, netting and ropes - calculated from fishing gear plans [Wt Replenished FG] Approximate weights of floats, netting and ropes replenished – available from surveys of fishing vessel operators. More precise weights for replenishment can be obtained from gear suppliers reporting replenishment to a vessel EOLFG Can be obtained from monitoring of offloaded weights of floats, netting and ropes reported by individual vessels [Wt. ALDFG] A proxy value for ALDFG can derived from: [Wt. Baseline FG] + [Wt Replenished FG] - [Wt. of EOLFG] Figure 4. Components of fishing gear contributing to the mass balance method The approach aims to: their EOLFG ashore and weights recorded at port reception fa- 1. Establish a single fishing unit (e.g. a single vessel, or cilities, the model will start to estimate the weights of ALDFG group of vessels) whose inputs (new gear) and outputs at the vessel and fleet levels. It is anticipated that EOLFG re- (EOLFG) are fully traceable. porting rates for individual vessels within a fleet will be distrib- 2. Establish the current baseline in terms of the total weight uted around a mean. EOLFG non-reporting vessels and vessels of fishing gear held by the fishing unit (X). with very low EOLFG weight reporting vessels indicate poten- 3. Record fishing gear weights (mass) purchased by each tial risk of at-sea disposal behavior and could help to identify vessel, tracked via its license number (Z) vessels for follow up investigations by compliance officers. On 4. Record weights of EOLFG landed ashore after each trip the other hand, very high EOLFG reporting may highlight spe- and recorded in an official port reception facility (Y). cific problems with gear loss in the fishery. Accordingly, post 5. Record estimated weights of fishing gear “reported as factum analysis of mass balance data records can provide de- lost” by vessel operators (tracked via its license number). tailed vessel and gear plastic disposal patterns. 6. Record estimated weights of abandoned, lost or discard- ed fishing gears that were retrieved at sea by each trip Given the potential complexities of this system, it is suggested and submitted to an official port reception facility. that (i) it is rolled out slowly, focusing on the high-risk gears 7. Annual mass balance calculations can then be conducted (e.g. gillnets and traps) and those with a large mass of EOLFG 056 for each vessel to estimate the ALDFG (i.e., ALDFG =(X+Y) (e.g. ring nets and purse seines) as identified by this study and - Z). Risk-based audits could be carried out to verify gear (ii) undergoes extensive design and piloting (see Actions 5.08 inventories and cross-check records reported in connec- – 5.14). These pilots could focus on well-established fishing tion with Y and Z. units (e.g. fishing gear / vessel size class / target species) where the inputs (e.g. new gear), outputs (e.g. end of life gear) Initially, the system records will be dominated by weights of and gear inventories (e.g. fishing gear held on board or on fishing gears deployed by vessels and weights of replacement shore) can be monitored and verified relatively easily. fishing gears added to the vessel. Over time, as vessels land AQUACULTURE The challenges of monitoring debris from aquaculture are donesia the vast majority of marine aquaculture activities take quite different from that of capture fisheries. This is mainly due place on the coast or in inshore waters, rather than offshore. to the different nature of loss – the mainly persistent low-level leakage, largely of SUPs with the occasional pulse of material As a result, no single indicator or approach is proposed for the mon- from intermittent catastrophic losses (e.g. through storms or itoring of marine plastic loss from aquaculture. Instead, there coastal flooding) – means that both reporting and tracking will are several different approaches that could be taken (Table 2). be expensive and possibly less cost-effective. ALDAG is likely to be less widespread than capture fisheries ALDFG, as in In- Table 2. Approaches, indicators, scope and methodologies for monitoring aquatic debris from aquaculture APPROACH INDICATOR SCOPE METHODOLOGY Bay-level aquaculture Actual weight of aquaculture-derived Semi-enclosed bay areas or shoreline Burgess et al 2021; litter surveys plastic debris & litter per 100 m shore- areas with historical deposition patterns Cuong et al (2021) line (kg per 100 m) at time of survey. of aquaculture-derived debris. Mass balance Estimates of weight of abandoned, Defined aquaculture production units e.g. To be developed, but estimates lost, discarded aquaculture gear (kg 1 mt seaweed production from a longline similar to the mass per year5). system; 1 mt biomass from a coastal balance approach for fish/shrimp pond. ALDFG (see S 8.1) At sea debris Actual weight of aquaculture-derived Located in known / modelled debris depo- Galgani & Pihi, 2010; monitoring via seabed plastic debris and litter in seabed sition ‘hotspots’. Could be as part of wider Cheshire et al, 2009 trawl surveys trawl surveys ((kg) per swept square marine plastic monitoring, or specifically kilometer recovered (by location, ves- for aquaculture in known problem areas, sel type as well as other parameters or after a major loss (e.g. after coastal such as substrate & gear type). flooding / storms). 5 Could be per ‘aquaculture unit’ e.g. one mt wet weight production or 1 hectare of coastal pond area Bay-level intertidal litter surveys some degree of traceability of inputs and outputs can be effec- tively and cost-efficiently maintained. Unlike in capture fisheries Bay level marine litter surveys could be developed in either where large-scale, semi-automated data collection (e.g. via elec- semi-enclosed bays where there are concentrations of either in- tronic monitoring) could be applied, for aquaculture a stratified ter-tidal / sub-tidal seaweed or finfish cage aquaculture, or where sampling framework could be applied across different types and there are historical accumulations of aquaculture-derived debris, scales of aquaculture production, thus allowing the results to be including from shrimp / fish coastal pond farms. extrapolated up to regional or national levels. The scope of survey and monitoring is limited to high-tide and The advantage of this approach is that it has the potential to pro- intertidal zones. A 100m section of shoreline is selected, of which vide information on the quantities of plastic leaking to the marine three cross-sections are randomly selected. Each cross-section environment. Its main disadvantage is the cost of implementation. is 5m wide and extends from the high water mark to the water. Surveys are ideally carried out at low tide. Waste is collected from each selected section. At-sea marine debris monitoring This approach will detect and quantify the relative abundance Following Burgess et al., (2021), the waste collected will include a of aquaculture and other types of marine litter on the seabed. It could be implemented via: 057 range size of 2.5 cm and above, which can then be classified into 42 categories: plastic (18 types), glass (4 types), metal (4 types), 1. Fishing for Litter programs. Fishing for Litter marine debris rubber (5 types), paper (4 types), fabric (6 types) and mixed recovery programs have been successfully implemented in waste.6 From this survey, it is possible to estimate (i) the pro- several countries to encourage fishers and other marine us- portion of marine litter by types and/or sources of plastic waste ers to retrieve marine litter encountered or caught in fishing discharged, (ii) the average density / abundance of marine litter gears. The retrieved litter is landed ashore for analysis and (kg per 100 m²) and (iii) the total volume of plastic litter by cate- responsible disposal. One of the longest running and most gories/types in the given area. Categorization could be tailored documented programs is the European ‘Fishing for Litter’ for specific aquaculture debris and litter survey. Survey results initiative. The European Union (EU) Marine Strategy Frame- would (i) improve understanding of the overall trends in shoreline work Directive specifically addresses marine litter, and it is marine litter deposition; and (ii) identify the relative contribution therefore included in EU Member State monitoring programs of aquaculture to this debris load. for marine waters. The EU Directorate-General for the Envi- ronment established a Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter This approach has several advantages. The methodology is well to identify and develop methodologies for marine litter as- established, cheap, easy to implement and can provide useful in- sessment including ‘Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Lit- formation on long-term trends in marine debris abundance and ter in European Seas’ (EC, 2013). deposition levels. A disadvantage is that it will not provide abso- 2. Observational or scientific studies. At-sea scientific ob- lute quantification of aquaculture debris loss. servation has been implemented by several countries, and provides a degree of precision, survey replicability and data The methodology is also suitable for delegation to and/or adop- standardization. In the EU, the International Bottom Trawl tion by local communities who may have concerns about the Survey (IBTS) conducts regular surveys of fishery stocks. level of aquaculture-derived debris, other affected blue economy The survey has been extended to incorporate marine litter sectors such as tourism, as well as local aquaculture companies variables. At-sea scientific surveys can be costly, and the who are considering their social license to operate. IBTS has enabled these costs to be minimized by combining data collection with other surveys. Farm-level and sector-wide mass balance estimates In Indonesia there are currently no regular scientific trawl surveys A mass balance approach could be implemented similar to being carried out that could be adopted for marine litter sam- that proposed for Capture Fisheries. Quantities of unaccounted pling. Options for scientific marine litter sampling are either to plastic would be estimated through quantifying (i) baseline plas- (i) charter a dedicated fishing vessel with a fishing master and tic stocks held by a farming unit (X); (ii) weights of new plastic a standardized fishing rig to conduct non-commercial marine lit- brought onto the farm (in terms of both equipment as well as sin- ter surveys in different locations; or (ii) deploy trained observers gle-use plastics e.g. feed sacks) (Z); and (iii) weights of plastics onboard commercial fishing boats to collect and analyze marine disposed of in the form of end-of-life equipment and single-use litter caught during commercial fishing hauls. The second option, plastics (Y). Any unaccounted for plastic is presumed to be lost though likely to deliver more variable results due to the wide va- to the marine environment, and can be calculated as (X+Y)-Z. riety of vessels and gear configurations, is also likely to be most This approach is best used for discrete aquaculture units where cost-effective. 6 See NOAA Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project Item Categorization Guide. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/mdmap-protocol-documents-and- field-datasheets ANNEX 3 Action Plan Tables presented in this Annex summarize the actions • Partner agencies (x2): the institutions or agencies 058 described in Chapter 3. These tables have the following fields: working with the lead to implement an action. • Action code: A two-part numerical code identifying the • Timing: the timing of the action implementation over the specific actions. The first part indicates the category,7 following three time periods: and the second part indicates the sequencing of a. Short-term (less than (<) two years) activities. b. Medium-term (two to five years) • Precursor action(s): The action code for any immediate c. Long-term (six to ten years and beyond) precursor activity (i.e., an action that must be in place • Priority: Irrespective of the timing of the action before the current action can be implemented). implementation (see above) the priority in terms of • Action title: The name and brief description of the action. high, medium or low. Priority is assigned based on • Investment type: categorization of the action into the a combination of the urgency, feasibility, chance of following four types: success and estimated effort. a. Institutions & systems — investment into institutional • Cost: the estimated cost band according to the following development and associated governance / three categories: management systems. a. High (> USD 5 mill.) b. Infrastructure & equipment — investment into physical b. Medium (USD 500K - 5mill.) infrastructure and / or equipment. c. Low (< USD 500K) c. Capacity-building — investments in training or other awareness-building, including the development of good practices and other capacity-building measures. d. Other — other types of investment that do not fall into the three categories above. • Lead agency: the institution or organization responsible for leading an action. OPERATIONALIZE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA’S FISHERIES SECTOR Action Precursor Lead Partner agency Partner Action title Investment type Timing Priority Cost code action(s) agency (1) agency (2) Establish a high level National Task Force for managing 1. Institutions & Short-term 1.01 KKP TKN PSL 1. High Low (< USD 500K) the use of plastic in fisheries & aquaculture systems (< 2 yrs) Technical Working Group (TWG) for EOLFG, ALDFG and 1. Institutions & KEMENK Long-term 1.02 1.01 O- TKN PSL 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Plastic Garbage from fisheries systems (6-10 yrs) MARVES 1. Institutions & KEMENKE Short-term High (> USD 5 1.03 1.01 Design and run an Indonesian Ghost Gear Fund (GGF) KKP 1. High systems U (< 2 yrs) mill.) Building cross-ministry capacity to provide oversight Short-term 2.01 1.01 and coordination to development and implementation 3. Capacity-building KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) (< 2 yrs) of technical measures Building technical capacity within MMAF Directorates to Short-term 2.02 1.02 3. Capacity-building KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) implement the work program (< 2 yrs) 7 1. Operationalize 2.03 plastic 2.01, 2.02 waste Fishery management Specific in (PS-GNS-FPO) Risk Assessments Indonesia’s fisheries 1.sector; 2. Prevent Institutions & ALDFG; 3. KKP FAOPrevent ALDAG; 4. Recover Academia ALDFG and Short-term ALDAG; Low 1. High 5. Promote a (< USD 500K) circular economy for end-of-life fishing and aquaculture equipment;systems and 6. Improve monitoring and reporting of EOLFG, ALDFG (< 2 yrs) ALDAG. and Desk-based analysis of Risk Assessments and 1. Institutions & Short-term 2.04 2.03 KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) identification of technical measures systems (< 2 yrs) Short-term 2.05 2.02 Field Surveys of vessel operators and license holders 3. Capacity-building KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Action Precursor Lead Partner agency Partner Action title Investment type Timing Priority Cost code action(s) agency (1) agency (2) Establish a high level National Task Force for managing 1. Institutions & Short-term 1.01 KKP TKN PSL 1. High Low (< USD 500K) the use of plastic in fisheries & aquaculture systems (< 2 yrs) PREVENT 1.02 1.01 ALDFG Technical Working Group (TWG) for EOLFG, ALDFG and 1. Institutions & KEMENK TKN PSL Long-term 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Plastic Garbage from fisheries systems O- (6-10 yrs) MARVES Action Precursor 1. Institutions & Lead KEMENKE Partner agency Partner Short-term (> USD 5 High Cost 1.03 1.01 Action title Design and run an Indonesian Ghost Gear Fund (GGF) Investment type KKP Timing 1.Priority High code action(s) systems Uagency (1) agency (2) (< 2 yrs) mill.) Building cross-ministry Establish capacity a high level National to provide Task oversight Force for managing 1. Institutions & Short-term 1.01 KKP TKN PSL Short-term 1. High Low (< USD 500K) 2.01 1.01 the coordination and use of plastic in to fisheries development and implementation & aquaculture 3. Capacity-building systems KKP FAO Academia (< 2 yrs) 1. High Low (< USD 500K) (< 2 yrs) of technical measures Technical Working Group (TWG) for EOLFG, ALDFG and 1. Institutions & KEMENK Long-term 1.02 1.01 O- TKN PSL 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Building Plastic technical Garbage capacity from within MMAF Directorates to fisheries systems Short-term (6-10 yrs) 2.02 1.02 3. Capacity-building KKP MARVES FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) implement the work program (< 2 yrs) 1. Institutions & KEMENKE Short-term High (> USD 5 1.03 1.01 Design and run an Indonesian Ghost Gear Fund (GGF) KKP 1. High 1. Institutions & systems U Short-term (< 2 yrs) 2.03 2.01, 2.02 Fishery Specific Risk Assessments (PS-GNS-FPO) KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low ( Medium USD (USD5 - 5mill.) components systems U (< 2 yrs) (2-5 500K mill.) - 5mill.) 1. Institutions & Medium-term Medium (USD 3.07 2.11 Minimize spatial conflictcapacity Building cross-ministry with other sea users to provide oversight 1. Institutions & KKP TKN PSL KEMENKO- Medium-term 1. High 3.04 2.01 Aquaculture risk assessment framework systems KKP (2-5 BAPPENAS Short-term yrs) 500K 2. Medium Low - 5mill.) (< USD 500K) 2.01 1.01 and coordination to development and implementation systems 3. Capacity-building KKP FAO MARVES Academia (2-5 yrs) 1. High Low (< USD 500K) (< 2 yrs) of technical measures facilities 1. Institutions & Short-term Medium (USD 3.08 2.09 Marking of aquaculture Aquaculture risk assessment & contingency planning 1. Institutions & KKP DJPL FAO Medium-term 2. Medium 3.05 3.04 systems KKP Academia (< 2 yrs) 500K 2. Medium Low - 5mill.) (< USD 500K) models technical capacity within MMAF Directorates to 3. Building systems Short-term (2-5 yrs) 2.02 1.02 Capacity-building KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Responsible implement the work program of redundant aquaculture 1. Institutions & decommissioning Medium-term (< 2 yrs) 3.09 3.01 KKP NGOs Medium-term 3. Low Low (< USD Medium (USD 500K) 3.06 3.05 sites Training in risk assessment & contingency planning systems 3. Capacity-building KKP KEMENDIKBUD Academia (2-5 yrs) 2. Medium 1. Institutions & Short-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.03 2.01, 2.02 Fishery Specific Risk Assessments (PS-GNS-FPO) KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Use of EPR or other financial mechanisms to ensure 1. Institutions & systems Medium-term (< 2 yrs) Medium (USD 3.10 1.02 1. Institutions & KKP KEMENKEU Medium-term 3. Low Medium (USD 3.07 2.11 responsible decommissioning Minimize spatial conflict with other sea users systems KKP TKN PSL (2-5 yrs) 1. High 500K - 5mill.) Desk-based analysis of Risk Assessments and 1. Institutions & systems Short-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.04 2.03 KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Technical guidelines identification for plastic of technical waste management in measures 1. Institutions & systems Medium-term (< 2 yrs) 3.11 3.04 1. Institutions & KKP KLHK TKN PSL Short-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 3.08 2.09 aquaculture industry Marking of aquaculture facilities systems KKP DJPL FAO (2-5 yrs) 2. Medium systems Short-term (< 2 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.05 2.02 Field Surveys of vessel operators and license holders 3. Capacity-building KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Short-term (< 2 yrs) 3.12 3.11 Codes of good Responsible practice & guidance decommissioning of redundant aquaculture 3. 1. Capacity-building Institutions & KKP NGOs Medium-term 1. High Low (< USD 500K) 3.09 3.01 KKP NGOs (< 2 yrs) 3. Low Low (< USD 500K) sites and legal frameworks for technical measures 1. Institutions & systems Medium-term (2-5 yrs) 2.06 2.01 Policy KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems (2-5 yrs) Use of EPR or other financial mechanisms to ensure 1. Institutions & Medium-term Medium (USD 3.10 1.02 KKP KEMENKEU 3. Low Linking e-reporting responsible and e-monitoring of plastic waste to systems decommissioning Short-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.07 2.06 5. Other KKP KEMENHUB FAO 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Fisheries Act and to fishing vessel licensing (< 2 yrs) Technical guidelines for plastic waste management in 1. Institutions & Medium-term 3.11 3.04 0000002 KKP KLHK TKN PSL 1. High Low (< USD 500K) aquaculture of Preparation draft policy, legislative amendments and 1. industry Institutions & systems Short-term (2-5 yrs) 2.08 2.06 KKP KEMENHUB FAO 1. High Low (< USD 500K) regulations systems (< 2 yrs) Short-term 3.12 3.11 Codes of good practice & guidance 3. Capacity-building KKP NGOs 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Development of National Standards for Marking of 1. Institutions & Medium-term (< 2 yrs) Medium (USD 2.09 2.03 KKP KEMENHUB Academia 1. High Vessels and Fishing Gears systems (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) KEMENDIK Short-term Medium (USD 3.13 3.12 Awareness-building 3. Capacity-building KKP NGOs 1. High 1. Institutions & BUD Medium-term (< 2 yrs) Medium (USD 500K - 5mill.) 2.10 2.04 Selection and design of deghosting technologies KKP Academia FAO 1. High systems (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) Development of the IndoGAP certification standard to 1. Institutions & Short-term 3.14 3.12 KKP KAN 1. High Low (< USD 500K) include marine plastics 1. Institutions systems & 0000002 Medium-term (< 2 yrs) Medium (USD 2.11 2.09 Fleet Separation Schemes KKP Academia FAO 2. Medium systems (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) Plastic waste management in 3rd party aquaculture 1. Institutions & Short-term 3.15 3.14 KKP NGOs 1. High Low (< USD 500K) certification systems (< 2 yrs) 1. Institutions & Short-term 4.01 1.01 Ghost Gear Recovery Working Group KKP KLHK NGOs 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems 0000001 (< 2 yrs) Medium-term 4.02 4.01 Ghost gear hotspot identification 4. Other KKP KLHK NGOs 1. High Low (< USD 500K) (2-5 yrs) 1. Institutions & Medium-term 4.03 4.01 Ghost Gear Recovery Planning KKP NGOs 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems (2-5 yrs) Medium-term Medium (USD 4.04 4.03 Ghost Gear Recovery Missions 3. Capacity-building KKP NGOs 1. High (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) KEMENDIK Short-term Medium (USD 3.13 3.12 Awareness-building 3. Capacity-building KKP NGOs 1. High BUD (< 2 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) RECOVER ALDFG AND ALDAG Development of the IndoGAP certification standard to 1. Institutions & Short-term 3.14 3.12 KKP KAN 1. High Low (< USD 500K) include marine plastics systems (< 2 yrs) Action Precursor Plastic waste management in 3rd party aquaculture 1. Institutions & Lead Partner agency Partner Short-term 3.15 3.14 Action title Investment type KKP NGOs (1) Timing 1.Priority High Low ( USD 5 4.03 1.03 4.01 1.01 DesignGear Ghost Recovery and run PlanningGhost Gear Fund (GGF) an Indonesian KKP NGOs KKP BUD (< 2 yrs) 1. High 500K Low - 5mill.) (< USD 500K) systems U (< 2 yrs) (2-5 mill.) Development of the IndoGAP certification standard to 1. Institutions & Short-term 3.14 3.12 Building cross-ministry capacity to provide oversight KKP KAN Medium-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 4.04 4.03 include marine Ghost Gear plastics Recovery Missions systems 3. Capacity-building KKP NGOs (< 2 yrs) Short-term 1. High 2.01 1.01 and coordination to development and implementation 3. Capacity-building KKP FAO Academia (2-5 yrs) 1. High Low (< USD 500K 500K) - 5mill.) (< 2 yrs) of technical Plastic waste measures management in 3rd party aquaculture 1. Institutions & Short-term 3.15 3.14 1. Institutions & KKP NGOs Short-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 4.05 4.03 certification Establish a Fishing for Litter scheme systems KKP NGOs (< 2 yrs) 1. High Building technical capacity within MMAF Directorates to systems Short-term (< 2 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.02 1.02 3. Capacity-building KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) implement the work program 1. Institutions & (< 2 yrs) Short-term 4.01 1.01 Ghost Gear Recovery Working Group KKP KLHK NGOs Medium-term 1. High Low (< USD 500K) 4.06 4.05 Fishing for Litter promotion and awareness-raising systems 3. Capacity-building KKP TKN PSL (< 2 yrs) 1. High Low (< USD 500K) 1. Institutions & Short-term (2-5 yrs) 2.03 2.01, 2.02 Fishery Specific Risk Assessments (PS-GNS-FPO) KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems (< 2 yrs) Medium-term 4.02 4.01 Ghost gear hotspot identification 2. Other 4. Infrastructure & KKP KLHK NGOs Medium-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 4.07 5.04 Port Reception Facilities KKP TKN PSL (2-5 yrs) 1. High Desk-based analysis of Risk Assessments and equipment 1. Institutions & (2-5 yrs) Short-term 500K - 5mill.) 2.04 2.03 KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) 060 identification of technical measures systems 1. Institutions & (< 2 yrs) Medium-term 4.03 4.01 Ghost Gear Recovery Planning 1. Institutions & KKP NGOs Short-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 5.01 3.06 EOLFG Value Chain Pilots systems KKP KEMENPARIN TKN PSL (2-5 yrs) 1. High systems Short-term (< 2 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.05 2.02 Field Surveys of vessel operators and license holders 3. Capacity-building KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) (< 2 yrs) Medium-term Medium (USD 4.04 4.03 Ghost Gear Recovery Missions 2. Capacity-building 3. Infrastructure & KKP NGOs Medium-term 1. High Medium (USD 5.02 4.01 EOLFG Recycling & treatment incentives KKP KEMENPARIN TKN PSL (2-5 yrs) 2. Medium 500K - 5mill.) 1. Institutions & equipment Medium-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) PROMOTE A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR END-OF-LIFE 2.06 4.05 2.01 4.03 Policy and legal frameworks for technical measures Establish a Fishing for Litter scheme systems 1. Institutions & 1. Institutions & KKP KKP FAO NGOs Academia (2-5 yrs) Short-term Medium-term 1. High 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Medium (USD Medium (USD systems (< 2 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) FISHING AND AQUACULTURE EQUIPMENT 5.03 4.01 EOLFG Buy back scheme KKP KEMENPARIN TKN PSL 2. Medium Linking e-reporting and e-monitoring of plastic waste to systems Short-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.07 2.06 5. Other KKP KEMENHUB FAO 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Fisheries Act and to fishing vessel licensing (< 2 yrs) Medium-term 4.06 4.05 Fishing for Litter promotion and awareness-raising 2. Capacity-building 3. Infrastructure & KKP TKN PSL Medium-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 5.04 4.01 EOLFG Port Reception Facilities KKP TKN PSL (2-5 yrs) 2. Medium Preparation of draft policy, legislative amendments and 1. Institutions & equipment Short-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.08 Action 2.06 Precursor regulations KKP Lead KEMENHUB Partner agency FAO Partner 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems Investment type & 2. Infrastructure (< 2 yrs) Medium-term Timing MediumCost(USD 4.07 code 5.04 action(s) Action Port title Reception Facilities KKP agency TKN PSL(1) agency (2) Medium-term 1.Priority High Medium (USD 5.05 1.03 Fishing Gear Circular Design equipment 4. Other KKP MRTHE TKN PSL (2-5 yrs) 1. High 500K - 5mill.) Development of National Standards for Marking of 1. Institutions & (2-5 yrs) Medium-term 500K - 5mill.) Medium (USD 2.09 2.03 KKP KEMENHUB Academia 1. High Vessels Establishand Fishing a high Gears level National Task Force for managing systems 1. Institutions & (2-5 yrs) Short-term 500K - 5mill.) Medium (USD 1.01 5.01 3.06 EOLFG Value Chain Pilots KKP TKN PSL KEMENPARIN TKN PSL 1. High Low (< USD 500K) the use of plastic in fisheries & aquaculture systems (< 2 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 1. Institutions & Medium-term Medium (USD 2.10 2.04 Selection and design of deghosting technologies KKP KEMENK Academia FAO 1. High Technical Working Group (TWG) for EOLFG, ALDFG and systems 1. Infrastructure 2. Institutions & & (2-5 yrs) Long-term Medium-term 500K - 5mill.) Medium (USD 1.02 5.02 1.01 4.01 EOLFG Recycling & treatment incentives KKP O- TKN PSL KEMENPARIN TKN PSL High 1. Medium 2. Low (< USD 500K) Plastic Garbage from fisheries systems equipment (6-10 yrs) (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 1. Institutions & 0000003 MARVES Medium-term Medium (USD 2.11 2.09 Fleet Separation Schemes KKP Academia FAO 2. Medium systems 1. Institutions & KEMENKE (2-5 yrs) Short-term Medium-term 500K(> High Medium - 5mill.) USD (USD5 1.03 5.03 1.01 4.01 Design Buy EOLFG and back run an Indonesian Ghost Gear Fund (GGF) scheme KKP KKP KEMENPARIN TKN PSL 1. Medium 2. High systems U (< 2 yrs) (2-5 500K mill.) - 5mill.) Building cross-ministry capacity to provide oversight 2. Infrastructure & Medium-term Medium (USD 5.04 4.01 EOLFG Port Reception Facilities KKP TKN PSL Short-term 2. Medium 2.01 1.01 and coordination to development and implementation 3. Capacity-building equipment KKP FAO Academia (2-5 yrs) 1. High Low (< USD 500K 500K) - 5mill.) 0000001 (< 2 yrs) of technical measures Medium-term Medium (USD 5.05 1.03 Fishing Gear Circular Design 4. Other KKP MRTHE TKN PSL 1. High Building technical capacity within MMAF Directorates to Short-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.02 1.02 3. Capacity-building KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) implement the work program (< 2 yrs) 1. Institutions & Short-term 2.03 2.01, 2.02 Fishery Specific Risk Assessments (PS-GNS-FPO) KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems (< 2 yrs) Desk-based analysis of Risk Assessments and 1. Institutions & 0000003 Short-term 2.04 2.03 KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) IMPROVE MONITORING AND REPORTING identification of technical measures systems OF EOLFG, (< 2 yrs) ALDFG 2.05 AND 2.02 ALDAG Field Surveys of vessel operators and license holders 3. Capacity-building KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB Short-term (< 2 yrs) 1. High Low (< USD 500K) 1. Institutions & Medium-term 2.06 2.01 Policy and legal frameworks for technical measures KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems (2-5 yrs) Action Precursor Lead Partner agency Partner Action title Investment type Timing Priority Cost code action(s) Linking e-reporting and e-monitoring of plastic waste to agency (1) agency (2) Short-term 2.07 2.06 5. Other KKP KEMENHUB FAO 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Fisheries Act and to fishing vessel licensing (< 2 yrs) teamlevel Establish a high / E-M) toTask (E-R National provide technical Force for managing1. Institutions & Short-term 6.01 1.01 1.02 Preparation of draft policy, KKP KEMEN-PUPR TKN PSL Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) 2.08 2.06 oversight, the use of coordination plastic andlegislative in fisheries amendments and backstopping & aquaculture 1. Institutions & systems KKP KEMENHUB FAO Short-term (< 2 yrs) 1. High Low (< USD 500K) regulations systems (< 2 yrs) Technical Working Group (TWG) for EOLFG, ALDFG and 1. Institutions & KEMENK Medium-term Long-term 6.02 1.02 6.01 1.01 Build capacity of Development E-R & E-M in National systems for Marking of Standards 1. Institutions & KKP O- KEMEN-PUPR TKN PSL Academia Medium-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 2.09 2.03 Plastic Garbage from fisheries systems KKP KEMENHUB Academia (2-5 yrs) (6-10 yrs) 1. High Vessels and Fishing Gears systems MARVES (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) Indonesian Policy & Regulatory frameworks for plastic 1. Institutions & KEMENKE Short-term High (> USD 5 6.03 1.03 2.08 1.01 Design and run an Indonesian Ghost Gear Fund (GGF) 4. Institutions 1. Other & KKP KEMENHUB KKP DJPL Medium-term 1. High Low (< USD Medium 500K) (USD 2.10 2.04 waste from Selection andfishing designvessels of deghosting technologies systems U KKP Academia FAO (< 2 yrs) 1. High mill.) systems (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) Building cross-ministry Completion capacity of preparatory to provide (baseline) oversight data to support E- 1. Institutions & Short-term Medium (USD 6.04 6.02 KKP BPS Short-term Academia Medium-term 1. High 2.01 2.11 1.01 2.09 and R and Fleetcoordination Separation to development and implementation 1. E-M reporting Schemes 3. Institutions systems & Capacity-building KKP KKP FAO Academia Academia FAO (< 2 yrs) High 1. Medium 2. Medium Low (< USD 500K (USD 500K) - 5mill.) systems (< 2 yrs) (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) of technical measures 1. Institutions & Medium-term 6.05 6.04 E-R / E-M System evaluation KKP KEMEN-PUPR Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Building technical capacity within MMAF Directorates to systems Short-term (2-5 yrs) 2.02 1.02 3. Capacity-building KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) implement the work program (< 2 yrs) 1. Institutions & Long-term Medium (USD 6.06 6.04 National Roll out of E-R / E-M systems 1. systems 0000001 Institutions & KKP KEMEN-PUPR Academia Short-term (6-10 yrs) 2. Medium 500K - 5mill.) 2.03 2.01, 2.02 Fishery Specific Risk Assessments (PS-GNS-FPO) KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems (< 2 yrs) Short-term 6.07 6.06 Communication products 3. Capacity-building KKP NGOs 1. High Low (< USD 500K) Desk-based analysis of Risk Assessments and 1. Institutions & Short-term (< 2 yrs) 2.04 2.03 KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) identification of technical measures systems (< 2 yrs) 2. Infrastructure & Short-term 6.08 6.01 Aquaculture debris reporting: feasibility study and design KKP KLHK TKN PSL 2. Medium Low (< USD 500K) equipment Short-term (< 2 yrs) 2.05 2.02 Field Surveys of vessel operators and license holders 3. Capacity-building KKP TKN PSL KEMENHUB 1. High Low (< USD 500K) (< 2 yrs) 2. Infrastructure & Medium-term Medium (USD 6.09 6.08 Aquaculture debris reporting: Implementation KKP KLHK TKN PSL 2. Medium 1. Institutions & equipment Medium-term (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 2.06 2.01 Policy and legal frameworks for technical measures KKP FAO Academia 1. High Low (< USD 500K) systems (2-5 yrs) Short-term 6.10 6.08 Linking and e-monitoring e-reportingreporting Community-based of ALDAGof plastic waste to 5. Capacity-building 3. Other KKP Academia NGOs Short-term 1. High High (< USD Low (< 500K) USD 500K) 2.07 2.06 KKP KEMENHUB FAO (< 2 yrs) 1. Low Fisheries Act and to fishing vessel licensing (< 2 yrs) Preparation of draft policy, legislative amendments and 1. Institutions & Short-term 2.08 2.06 KKP KEMENHUB FAO 1. High Low (< USD 500K) regulations systems (< 2 yrs) Development of National Standards for Marking of 1. Institutions & Medium-term Medium (USD 2.09 2.03 KKP KEMENHUB Academia 1. High Vessels and Fishing Gears systems (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 1. Institutions & Medium-term Medium (USD 2.10 2.04 Selection and design of deghosting technologies KKP Academia FAO 1. High systems (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 1. Institutions & Medium-term Medium (USD 2.11 2.09 Fleet Separation Schemes KKP Academia FAO 2. Medium systems (2-5 yrs) 500K - 5mill.) 061 062