Tangled Seas: A Snapshot of Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear in South Asia August 2023 © 2023 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of the staff of the World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work 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. Boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information presented in this report 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. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of the World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions 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. Attribution Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2023. Tangled Seas: A Snapshot of Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear in South Asia. Washington, DC: The World Bank.” Any 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. All photos used in this report taken from: Adobe Stock, Canva, Freepik, rawpixel, Shutterstock, and Vecteezy. Report design and layout: mCube Design www.mcubedesign.com | India South Asia's mountain economies of Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal join the region's ocean economies of Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka to curb marine plastics pollution. This report is part of a larger series of stocktaking and analytical products on plastic pollution in South Asia. This work is undertaken as part of the World Bank’s work program on South Asia Marine Plastics Pollution, which aims to promote circular plastic economy solutions, advance related country-level policy and investment dialogues, and raise awareness of the deleterious impacts of marine plastics pollution on people’s lives and livelihoods. It supports the Bank’s commitment to work with countries of South Asia to pursue and scale-up policies and programs that help them move toward a circular plastic economy and, in partnership with civil society and the private sector, harnesses the power of innovation to bring viable and sustainable solutions for plastic waste reduction and management across the region. This study is supported with generous funding from the South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI) and the publication of this report was funded by PROBLUE. Both SAWI and PROBLUE are multi-donor trust funds administered by the World Bank.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations v Executive Summary 1 CHAPTER ONE ALDFG is a Regional Problem 8 CHAPTER TWO Baseline Assessments of ALDFG 25 CHAPTER THREE The Policy Framework for ALDFG 48 CHAPTER FOUR Recommendations to Address 60 ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond A  ppendix A: 74 Summary of Study Methodology A  ppendix B: 78 Classification of Fishing Categories by Country A  ppendix C: 82 Fisheries-related Governance in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka References 86 List of Boxes List of Figures 1.1 T  he Impacts of ALDFG 13 ES.1 O  bjectives of this study 3 1.2 T he South Asia Co-operative Environment 19 ES.2  Summary of ALDFG baseline assessments across 4 Programme the four countries (2021) 1.3 W hy Some Plastics are Problematic 24 ES.3  Summary of quantity and cost of fishing gear 6 2.1 Common Types of Fishing Gear 27 along the waste value chain (2021) 4.1 Challenges and Recommendations on Marine 62 Objectives of this study 1.1  11 Litter in South Asia in SACEP’s Regional Marine B1.1.1 Impacts of ALDFG 13 Litter Action Plan (2018) 1.2 Factors leading to ALDFG 16 4.2 T  he Global Ghost Gear Initiative 64 1.3 Summary of reasons for regional cooperation 18 A.1  Effectiveness of Baseline Assessment Methodology 73 on ALDFG Used in This Study B2.1.1  Illustration of demersal or bottom trawling 27 B2.1.2  Illustration of fish aggregating devices 28 B2.1.3  Illustration of gillnet 28 B2.1.4  Illustration of handline 29 B2.1.5  Illustration of longline 29 B2.1.6  Illustration of pole and line fishing 30 B2.1.7  Illustration of pots and traps 30 B2.1.8  Illustration of purse seine 31 B2.1.9  Illustration of set bag 31 B2.1.10  Illustration of surrounding net 32 2.1 Annual fishing effort by country (2021) 33 2.2  Annual fishing effort and ALDFG based on gear 34 type in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan (2021) 2.3  Annually repaired, recycled, and disposed of fishing 37 gear (2021) 2.4  Annual waste management of fishing gear on 40 board and on land (2021) 2.5  Summary of annual ALDFG data by country (2021) 41 2.6  Reasons for ALDFG cited by survey respondents 42 (2021) 2.7  Summary of study findings (2021) 47 3.1 Regional agreements and organizations related 51 to marine plastic pollution 3.2  SDG 14 targets related to ALDFG 53 3.3  Timeline of global agreements, conventions, and 54 resolutions related to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG 3.4  Timeline of global programs, plans, and initiatives 57 related to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG 4.1  Classification of ALDFG recommendations 63 A.1 Inputs for this study 74 ii List of Maps List of Tables  aters of South Asia 1.1 W 18 ES.1 S  ummary of ALDFG recommendations 7 2.1 Bangladesh ALDFG maps 45 1.1  Reasons for ALDFG 17 2.2 The Maldives ALDFG maps 45 3.1 Global agreements, conventions, and resolutions 55 2.3 P akistan ALDFG maps 46 relevant to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG 2.4  Mapping ALDFG in Sri Lanka 46 3.2  Global programs, plans, and initiatives relevant to 57 marine plastic pollution and ALDFG B4.1.1  Challenges and recommendations provided in 62 SACEP’s Regional Marine Litter Action Plan (2018) 4.1  Summary of ALDFG recommendations 64 A.1  Categorization of primary fishing activity, total 75 number of vessels, and sample sizes by country A.2  Classification of key informants in Sri Lanka 76 B.1  Classification by fishing category for Bangladesh 78 B.2  Classification by fishing category for the Maldives 79 B.3  Classification by fishing category for Pakistan 80 B.4  Classification by fishing category for Sri Lanka 81 C.1  Overview of national fisheries governance in the 82 four countries iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by a World Bank team co-led by The team gratefully acknowledges comments provided Milen Dyoulgerov (Senior Environment Specialist) and Lisbet by World Bank peer reviewers Grzegorz Peszko (Lead Kugler (Senior Environmental Specialist), with contributions Economist), Kanako Hasegawa (Environmental Specialist), from Nina Tsydenova (Environmental Specialist) and Perinaz Harrison Charo Karisa (Consultant), Diana Ya-Wai Chung Bhada-Tata (Solid Waste Consultant). (Senior External Affairs Officer), Özgül Calicioglu (Environ- mental Engineer), Xenia Zia Morales (External Affairs Officer), This report is part of a larger series of stocktaking and and Bushra Nishat (Environmental Specialist). Heather analytical reports on plastics pollution in South Asia. This Koldewey (Lead, Bertarelli Foundation’s Marine Science research is undertaken as part of the World Bank’s South Asia Programme) of the Zoological Society of London and Marine Plastics Pollution Platform, which aims to promote Sivakumaran Sithamparanathan of SACEP also provided circular plastic economy solutions, advance country-level insightful comments. policy dialogue, promote investments in solid waste manage- ment, and raise public awareness of the deleterious impacts The study was prepared under the guidance of Christophe of marine plastics pollution on people’s lives and livelihoods. Crepin (Practice Manager, South Asia Environment, Natural The Platform reflects the Bank’s strong commitment to Resources and Blue Economy) and Cecile Fruman (Director, support the countries of South Asia to pursue and scale up South Asia Regional Integration and Engagement). policies and programs that help the countries of South Asia move toward a circular plastic economy and, in partnership This research was funded by the South Asia Water Initiative with civil society and the private sector, harness the power (SAWI), a trust fund supported by the United Kingdom’s of innovation to bring viable and sustainable solutions for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Australia’s plastics waste reduction and management across the region. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The trust fund was designed to This diagnostic study was conducted by a consortium led increase regional cooperation in the management of the major by Professor Anthony Gallagher, Evolved Research and Himalayan river systems in South Asia to deliver sustainable, Consulting Ltd (United Kingdom) in partnership with Ujaan fair and inclusive development and climate resilience. Foundation (Bangladesh), Plan Maldives Pvt. Ltd. (The Maldives), WWF Pakistan (Pakistan), and Pelagikos Pvt. Ltd. PROBLUE also provided funding for finalizing the publication (Sri Lanka), including Sajeed Sulaiman (Bangladesh Lead), of this report. PROBLUE, the World Bank’s blue economy Ibrahim Shareef Mohamed (Maldives Lead), Muhammad program, is a multi-donor umbrella trust fund program Moazzam Khan (Pakistan Lead), Dr. Steve Creech (Sri Lanka dedicated to helping client countries transition to a blue Lead), and Tristan Stevens (Evolved Research and Consulting economy approach. Administered by the World Bank Ltd, GIS and Mapping). The study benefitted from additional Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global support provided by research associates and field surveyors. Practice, PROBLUE supports the development of integrated and sustainable, healthy marine and coastal resources. For technical guidance and many engaging discussions, the team thanks Karin Shepardson (Lead Environmental Specialist), Pawan Patil (Senior Economist), Monika Kumar (Environmental Specialist), and the World Bank country focal points in Bangladesh, The Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The report benefitted from administrative support from Poonam Rohatgi and Juliette Makandi Guantai. iv ABBREVIATIONS 6R  redesign, reduce, remove, reuse, recycle, and MT metric ton recover NARA  National Aquatic Resources Research and ABNJ areas beyond national jurisdiction Development Agency (Sri Lanka) ALDFG  abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded NGO non-governmental organization fishing gear ORP Olive Ridley Project ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations OSPAR Oslo and Paris Conventions BEEZ beyond exclusive economic zone PA polyamide BIMSTEC  Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral PC participating country (GloLitter Partnership) Technical and Economic Cooperation PE polyethylene BoBLME Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem PET polyethylene terephthalate BPF Best Practice Framework PLEASE Plastic-free Rivers and Seas for South Asia CBC Commonwealth Blue Charter POP persistent organic pollutant CCOA Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance PP polypropylene DFAR  Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources PS polystyrene (Sri Lanka) PU polyurethane EEZ exclusive economic zone PVC polyvinyl chloride EOL end-of-life PVDF polyvinylidene fluoride EPR extended producer responsibility R&I research and innovation EPS expanded polystyrene RFMO  regional fisheries management organization FAD fish aggregating device RSCAP Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plan FAO  Food and Agriculture Organization of the RSP Regional Seas Programme United Nations S. Asia South Asia G7 Group of Seven SACEP  South Asia Co-operative Environment G20 Group of Twenty Programme GDP gross domestic product SASAP South Asian Seas Action Plan GEF Global Environment Facility SASP South Asian Seas Programme GGGI Global Ghost Gear Initiative SAWI South Asia Water Initiative GIS geographic information system SDGs UN Sustainable Development Goals GPML Global Partnership on Marine Litter UN United Nations HDPE high-density polyethylene UNCLOS  United Nations Convention on the Law of the HS Harmonized System Sea III IDA International Development Association UNEA United Nations Environment Assembly IMO International Maritime Organization UNEP United Nations Environment Programme INC Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee UNGA United Nations General Assembly IORA Indian Ocean Rim Association VMS Vessel Monitoring System IOSEA MoU Indian Ocean–South-East Asian Marine Turtle WWF World Wildlife Fund Memorandum of Understanding IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Currency Units and Exchange Rates IPNLF International Pole & Line Foundation IUU illegal, unreported, and unregulated Currency Unit  Exchange Rates kg kilogram (Effective as of April 21, 2023) KI key informant Bangladesh taka (Tk) $1 = Tk 106.17 Tk 1 = $0.0094 LC London Convention Maldivian rufiyaa (Rf) $1 = Rf 15.37 Rf 1 = $0.065 LDPE low-density polyethylene Pakistan rupee (PRs) $1 = PRs 283.48 PRs 1 = $0.0035 LP London Protocol Sri Lanka rupee (SL Rs) $1 = SL Rs 321.33 SL Rs 1 = $0.0031 LPC  lead partnering country (GloLitter Partnership) All dollar amounts are US dollars MARPOL  International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MDTF multi-donor trust fund MFAR  Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (Sri Lanka) MFD Marine Fisheries Department MLAP Marine Litter Action Plan MoU memorandum of understanding MPP marine plastic pollution v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Setting the Stage In recent years, marine plastic pollution has emerged as a significant global issue. It is estimated that at least 11 million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste leak into the ocean every year (Pew and SystemIQ 2020). The Asias (East Asia as well as the South Asia sub-continent) are the largest emitter of plastic waste to the oceans, contributing a disproportionate 81 percent of ocean plastic (Meijer et al 2021). All of South Asia’s coastal nations, except for the Maldives, rank among the top 20 most polluting nations in terms of the volume of mismanaged plastic waste (Jambeck et al. 2015). At the global level, it is estimated that 80 percent of all plastic pollution found in the marine environment originates from land-based sources and the remaining 20 percent from marine sources. Of these marine resources, one of the key pathways is through fishing and fishing-related activities. Modern fishing gear is predominantly composed of man-made polymers that increase the durability and usability of fishing gear, and in doing so, has substantially extended their life. Studies estimate that some fishing gear can persist in the marine environment for up to 600 years, reflecting the longevity of their impact and the extent of their threat. Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), colloquially known as ‘ghost gear’, contribute significantly to plastic pollution in the ocean. Estimates of the contribution to ALDFG vary based on model and estimation techniques employed, and gear loss and impacts also vary by gear type. For instance, 5.7 percent of nets and 29 percent of lines in use are lost each year (OECD 2021). An estimated 10 percent of global marine plastic pollution comes from ‘ghost gear’ including nets, lines, traps, and pots (Guzman 2020; Dixon 2020). Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear can have a significant impact on aquatic organisms (for example, fish, cetaceans, marine mammals, and seabirds) through their continued capture or entanglement over extended periods of time. Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear is a major threat to global food security and the health of the global ocean, given estimates of mortality of global fish stocks including endangered, threatened, and protected species, as well as safety at sea, with an increasing number of boats being damaged due to ALDFG (Kozioł et al. 2022). 1 Asia refers to East Asia and the Pacific as well as to South Asia, which is the focus of this study. 1 The physical impacts of ALDFG are well-documented and not only include entanglement and capture but also ingestion. This can lead to blocked intestines, a reduced intake of food and nutrients, reduced steroid and hormone levels, and impacts reproduction rates and prevents growth. Floating plastics represent a particular threat for species such as turtles and seabirds. Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, as with other marine plastic pollution, can travel long distances via winds and ocean currents before sinking, accumulating along shorelines, or converging in large plastic patches in the oceans, such as the one in the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BoBLME). When this happens, it can introduce or spread ‘alien’ or invasive species, which may be harmful to marine ecosystems. The decomposition of plastics also leads to the creation of microplastics and nanoplastics, which are known to accumulate within species. As smaller organisms are consumed by larger ones, the concentration of these substances increases and may potentially reach harmful levels in marine food chains. The problem of ALDFG is global, though it varies in nature from location to location and is dependent on various factors. These include the type of fishing activity practiced within a region, the type of fishing gear used, the nature of causal influences directly impacting ALDFG such as oceanic or meteorological conditions, the availability of end-of-life (that is, disposal) facilities, and the management and systems in place to mitigate those causes. The issue of ALDFG is also complex and cannot be solved solely through measures such as fisheries management and gear selection. Socioeconomic and cultural factors also play an important role in driving behavior, among both fishers and also by society as a whole. The lack of comprehensive monitoring makes it difficult to determine the extent of plastic pollution from fishing vessels, namely fishing gear. There is no simple solution to the complex global issue of plastic pollution associated with fisheries and ALDFG. The first step requires the development of measurement systems and national baseline assessments to identify gaps and interventions. These interventions might take various forms, from enabling the substitutability of gear materials, to valorizing ‘waste’ materials and providing better waste management systems to incentivize behavioral change. While such interventions present significant challenges, there is a critical need to inform policy development and provide institutional and investment recommendations to minimize the stream of plastic waste from fishing and fishing-related activities. Executive Summary | 2 Delivering a Robust Baseline Assessment Recognizing this challenge, the World Bank with funding support from the South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI), initiated a range of analytical work to improve understanding of the sources of both land- and marine-based plastics to the region’s seas and coastal environments. The aim of this study is to deliver objective, evidence-based baseline assessments of ALDFG at the national level for four case study countries: Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The specific objectives of the ALDFG study are summarized in figure ES.1. The report targets policy makers, the private sector, civil society and NGOs working with fisher communities, and practitioners involved in blue economy, marine pollution, and ocean fisheries. Figure ES.1 Objectives of this study Gather and Design and collate data on the Provide policy Provide an implement a robust import and manufacture recommendations and estimation of methodology aimed at of fishing gear in the case areas for further work for spatial variation using delivering national baseline study countries, analyzing the region, based on the ‘hotspot’ analysis assessments of ALDFG supply chain and results and analysis resource ownership Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear. This study assesses capture fisheries in various environments to provide baseline measurements of ALDFG. Assessments in each country focus on capture fisheries, including fish traps and static nets, and encompass coastal, estuarine, and deltaic environments. By establishing a baseline to measure the effects of future interventions, this study provides a foundation for developing a more harmonized and strategic approach to tackling ALDFG in the South Asia region. This study, conducted at a regional level, is a significant contribution to the understanding of ghost gear in the marine environment in South Asia. The approach involved fisher surveys in the case study countries using a representative sample of fishers. Fieldwork was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which directly affected data collection in the countries. In Sri Lanka, therefore, it was not possible to carry out a fisher survey; as a result, an alternate approach interviewing key informants (KIs) was carried out instead. Executive Summary | 3 India was not included in the assessment due to certain practical considerations and operational complexities; however, the methodology used in this study harmonizes the data on ALDFG in the region and can easily be replicated in India (and other countries) to fill this gap. Moreover, the recommendations provided in chapter 4 of this report are valid for India, given the shared context in the region. Finally, the report adopts both a top-down and a bottom-up approach in analyzing policies, and the analyses include India despite the lack of undertaking fieldwork. Quantities of ALDFG in South Asia are Significant This study found that ALDFG in the four countries surveyed in South Asia is significant, with an estimated 9,531 MT per year from 382,002 ALDFG events across the four case study countries (Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka). This equates to 183 kilograms of ALDFG per vessel per year and over seven ALDFG events per vessel per year (figure ES.2). It should be kept in mind that these values do not include India, which was not part of the study, and only include registered fishing vessels. Hence, the actual volume of ALDFG generated in the region is significantly higher if ALDFG from India and both registered and non-registered vessels are accounted for. Figure ES.2 Summary of ALDFG baseline assessments across the four countries (2021) Total number of ALDFG Quantity of ALDFG Cost to replace ALDFG all vessels per events per year: from all vessels per year ($): 382,002 year (MT): 109 million 9,531 Fraction of ALDFG Fraction of cost to replace ALDFG com- compared to total pared to total value of gear on board (%): quantity of gear on board (%): 40% 34% Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, MT = metric tons. Executive Summary | 4 The differences across the four countries are broadly in line with what would be expected, based on the number of registered vessels active per country and the types of fishing gear they use. Bangladesh with 40,774 vessels loses 6,086 MT per year compared to Pakistan (22,910 vessels) losing 2,608 MT. Lower figures for the Maldives were expected as a result of a significantly lower number of vessels, and the entire fishing fleet using line gear as opposed to nets. Sri Lanka’s figures are also lower, although this might be a result of the KI survey reflecting either an under representation of the fishing sector or an under reporting of ALDFG as a result of stakeholder misconceptions. The baseline assessments measure ALDFG by weight (that is, kilograms/ metric tons), which provides an accurate quantity of ghost gear, but may not necessarily reflect its impact. For instance, monofilament netting and lines are lightweight but can cause significant harm through entanglement and continued capture. This is particularly concerning in areas where they are extensively used, such as in the coastal waters of Bangladesh. Variations in Fisher Behavior and Costs of Gear The quantities of fishing gear repaired, recycled, and disposed of across the four case study countries indicate differences in behavior as well as the underlying reasons for that behavior. For instance, Pakistan employs a smaller amount of monofilament gear compared to Bangladesh and the Maldives. Given that monofilament gear is difficult to repair, Pakistan repairs a larger portion of its (non-monofilament) gear compared to other countries surveyed in the region. Recycling rates are relatively low across the South Asia region, but Sri Lanka recycles more gear than the other case study countries, due to a more developed recycling infrastructure. The average cost per vessel per year across all four countries of ALDFG ($1,171), repair ($1,324), recycling ($1,314), and disposal ($1,432) reflects that ALDFG is the cheapest option for end-of-life gear (figure ES.3). This suggests a strong economic reason why fishers might see discarding fishing gear at sea as the lowest cost option. Executive Summary | 5 Figure ES.3 Summary of quantity and cost of fishing gear along the waste value chain (2021) Fraction of gear Fraction of gear Fraction of gear Fraction of ALDFG repaired compared to recycled compared to disposed of compared compared to total total quantity of gear total quantity of gear to total quantity of gear quantity of gear on on board (%) 18% on board (%) 30% on board (%) 46% board (%) 34% Cost of repairing Cost to pay for gear to Cost of disposing of Value of ALDFG fishing gear per vessel be recycled per vessel gear per vessel per vessel ($) 1,171 ($) 1,324 ($) 1,314 ($) 1,432 Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear. Opportunities to Address ALDFG in Global Plastic Pollution Policies The number of global, regional, and national public policy responses to the plastic pollution problem has trended upward over the last decade. However, for the most part, policies addressing plastic pollution make few explicit references to ALDFG. Key gaps have been identified, such as no binding, specific, or measurable targets on ALDFG set by any country. There is a clear opportunity, particularly with the development of the new global plastics treaty, to develop an integrated response with regard to regional strategies, policies, management tools, and protocols that could address the issue more directly. At the regional level, given that the effects of ALDFG impact neighboring country ecosystems most directly, there is an important rationale for strengthening the harmonization of regional policies and prac- tices related to the types, use, and end-of-life of fishing gear. Identifying Recommendations for Sustainable Solutions to ALDFG The findings of this study validate that effective, long-term solutions to ALDFG need to address the full chain of events that lead to gear loss from a diversity of fishers (artisanal and large-scale commercial fisheries), as well as the more complex problem of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Although some gaps in knowledge were identified, such as the inability to include unregistered fishing vessels in the analysis and the quantity of illegally imported or smuggled fishing gear, the study proposes a broad range of recommendations, summarized in table ES.1, that emphasize the importance of circularity in plastic usage for achieving sustainable outcomes. These recommendations are divided by the intervention required, such as policy, institutional change, financing, and so on as well as by stakeholder level (global, regional, national) in order to guide stakeholders and practitioners. Executive Summary | 6 Table ES.1 Summary of ALDFG recommendations No. Recommendation Area of Stakeholder intervention level 1 Immediate Action 1.1 Conduct a national baseline assessment for India K N 1.2 Refine the ALDFG methodology K G, N, R 1.3 Conduct targeted outreach and awareness raising B, K N, R 1.4 Establish a working group and national reporting process under SACEP on MPP, and particularly ALDFG I, K, P, T R 1.5 Review the interactions between international shipping lanes and fishing activity in S. Asia K G, N, R 1.6 Validate viability of biodegradable fishing gear K, T N, R 1.7 Facilitate greater regional and global funding opportunities for targeted research F, K, T G, R 2 Global and Regional Frameworks on ALDFG 2.1 Strengthen implementation and enforcement of existing international and regional frameworks I G, R 2.2 Broaden the scope of existing mechanisms by inviting relevant international ALDFG stakeholders to participate in and inform policy dialogue in various international contexts P G 2.3 Consider including ALDFG in the global plastics treaty currently under development P G 3 Cooperation and Collaboration on ALDFG 3.1 Strengthen and increase cooperation across all relevant S. Asia networks and organizations I G, N, R 4 ALDFG Data and Knowledge 4.1 Strengthen international cooperation for data and information exchange, tracking, and recording ALDFG across regions, including capacity-building I, K G, R 4.2 Develop and test the efficacy of novel approaches aimed at monitoring and assessing ALDFG, including through the use of remote observation and satellite data I, K G, N, R 4.3 Develop cost-effective monitoring and assessment strategies for ALDFG I, K G, N, R 4.4 Review the use of FADs in S. Asia Marine ABNJ K G, N, R 4.5 Design and implement a pilot study on the use of bonds as part of an extended licensing system K G 5 Private Sector Engagement 5.1 Review and develop appropriate financial and market-based mechanisms to deliver change F G, N, R 5.2 Work with the private sector to mitigate ALDFG and MPP F N 6 Mitigating ALDFG 6.1 Promote a life cycle approach and 6R framework for plastic fishing gear B, K, T G, N, R 6.2 Improve fisheries management B, I, K, T G, N, R 6.3 Develop and embed supportive R&I landscapes to foster collaborative research between R&I actors to better address the problem of ALDFG K, T G, N, R 6.4 Explore opportunities to support women in developing fishing gear that contribute to a reduction in plastic ALDFG F, K, T G, N, R 6.5 Protect fishers and vulnerable fishing communities by improving access to safe sources of credit B, F, K G, N, R 7 Waste Management of ALDFG 7.1 Enhance waste management policies, practices, and infrastructure B, I, P N 7.2 Review current options for recycling EOL fishing gear T N, R 7.3 Review behavioral change models specific to S. Asia fishing communities to deliver a reduction in ALDFG B, K G, N, R 7.4 Conduct a S. Asia pilot study to promote a more circular fishing economy supported by training, education, and behavioral change B, K N, R Source: World Bank. Note: Areas of intervention are grouped as follows: B = Behavioral change, F = Financing mechanism, I = Implementation and institutional capacity, K = Knowledge and awareness raising, P = Policy and regulation, T = Technology and innovation. Stakeholder level is denoted as follows: G = Global, N = National, R = Regional. 6R = redesign, reduce, remove, reuse, recycle, and recover, ABNJ = areas beyond national jurisdiction, ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, EOL = end-of-life, FAD = fish aggregating device, MPP = marine plastic pollution, R&I = research and innovation, SACEP = South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme, S. Asia = South Asia. Executive Summary | 7 CHAPTER ONE ALDFG is a Regional Problem Understanding Land- and 10 Marine-based Plastic Pollution at the Regional Level The Challenge of Marine-based 12 Plastics in South Asia Reasons for ALDFG 15 Promoting Regional Cooperation 17 to Manage ALDFG 8 ALDFG is a Regional Problem The fishing industry is an important sector in South Asia, playing an essential role in employment, nutrition, and economic growth. The region boasts over 12,000 kilometers of coastline with extremely high population density along the coast, for instance, as high as 2,000 people per square kilometer in India and 20,000 people per square kilometer in Bangladesh (Down to Earth 1999; Hossain et al. 2021). South Asia contributes 8.5 percent of the global capture fisheries production (Hossain and Shrestha 2019). The fisheries sector is confronted with several issues, not only at the regional level, but also globally. Pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change are some of the environmental threats to fragile marine ecosystems. This is exacerbated by socioeconomic challenges such as poor management and community support, lack of technical support, over- fishing, and a lack of knowledge and education. It is no surprise, then, that the marine resources sector is garnering increasing global attention and is included in the UN Sustainable Development Goals as well as other regional engagements such as ASEAN and the G7. Against this backdrop, marine plastic pollution (MPP) is an emerging and increasingly serious global issue. Plastics are the most abundant type of litter in the ocean, making up 80 percent of all marine debris, from the surface to the deep sea (IUCN 2021). Other types of litter include metals, textiles, rubber, glass, wood, and other lost or discarded items (UNEP 2009). While exact quantities are unknown, it is estimated that land-based sources (for example, storm water runoff, littering, inadequate solid waste management systems, and illegal dumping) contribute 70-80 percent of MPP, while marine sources contribute the remaining 20-30 percent (Li et al. 2016). Marine sources primarily include fishing activities, merchant shipping, naval and leisure activities, offshore platforms, and aquaculture (FAO 2009). Fishing activities result in abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), colloquially known as ‘ghost gear’, which may be either accidental or intentional. As fishing capacities and efforts have increased significantly over the last 50 years, coupled with the increasing durability of fishing gear, so too have the impacts of ALDFG. While estimates of the contribution of ALDFG to marine litter vary based on the model and estimation techniques employed, the negative impacts—and associated environmental, economic, and social costs—of ALDFG are now starting to be understood and are gaining more attention globally (box 1.1). While there is not much quantitative data on ALDFG globally, it is generally estimated that ALDFG accounts for less than 10 percent of worldwide marine debris by volume; however, the composition of marine debris and ALDFG density is extremely variable at small spatial scales (Guzman 2020; Dixon 2020).2 Gear loss and impacts also vary by gear type. For instance, 5.7 percent of nets and 29 percent of lines in use are lost each year (OECD 2021). 2 FAO is conducting a global survey to understand the causes and magnitude of ALDFG and current practices to prevent and reduce it. 9 This chapter delves into the issue of land- and marine-based plastics in South Asia as well as the challenges posed by ALDFG and the importance of regional cooperation to manage ghost gear. The significance of land- and marine-based plastics in South Asia is explained in detail in the next section of this chapter. The following section, explains the challenges of marine-based plastics in South Asia. Next, the section presents the reasons for ALDFG, drawing from case studies in South Asia but applicable to other places. The final section of this chapter discusses the reasons to promote regional cooperation in finding solutions to manage ALDFG in South Asia. Understanding Land- and Marine-based Plastic Pollution at the Regional Level The improper management of plastic waste has become a developmental challenge, and actions and solutions across all countries are required to fully tackle the challenges of plastic waste. However, little data exists on the quantities, trends, sources, and leakage of plastic waste to terrestrial and aquatic environments. Scant information is available on the scale of ALDFG globally, regionally, or in proportion to marine litter. The few studies that have been undertaken at regional and national levels show large differences in the amount of ALDFG found in marine litter. Primarily, studies have been conducted in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Mediterra- nean Sea, with very little information available for the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal (FAO 2009). The availability of accurate data pertaining to plastic waste is of critical importance to prepare and implement appropriate policies, strategies, and management plans to reduce the quantity of marine litter. Moreover, the coastal countries in South Asia (that is, Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) do not currently possess a consolidated marine litter database drawn from a standardized set of indicators to monitor plastic waste pollution. Marine - based Land - based plastics plastics ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 10 Recognizing that the magnitude of marine-based plastic pollution can no longer be ignored, the World Bank, with funding from the South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI), initiated two related studies to quantify plastic waste leakage into rivers and seas in the region. Together, these studies take stock of the various stakeholder initiatives at the regional, national, and local levels, and conduct a gap analysis of policies required to move towards a circular economy for plastics. They represent a seminal study of plastics leakage in both land and marine environments at a regional level for South Asia. The studies also present the first ever baseline estimate for macroplastic leakage into the rivers and seas of South Asia. This body of work is expected to support the efforts of the Regional Marine Litter Action Plan for South Asian Seas Region (and related marine litter action plans in each member country), by producing an evidence-based baseline assessment of aspects that govern and relate to plastic pollution flowing into the water bodies of South Asia. The aim of this study is to deliver objective, evidence-based baseline assessments of ALDFG at the national level for four case study countries: Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. India was not included in the assessment due to certain practical considerations and operational complexities. The specific objectives of the ALDFG study are summarized in figure 1.1. The report targets policy makers, the private sector, civil society and NGOs working with fisher communities, and practitioners involved in blue economy, marine pollution, and ocean fisheries. Figure 1.1 Objectives of this study Gather and Design and collate data on the Provide policy Provide an implement a robust import and manufacture recommendations and estimation of methodology aimed at of fishing gear in the case areas for further work for spatial variation using delivering national baseline study countries, analyzing the region, based on the ‘hotspot’ analysis assessments of ALDFG supply chain and results and analysis resource ownership Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear. This study assesses capture fisheries in various environments to provide baseline measurements of ALDFG. Assessments in each country focus on capture fisheries, including fish traps and static nets, and encompass coastal, estuarine, and deltaic environments, as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Beyond (BEEZ), also known as Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). In attempting to quantify the actual flows of ALDFG entering the marine environment, this study provides a baseline for measuring the impacts of future interventions, and by assembling information on current policies and regulations related to ALDFG, it opens the way to developing a more harmonized and strategic approach to ALDFG going forward. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 11 The Challenge of Marine-based Plastics in South Asia At least 11 million metric tons (MT) of plastic end up in the ocean every year globally, a figure expected to almost triple to 29 million MT by 2040 (Pew and SystemIQ 2020). Already four of the five coastal nations in South Asia—Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka—rank amongst the top 20 most polluting nations by volume of mismanaged plastic waste that could enter the oceans (Jambeck et al. 2015). In 2010, South Asia (including Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal, in addition to the coastal countries) ranked second in terms of mismanaged plastics waste (11 percent) by region, trailing only behind East Asia and the Pacific (Ritchie and Roser 2022). This refers to total mismanaged waste by populations living within 50 kilometers of the coastline, and, therefore, at high risk of entering the oceans. Research in 2019 on the share of global plastic waste emitted into the oceans shows that the South Asia region contributes 16.5 percent, reflecting an increasing trend in mismanaged plastics waste (calculated from Ritchie 2021). In addition to the expansion of fishing operations worldwide, the increased use of synthetic materials in fishing gear and deep-sea trawling have expanded the impacts of ALDFG. Modern fishing gear is predominantly composed of the following polymers: nylon (polyamide [PA]), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (EC 2018). Not only have these materials increased the durability and usability of the gear, but they have also substantially extended their lifespan. Over time, plastics degrade in the marine environment into smaller particles known as microplastics (particles greater than 100 nanometers and less than 5 millimeters) or nanoplastics (particles smaller than 100 nanometers) because of ultra-violet radiation from the sun and physical breakdown due to wind, currents, and other natural forces. These tiny particles can float on the surface, remain suspended in the water column, get washed ashore, sink to the seabed, or are ingested by marine life. As they are widely dispersed through ocean currents, it is much harder—and most likely even impossible at this stage—to clean up once they are dis- persed. Moreover, regardless of where the plastics are abandoned, lost, or discarded, these plastics travel beyond national and regional waters and enter international waters, becoming a global concern. For these reasons, it is essential to tackle the problem at the source where it is generated or prevent it from occurring in the first place. The impacts of ALDFG can be divided into three categories: Impact on marine wildlife, impact on marine environment, and economic impact of ALDFG, described in box 1.1. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 12 Box 1.1 The Impacts of ALDFG The impacts of ALDFG can broadly be grouped into three interlinked categories: impacts on marine wildlife, impacts on the marine environment, and socioeconomic impacts (figure B1.1.1). Each of these is examined in more detail below. Figure B1.1.1 Impacts of ALDFG Impacts Socioeconomic on marine impacts wildlife of ALDFG Impacts on marine environment Source: World Bank. 1. Impacts on Marine Wildlife Globally, ALDFG directly impacts marine wildlife through entanglement, ingestion, and damage to natural habitats (Ocean Governance 2022). The primary source of entanglement for sea turtles, birds, marine mammals, fish, and crabs is fishing gear. If they are constrained by fishing gear, entangled animals may drown, starve, become prey to other wildlife, or suffer physical damage and infections with the gear cutting into their flesh. This is described as ‘ghost fishing’ and includes fishing gear that has been lost, dumped, or abandoned but continues to entangle fish and other marine creatures. The levels of mortality from ghost fishing are estimated at being up to 15 percent that of ‘live’ fishing gear with an estimated 5-30 percent of global harvestable fish stocks (depending on fishery/geography), including endangered, threatened, and protected species, and other species of ecological importance being killed every year (GGGI n.d.(a)). ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 13 2. Impacts on Marine Environment Fishing gear debris also threatens the marine environment in significant ways. Many sections of the sea floor are littered with ALDFG components, including fishing nets, line, hooks, lures, and sinkers, to name a few. According to OSPAR (2009), as much as 70 percent of all marine litter entering the world’s seas falls to the bottom and is discovered on the seabed, both in shallow coastal areas and in much deeper parts of the oceans. Litter accumulation in offshore sinks could suffocate benthic species, and once on the seabed, accumulations may suffocate sea life or obstruct water movement to the point that anoxic mud is formed (Parker 1990; Rundgren 1992). Litter may also smother plants and animals on the shoreline and provide solid attachment for species that would not normally live there. Gear, such as lost trawls, also have other impacts such as smothering benthic life and damaging delicate habitats such as coral reefs through abrasion and scouring from ALDFG, which can alter reef structures. A growing body of research establishes how sensitive benthic environments, such as shallow waters, are impacted by smothering, abrasion, translocating organisms, and so on (FAO 2009). Marine plastic debris is a medium for harmful microalgae and the adsorption of their toxins. As a result, ALDFG could intensify the transfer of potential toxins through marine food webs. While more research is needed on this topic, it is believed that the interactions of marine plastics and algal blooms may pose a significant threat to marine ecosystems and human health (do Prado Leite et al. 2022). Despite numerous documented cases of microplastics in the environment, including marine habitats, the full impacts are not widely known. Owing to their small size, these toxic microplastics are easily ingested by aquatic creatures, endangering the life of aquatic animals (IUCN 2021). Additionally, the introduction of synthetic materials in the marine food chain impacts food safety and quality. The potential impacts of microplastic and nanoplastic consumption through seafood, sea salt, and other sources on human health are also significant (Bhuyan 2022; Thiele et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2018). 3. Socioeconomic Impacts of ALDFG It is hard to estimate the exact financial and social costs associated with ALDFG, which may exert a direct or indirect impact on marine businesses. Costs vary across specific fisheries and depend on gear type, weather, ghost catch rates, and other factors (NOAA 2015). Direct costs are associated with the repair or replacement of vessels damaged by floating gear as well as the time spent disentangling vessels whose gear or engines become entangled in ALDFG. Research shows that ALDFG also has a negative impact on fishers’ catch rates, and fishers may expend more resources (for example, fuel, time spent fishing, and more fishing gear) to locate and capture decreasing fishery populations (NOAA 2015). Examples of costs were compiled by Davis (2019). All of this results in a reduction in fishing time as well as significant safety issues at sea. A considerable amount of money is ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 14 also spent in emergency rescue operations because of entanglement of gear/vessels. There are also indirect costs associated with ALDFG, including reduced income for fishers as a result of decreased catch levels due to ghost fishing mortality. Ghost gear can also impede navigation, adding to fuel and servicing costs as well as time spent at sea (FAO 2009). In addition, plastic and fishing gear pollution on beaches also decreases the aesthetic value of tourist destinations, leading to decreased income from tourism and increased costs of clean-up (FAO 2009). Moreover, mismanaged plastic waste—whether generated on land or in the ocean—has negative impacts on climate as well as on livelihoods (Tsydenova and Patil 2021). As a result of gender inequalities and social norms, women’s involvement in fisheries-related activities often goes unnoticed, resulting in their exclusion from various fishing-related tasks. While the specific responsibilities of fisherwomen may differ depending on the social and cultural setting, their roles can generally be categorized into three key areas: (1) gear preparation and maintenance, (2) fishing operations, and (3) post-harvest activities. Hence, women are important stakeholders in the fisheries sector, and their involvement can provide important perspectives. In relation to fishing gear preparation and maintenance, they are involved in repairing, cleaning, and storing fishing equipment, as well as in making and mending nets, lines, and traps. Fisherwomen’s knowledge and skills in gear maintenance are often passed down from generation to generation, making them key contributors to the sustainability of fishing practices. Reasons for ALDFG Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear may be intentional or unintentional and include nets, lines, traps, pots, and other items and often varies from location to location due to several factors, summarized in figure 1.2. As a result, the reasons for ALDFG vary as cited in table 1.1, although it is not clear which of these categories represents the biggest cause of ALDFG. Clearly, the number of fishing gear ‘lost’ due to fishing accidents will differ from country to country with the risks involved being spatially variable. The nature and complexity of fishing conditions also vary as do the resources available to operate safely. The greater the available resources, the more likely it is that the risks can be managed effectively. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 15 Figure 1.2 Factors leading to ALDFG Operational challenges in use Conflicts between of gear, including ease and different gear types regularity of gear haulage Type of fishing Nature of Low efficacy Lack of Lack of activity the fishing of fishers and management systems and (for example, environment, their gear, and systems infrastructure informal including including in place to to deal with fishing using oceanic, education and mitigate the EOL gear, local gear) and meteorological, training levels risk of ALDFG e.g., informal complexity of and seabed or formal fishing gear, conditions recycling including the markets, ports propensity that charge for for loss disposa Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, EOL = end-of-life. What constitutes ‘normal’ fishing practices and behavior is also relevant, as it differs by country and by region. While there is often a focus on deliberate loss when considering ALDFG, it is important to recognize that the loss of gear represents a cost to the fishers as well, given that they will need to replace it in order to continue operating. Therefore, culturally different perceptions of value may influence behavior and play a substantial role in the case of deliberate loss, discard, or abandonment. The cost of the gear is a crucial factor in this situation. For instance, trawl nets are more expensive than gill nets, which may, theoretically, lead to different ways of managing the gear. Therefore, this ‘value’ and its influence on behavior is an important factor when considering the problem of ALDFG as well as the potential interventions to solve it. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 16 Table 1.1 Reasons for ALDFG Type Definition Reasons Abandoned Fishing gear over which the operator/ Navigational and vessel safety owner has control and that could Too risky to retrieve be retrieved by owner/operator, but is deliberately left at sea due to force majeure or other unforeseen reasons Lost  Fishing gear over which the owner/ Wear and tear due to operational use operator has accidentally lost Operation error or misuse control and that cannot be located Gear snagging and/or retrieved by the owner/operator Bad weather, oceanographic conditions Conflict with other maritime users (shipping, other fishers) Vandalism/theft Discarded Fishing gear that is released at sea Poor handling practice without any attempt for further Lack of storage for gear retrieval control or recovery by the owner/ Lack of shore collection or disposal facilities operator Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing To get ‘rid of a waste problem’ Source: FAO 2019, World Bank. Promoting Regional Cooperation to Manage ALDFG The Asias (East Asia as well as the South Asia sub-continent) are acknowledged as the largest contributors to marine litter. Marine-based plastic pollution has been overlooked thus far due to the focus on land- based plastics. Given that both these regions have significant coastlines and, therefore, large fisheries sectors, there needs to be more attention on ALDFG. Moreover, the challenges—and opportunities—of ALDFG need to be viewed through a regional lens and not solely a national one, especially as ALDFG moves freely between national waters. These reasons, summarized in figure 1.3, include sharing common challenges, sharing knowledge of what works and what does not, tracking data in order to monitor progress and create more effective policies, cooperating to achieve economies of scale thereby reducing costs, and supporting the transition toward a circular economy for plastics, in the context of regional solutions under a global treaty on plastics pollution. Through a detailed explanation of these points, this section sets the stage for subsequent chapters, which provide baseline assessments of ALDFG in South Asian waters (chapter 2), describe in more detail a policy gap analysis for ALDFG, in particular, and, more broadly, for MPP (chapter 3), and provide recommendations on how to move forward (chapter 4). ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 17 Figure 1.3 Summary of reasons for regional cooperation on ALDFG Shared Support Promote waters, Manage Cooperate to the transition Regional Sharing what can be achieve economies shared towards a Benefits in the knowledge measured of scale challenges (regional) circular Global Plastic economy for Treaty plastics Shared Waters, Shared Challenges The South Asia region consists of eight countries, five of which have coastlines on major water bodies: Arabian Sea in the west, Bay of Bengal in the east, and the Indian Ocean to the south (map 1.1). The value of the region’s marine and coastal ecosystems cannot be overstated. Fishing, shipping, tourism, recreation, and food security are all activities that rely on these natural resources for employment and sustenance. In the Maldives, for instance, the fisheries sector is the most important primary economic activity and source of employment in almost all inhabited islands (World Bank 2021a). Map 1.1 Waters of South Asia Source: World Bank. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 18 With these shared waters also come shared challenges—such as sharing pollution in all its forms, including plastic waste. For instance, the currents in the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean gyre transport ALDFG to the Maldives and, especially, to Sri Lanka. More specifically, currents moving from west to east carry ALDFG to the Maldives from the large international fishing fleets that operate outside of EEZ limits off the coasts of India and Sri Lanka and use drifting fish aggregating devices (FADs) and purse seine fishing techniques. Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear is carried to Sri Lanka from the Bay of Bengal on the southerly current moving down the east coast of India. Given the region’s shared geography and marine resources, it is only logical, then, that the solutions to these problems should be comparable and shared across the region. Greater coordination between respective stakeholders would better support the development of a more coherent regional framework. For South Asia, this could include the creation of a new working group on MPP/ALDFG by South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP, see box 1.2 for more information). This regional policy harmonization could be achieved by developing regional guidance documents, such as policy tool kits, and by creating national action plans on marine plastic pollution, all of which could be supported by SACEP. The policy gaps relating to ALDFG in the region are explored in chapter 3, while also presenting current global, regional, and national policy initiatives relevant to MPP and ALDFG. Box 1.2 The South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme The South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) is an inter- governmental organization established in 1982 by the governments of the eight South Asian countries to promote and support the protection, management, and enhancement of the environment in the region. The South Asia Co-operative Environment Programmeworks on climate change, waste management, sustainable consumption and production, and protection and management of the coastal environment. It also supports a post-2015 South Asia Development Agenda aimed at delivering the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SACEP 2021). SACEP administers the South Asian Seas Programme (SASP), which was initiated by the UNEP. There is some synchronization between SASP activities and other regional programs administered by the UNEP (Mrema 2016). SACEP developed the SASP’s Regional Marine Litter Action Plan for South Asian Seas Region (MLAP) in 2019, which provides programs and measures for marine litter prevention and reduction as well as a timeframe for implementation. SACEP also implements the World Bank’s Plastic-free Rivers and Seas for South Asia (PLEASE) project, which aims to boost innovation and coordinate circular economy solutions that minimize plastic pollution in South Asian seas, such as by scaling up plastic recycling and promoting the ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 19 use of alternatives to single-use plastics. The $50 million regional PLEASE project includes a $37 million grant from IDA and $13 million in parallel financing from Parley for the Oceans and will be implemented over five years in all eight countries in the region (World Bank 2020; UNEP n.d.(e)). Sharing Knowledge There is growing awareness of the issue of ALDFG and the importance of taking action to deal with its impacts. With rising seafood demand, global fisheries expansion, and the use of more synthetic and durable materials for making fishing gear, ALDFG is projected to become an increasingly bigger problem. Currently, there is a growing body of research detailing the problems of ALDFG, though there are also areas of research in which there are significant gaps or scope for considerable development. New research shows that the causes and effects of ALDFG differ depending on the gear, region, scale, and fishery (Gilman et al. 2022). Since ALDFG is transboundary and trans-sectoral in nature, a wide array of research and innovation perspectives is inevitably needed to deliver a greater understanding of the situation as well as opportunities for improvement. Raising awareness and tailored/targeted education campaigns are key to delivering change, and building capacity and resilience for specific groups such as fishers and across society more broadly. Capacity- building measures for fishing crew that include education and awareness raising and improved access to onboard tools and technologies could minimize gear loss. The adoption of mandatory standards (via regulation) or voluntary standards (for example, through the Marine Stewardship Council’s Fisheries Standard) and eco-labelling could also be shared at the regional level. Hence, the more awareness that can be generated and shared across the region, the more it would benefit users across the countries. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 20 Manage What can be Measured Gathering evidence of the problem’s scale is essential not only to understand it but also to manage it effectively. Given the issue’s recent emergence and the inherent difficulty in collecting this data, the absence of global ALDFG data, not just in South Asia, is hardly surprising. This short- coming also applies to plastic waste in general, since calculation methods and definitions differ from country to country, making aggregation and comparison problematic. As a result, without an agreed-upon baseline or defined approach, values are frequently obtained from inconsistent, old, or incomplete data. As there are no uniform methodologies for determining ALDFG baselines, there are currently no consistent plastic monitoring metrics available. This limits the ability to report and track progress accurately and consistently. More precise estimates of the magnitude of ALDFG and gear-, region-, and fishery-specific values are needed to create benchmarks against which future interventions can be measured. This would also contribute to the development of a consolidated regional marine litter database to monitor plastic waste pollution. The approach used in this report establishes a nationwide baseline assessment of ALDFG, providing a ‘starting point’ to monitor changes over time and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the national baselines for Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan. An assessment is also provided for Sri Lanka, where data was collected using a key informant (KI) survey approach. Cooperate to Achieve Economies of Scale The fishing industry is an important economic sector for coastal South Asia since it provides a source of livelihood and food. Scaling up ALDFG solutions to the regional level would help in streamlining and sharing solutions as well as potentially lowering the costs of implementing monitoring and assessment systems, supporting the delivery of innovations in fishing gear, and enhancing recycling and end-of-life waste management options. The uptake of ALDFG solutions must be fully integrated with sustainable fisheries management in order for regional cooperation to be effective. For instance, overfishing leads to the use of more nets and additional effort, often exacerbating ALDFG (Richardson et al. 2022). This is particularly important in a region where, in some countries at least, the primary stake- holder—fisherfolk—tend to be isolated and have limited access to formal education and higher incomes. Integrating and connecting these communities would make the adoption of standards, certification, and labeling related to prevention of ALDFG more streamlined and efficient across the region. Effective implementation of existing policies and legislation at the regional and global levels (for example, MARPOL) is also important. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 21 Support the Transition towards a (Regional) Circular Economy for Plastics The global plastic treaty—an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, currently being negotiated—is perhaps the best indication that the world is rapidly moving towards a global shift in approaches favoring a circular economy for plastics. Moreover, the recently agreed international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of ABNJ puts a spotlight on oceans as an important natural resource and highlights the importance of improving coordination and cooperation regionally and globally to protect global oceans from the various threats, including plastic pollution, they face. The UNEA resolution to develop an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environ- ment, specifies that the treaty be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the complete life cycle of plastic. Thus, interventions need to focus on the entire value chain for plastics and not solely downstream, once it is no longer needed and turned into waste. For this to occur, numerous factors need to be addressed to prevent fishing gear from being intentionally discarded or, at the least, to minimize loss. For instance, plastic waste, including ALDFG, should be looked at as a resource by enhancing a ‘redesign, reduce, remove, reuse, recycle, and recover’ (6R) approach and providing effective waste management infrastructure that includes accessible disposal options. Furthermore, transitioning to a (regional) circular economy for plastics (or any other material) necessitates significant changes in behavior, industrial design, and manufacturing. Drivers for change could be (1) regulatory, such as extended producer responsibility (EPR), where manufacturers of plastic gear are encouraged to employ collection and recycling schemes; (2) economic, including incentivization; (3) behavioral, through greater education and awareness; or (4) related to redesign. For instance, the use of monofilament fishing gear is either banned or restricted in most countries, including Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. However, it is easy to recycle as it is commonly made of polyamides, a high-value material in recycling markets. Nets that are made of mixed polymers are harder to recycle, with ropes and ties made of different materials. As a result, transitioning to a circular economy requires extensive coordination and scale, as well as collective efforts by governments, the private sector, civil society, and individuals. This is challenging and expensive to implement and, as a result, difficult to undertake solely on a national scale. A sustained shift towards a circular economy on a regional and global scale is required for any meaningful and long-term change to occur. If delivered effectively, this could provide a coherent framework to address ALDFG and MPP. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 22 In the context of South Asia, a number of recommendations to move forward are proposed in chapter 4. Recommendations are grouped by area of intervention (behavioral change, financing mechanism, implementation and institutional capacity, knowledge and awareness raising, policy and regulation, and technology and innovation) as well as by stakeholder level (that is, whether the recommendation requires stakeholder input and coordination at the global, regional, or national level). These recommendations are designed for the South Asia region but may have relevance in other regions as well. Promote Regional Benefits in the Global Plastic Treaty The intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) is developing an international, legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, which is expected to be agreed by the end of 2024. The INC will consider how to promote sustainable production and consumption of plastics, encompassing a circular economy approach (UNEP n.d.(c)). While the focus will necessarily be on plastics that are most harmful to the environment—namely single- use plastics and plastic waste that is generated through land-based activities—the INC could also consider including ALDFG as part of the scope of the instrument, given its numerous impacts, particularly on the marine environment. In addition, there is a need for the treaty to consolidate diverse legislation on managing plastics and reducing plastic waste. See box 1.3 for a brief discussion on the problems surrounding problematic plastics, particularly those that are for single-use. It is critical to have representation at the regional level to champion the region’s specific needs and promote the collective ambitions of the region’s nations, which would indirectly improve the lives of under- served and disadvantaged groups. Regional representation also ensures that the plastic treaty complements existing national and regional initiatives and does not hurt or hinder the development of one country at the expense of another. In the context of the global plastic treaty, having strong regional support can advocate for the region’s special circumstances, such as the need for innovative solutions to ALDFG, technology transfer, and data collection and monitoring. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 23 Box 1.3 Why Some Plastics are Problematic Pollution from plastics—on land and in the oceans—is one of the most pressing global environmental concerns today. Today, almost all types of fishing gear are made from lightweight plastics, primarily nylon (PA), PE, and PP, due to their durability and low cost (Guerra 2021; Wright et al. 2021). While the ultimate goal of end-of-life fishing gear is to landfill, incinerate, or recycle it—much like other plastic waste—the amount of ALDFG has drastically increased in the last few decades. It is estimated that globally 5.7 percent of all fishing nets and 29 percent of all fishing lines are abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded at sea (Wright et al. 2021). Globally, all plastics are chemically composed of synthetic or semi-organic polymers made from fossil fuels and primarily categorized into seven different polymer types: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and others, which include layered or mixed plastics. From these, UNEP considers any plastic made from PET, HDPE, LDPE, PP, and PS (including expanded polystyrene or EPS, a form of PS) to be single-use plastics (UNEP 2018). Once they are no longer needed and become waste, plastic polymers are often mismanaged due to inefficient solid waste management systems, that is, improper collection, sorting, recovery, and disposal. In low- and middle-income countries with sizeable informal sectors in waste collection and recycling—such as those in South Asia—certain polymer types such as PET and HDPE are collected while others such as LDPE and multi-layered packaging are not, as there is a market demand for certain polymers that can be recycled. In terms of circularity or the ability to ‘close the loop’, certain polymers like PET and HDPE can be recycled more easily than others (for example, LDPE and PVC) and in a manner that is financially viable. Circularity basically implies that products that are no longer considered useful are converted into new products and applications in order to reduce the loss of material (and, thus, minimize waste) and reduce the need to use virgin resources. ALDFG is a Regional Problem | 24 CHAPTER TWO Baseline Assessments of ALDFG Study Overview 26 Fishing Effort and Fishing Gear 32 S  upply Chain for Plastic Fishing 36 Gear Waste Value Chain of Fishing Gear 36 Managing Fishing Gear Waste 39 Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise 41 Discarded Fishing Gear Summary of Study Findings 46 25 Baseline Assessments of ALDFG Study Overview The data and information gathered as part of the baseline assessments for this study are presented in this chapter. Data was collected in four South Asian maritime nations: in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan by using a fisher survey, and in Sri Lanka by carrying out a key informant (KI) survey. India, although possessing the longest coastline in South Asia, was excluded due to certain practical considerations and operational complexi- ties. This study represents the first instance of a standardized methodology being employed across several South Asian countries to gather and evaluate data on abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), thus providing valuable insight to marine-based plastic pollution not only in this region, but also elsewhere. This study assesses capture fisheries in various environments to provide baseline measurements of ALDFG. Assessments in each country focus on capture fisheries, including fish traps and static nets, and encompass coastal, estuarine, and deltaic environments, as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Beyond (BEEZ), also known as Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). By establishing a baseline to measure the effects of future interventions, this study provides a foundation for developing a more harmonized and strategic approach to tackling ALDFG in the South Asia region. The approach involved fisher surveys in the case study countries using a representative sample of fishers. Fieldwork was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which directly affected data collection in all the countries. In Sri Lanka, therefore, it was not possible to carry out a fisher survey; as a result, an alternate approach interviewing KIs was carried out instead. A detailed description of the methodology used to collect data for this survey is described in appendix A. This chapter is divided into the following sections: The first section of this chapter looks at the types of fishing gear used in these countries and the fishing effort expended by fishers. The next section, Supply Chain for Plastic Fishing Gear, focuses on where this gear comes from, in other words, how much is locally manufactured or imported. This is important because a large portion of the fishing gear used in the South Asia region is illegally imported or smuggled, making tracking of fishing gear inputs (for example, production and import) and waste outputs (including recycling, disposal, and export) difficult to tally. The next section examines the waste value chain of fishing gear, looking at repair, recycling, and disposal. In terms of disposal, the survey also gathered data on how fishing equipment waste is handled onboard and once it has been brought back ashore. This is summarized in the section on Managing Fishing Gear Waste. The next section presents an analysis of ALDFG, providing key indicators across the four countries surveyed, which can be used in providing recommendations and making informed decisions. Within this section, the reasons for ALDFG and mapping of ALDFG hotspots are also presented. Finally, the last section 26 provides a summary of the aggregated data from the study. Box 2.1 provides a description of the various types of fishing gear used commonly in South Asia, thus providing context to the discussion that follows. Box 2.1 Common Types of Fishing Gear Fishers in South Asia use common types of fishing gear utilized all around the world. The characteristics of the gear and where they are used in South Asia are provided here. The characteristics of the gear are described in this box, and the countries in South Asia where the gear is used are provided next to each illustration. Demersal or bottom trawling This covers several gear types that use a cone-shaped net closed at one end to hold the catch. The nets are towed by boat(s) and can catch fish living at great depths or at the bottom of the sea (figure B2.1.1). Figure B2.1.1 Illustration of demersal or bottom trawling Bangladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 27 Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) FADs are man-made, floating structures with hanging nets to attract fish. They may be either free floating, i.e., drifting FADs, or anchored to the seabed, i.e., anchored FADs (figure B2.1.2). Figure B2.1.2 Illustration of fish aggregating devices Bangladesh The Maldives Pakistan Sri Lanka Gillnets This covers several types of gear that utilize a curtain of netting that hangs in the water. The mesh size determines the size of fish caught, which helps to avoid catching juvenile fish (figure B2.1.3). Figure B2.1.3 Illustration of gillnet Bangladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 28 Handlines Handlines are a selective method, which involve manually fishing with hooked lines. It does not require the use of a pole or reel, only the strength of the fisher holding the line. These tend to be used by smaller inshore vessels, typically for surface water fish (figure B2.1.4). Figure B2.1.4 Illustration of handline Bangladesh The Maldives Pakistan Sri Lanka Longlines Longlines—as the name suggests—include a long fishing line behind a boat. Baited hooks are attached at intervals to attract targeted species. They are used in pelagic and demersal fishing, depending on the species targeted (figure B2.1.5). Figure B2.1.5 Illustration of longline Bangladesh The Maldives Pakistan Sri Lanka Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 29 Pole and line This includes the use of small bait and hand-held wooden or fiberglass poles with short lines and barbless hooks. It is used to catch tuna and other large pelagic species one fish at a time, thus reducing bycatch (figure B2.1.6). Figure B2.1.6 Illustration of pole and line fishing Bangladesh The Maldives Pakistan Sri Lanka Pots and traps Pots are stationary traps made from wood, wire, or plastic to catch crustaceans, such as lobsters and crabs. The pots are laid on the seabed for approximately a day before being hauled back onto a boat. Commonly, pots are laid out in strings or fleets, with traps connected to each other by long ropes (figure B2.1.7). Figure B2.1.7 Illustration of pots and traps Bangladesh The Maldives Pakistan Sri Lanka Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 30 Purse seines The purse seine is an example of a surrounding net and is used in the open ocean to target dense schools of fish, primarily single species such as tuna and mackerel. A vertical net curtain surrounds the fish, and the bottom is then drawn together like the cords of a drawstring purse. While it does not come into contact with the seabed and when used with FADs, it can result in higher levels of bycatch (figure B2.1.8). Figure B2.1.8 Illustration of purse seine Bangladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Set bags Set bags are nets kept open by a frame and held horizontally across a current. They are usually placed at depths of 5 to 15 meters, near channels or islands where strong tidal currents are present with the cod end of the net ranging from 5 up to 18 meters long (figure B2.1.9). Figure B2.1.9 Illustration of set bag Bangladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 31 Surrounding nets Surrounding nets are large netting walls set for surrounding aggregated fish both from the sides and from underneath, thus preventing them from escaping by diving downwards. Apart from a few exceptions, these are surface nets. The netting wall is framed by lines: a floatline on top and leadline at the bottom (figure B2.1.10). Figure B2.1.10 Illustration of surrounding net Bangladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Source: Adapted from MSC n.d. Note: FADs = fish aggregating devices. Fishing Effort and Fishing Gear The importance of the fisheries sector varies in the South Asia region. In Bangladesh, inland fishing is more important than marine fishing, which employs approximately 300,000 people (inland fishing employs about 1.2 million). In 2014, the fisheries sector contributed 3.8 percent of the country’s GDP (FAO 2023a). Fishing in the Maldives is the second main industry after tourism and employs more than 20 percent of the labor force (Invest Maldives 2023). In Pakistan, the sector employs about 300,000 fishers, with an additional 400,000 in ancillary industries (Pakissan 2017). Although it accounts for less than one percent of the country’s GDP, it employs a significant number of impoverished people and makes up 1.6 percent of Pakistan’s total exports (TDAP 2021). In Sri Lanka, 600,000 people, or 10 percent of the population, are involved in the fishing sector (AFD 2019). Fishing effort is a measure of fishing intensity or the amount of effort made to search for fish. It is often measured as a combination of inputs, such as the number of vessels for a particular fishing activity (for example, Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 32 trawling), the number of hours or days spent fishing per year, and the weight of the gear on board a vessel. A summary of fishing effort in the four countries surveyed for this study is provided in figure 2.1. For each country (except Sri Lanka), fishing effort was calculated by type of fishing gear, which is shown in figure 2.2. No data by type of fishing gear is available for Sri Lanka as KI interviews were conducted instead of a fisher survey due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Marine vessels were surveyed, including both artisanal and commercial, in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan. The numbers of the fishing vessels shown here are either the number of vessels registered in the country or provided by the respective governments. Figure 2.2 also provides an overview of ALDFG for fishing gear type in each country. Figure 2.1 Annual fishing effort by country (2021) Fraction of vessels compared to Total number of vessels other countries in the study (%) BANGLADESH 40,774 44% THE MALDIVES 1,737 2% PAKISTAN 22,910 25% SRI LANKA 27,403 30% Time spent fishing (days per vessel per year) Time spent fishing annually (%) BANGLADESH 201 55% THE MALDIVES 192 53% PAKISTAN 186 51% SRI LANKA 158 43% Average weight of gear on board (kg per vessel) BANGLADESH 360 THE MALDIVES 48 PAKISTAN 381 SRI LANKA 154 Source: World Bank. Note: kg = kilogram. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 33 Although fishing is the major economic activity in the Maldives, it has a • comparatively smaller fishing fleet in the South Asia region. On average, most fishers go out on the water—and hence use the fishing • gear on board—just over half the year in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan, and just under that at 43 percent of the year in Sri Lanka. The average weight of fishing gear on board corresponds to the type of • fishing gear used in the countries surveyed (figure 2.2). For instance, in the Maldives fishing is done primarily by hand (pole and line), hence the gear is quite light compared to Pakistan, where the use of trawlers and gillnets is common. Figure 2.2 Annual fishing effort and ALDFG based on gear type in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan (2021) BANGLADESH Trawlers Gillnets Longlines/ Set bags Handlines Number of vessels 187 25,369 2,453 12,765 Fraction of vessels per gear type (%) <1% 62% 6% 31% Fraction of gear weight on board per gear type (%) 1% 61% 3% 35% Average purchase cost of gear per vessel ($) 19,234 3,421 5,164 3,421 Fraction of purchase cost of gear on board (%) 3% 65% 9% 23% Fraction of ALDFG by weight per gear type (%) 3% 62% 1% 35% Fraction of cost to replace ALDFG (%) 1% 72% 6% 22% Fraction of ALDFG events (%) <1% 72% 3% 25% Average number of ALDFG events per vessel per year 2 7 3 5 Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 34 Pole and line Handline for Handline Handline THE MALDIVES Yellowfin tuna for Reef fish for Grouper Number of vessels 676 294 621 146 Fraction of vessels (%) 39% 17% 36% 8% Fraction of gear weight on board (%) 60% 2% 32% 6% Average purchase cost of gear per vessel ($) 438 509 867 623 Fraction of purchase cost of gear on board (%) 28% 14% 50% 8% Fraction of ALDFG by weight (%) 26% 5% 57% 12% Fraction of cost to replace ALDFG (%) 16% 3% 68% 13% Fraction of ALDFG events (%) 28% 5% 59% 9% Average number of ALDFG events per vessel per year 42 17 97 62 PAKISTAN Shrimp Large Surrounding Longlines/ Medium Small Traps trawlers gillnets nets Handlines gillnets gillnets Number of vessels 2,853 709 820 567 5,701 11,985 275 Fraction of vessels (%) 12% 3% 4% 2% 25% 52% 1% Fraction of gear weight on board (%) 12% 27% 9% 1% 37% 13% 1% Average purchase cost of gear per 7,644 105,098 27,001 989 4,010 972 1,745 vessel ($) Fraction of purchase cost of gear on 16% 56% 2% <1% 17% 9% <1% board (%) Fraction of ALDFG by weight (%) 12% 8% 9% 1% 33% 37% <1% Fraction of cost to replace ALDFG (%) 18% 20% 18% <1% 17% 27% <1% Fraction of ALDFG events (%) 15% 2% 6% 2% 22% 46% 6% Average number of ALDFG events per 2 1 3 2 2 2 9 vessel per year Source: World Bank. Note: Average number of ALDFG events per vessel per year rounded off to the nearest whole value. ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 35 A wide variety of fishing gear is used in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri • Lanka; in the Maldives, fishing is restricted to the use of different line fishing techniques, including long line, pole and line, and handline. Gillnets are common in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, with these • nets being most susceptible to abandonment, loss, or being discarded in these countries. In the Maldives, handlines are most commonly lost, abandoned, or discarded. • Supply Chain for Plastic Fishing Gear Countries may import fishing gear in the form of fully manufactured, finished products that are ready to be distributed and sold. Other gear may be imported as components and used by local manufacturers to create specialized fishing gear for the local market. For the four countries in this study, negligible quantities of fishing gear are locally manufactured. In the Maldives, 100 percent of the fishing gear is imported, and in the other three countries, the majority of gear is imported. Some local manufacture takes place in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, while secondary manufacture is done in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Imported twine or panels of prefabricated meshes of various size are combined and locally made into nets. Value is, therefore, added in the supply chain. Fishing gear is also illegally imported or smuggled, as in the case of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Waste Value Chain of Fishing Gear In addition to being abandoned, lost, or intentionally discarded in marine waters, some amount of fishing gear is also repaired and reused, recycled, or disposed of. Figure 2.3a shows the fractions of gear that are repaired, recycled, and disposed of compared to the total gear on board, while figure 2.3b provides the cost of repairing, recycling, and disposing the gear compared to the value of the total gear on board. Repair cost refers to the cost to fix existing gear; recycling cost is the cost to pay for the gear to be recycled; and disposal cost refers to cost of disposing the gear. It should be noted here that the three mechanisms—repair, recycle, and disposal— are not considered mutually exclusive in the survey; this means that a fisher might choose multiple options for their gear on board. As a result, the findings do not add up to 100 percent. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 36 Figure 2.3 Annually repaired, recycled, and disposed of fishing gear (2021) a. Fate of fishing gear on board BANGLADESH THE MALDIVES PAKISTAN SRI LANKA Fraction of gear repaired (%) 12% 5% 35% 7% Fraction of gear recycled (%) 26% 15% 10% 86% 53% Fraction of gear disposed of (%) 17% 45% 24% b. Cost of fishing gear on board Cost of repairing fishing gear per vessel ($) 1,467 7 2,750 4 Cost of repairing gear (%) 45% 1% 47% 6% Cost to pay for gear to be recycled per vessel ($) 2,676 37 504 45 Cost of recycling gear (%) 82% 6% 9% 86% Cost to pay for gear to be disposed per vessel ($) 2,099 30 2,046 13 Cost of disposing of gear (%) 64% 5% 35% 24% Source: World Bank. Note: Cost percentages refer to cost of repair/recycle/disposal compared to value of total fishing gear on board. Repair and Reuse of Fishing Gear The highest rate of repair work per year was reported in Pakistan, with 35 • percent of total fishing gear being repaired. Much lower values were reported for Bangladesh (12 percent), Sri Lanka (7 percent), and the Maldives (5 percent). These disparities have various possible explanations, including differences • in survey approaches (Sri Lanka), types of repair work, and fishing activity. It may be more costly, for example, to replace new net panels than to reweave old ones. The characteristics of the gear also play a part. For instance, monofilament • nets are prone to snagging and entanglement and extremely difficult to mend once damaged. Therefore, they are sometimes repurposed into fencing in agriculture. In countries where monofilament gillnetting is commonly used, such as in Bangladesh, it is likely that repair rates are lower than in countries where monofilament netting is not used or is less commonly used. Similarly, in the Maldives broken monofilament lines are not repairable. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 37 Recycling Fishing Gear Fishing gear is composed of a wide variety of components as well as • different polymers. Many of the high-volume plastic polymers used in fishing gear are • readily recyclable, including thermoplastics such as polyamides (nylon), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), which can be recycled using closed-loop mechanical recycling. Closed-loop recycling, however, is most practical when the polymer • constituent can be effectively separated from sources of contamination. Ideally, the plastic waste stream for reprocessing would consist of a narrow range of polymer grades to reduce the difficulty of replacing virgin resin directly. This is possible with some forms of recycling such as already currently done with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. The recycling of fishing gear represents a challenge, particularly if retrieved • after having been ‘lost’ at sea as it is likely to be entangled and mixed with biodegradable matter and other marine debris. Moreover, while the sorting of this gear is technically not infeasible, it would still be far more difficult to recycle or reprocess and would require extra steps in the recycling process to work. Thermoset plastics, such as polyurethane (PU), in the manufacture of • fishing rods and epoxy and acrylic resins used in an assorted range of coatings and sealants are not recyclable and are really only suitable for energy recovery. Fishing gear is designed for durability, making it difficult to dismantle and • some gear types, therefore, require specialized recycling processes. As with many areas in South Asia, waste management systems and • infrastructure for collection, sorting, and recycling are lacking generally with little, if any, specific fishing gear recycling. Of the countries in the study, Sri Lanka is in a better position than others • to facilitate recycling of ALDFG of some sort, with a high general recycling rate (86 percent) compared to, for example, Pakistan, which has a low recycling rate (10 percent) given Sri Lanka’s overall approach to waste management. Sri Lanka also has more waste infrastructure (for example, bins, containers) at ports compared to other countries in the study. While fishing nets are not normally included in traditional solid waste management, they seem to be collected through waste infrastructure in Sri Lanka. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 38 Disposal of Fishing Gear Irrespective of recycling capability or the fact that some types of fishing • gear are more durable or repairable than others, fishing gear does eventually reach a point where it is no longer usable, that is, it has an end- of-life (EOL). Across South Asia, of the countries studied (other than Sri Lanka), disposal of fishing gear is more common than repair or recycling due to the lack of recycling options and lack of ability to repair certain gear types. Figure 2.3 highlights variation in the quantities of fishing gear discarded in • the four countries. Bangladesh records the highest amount of fishing gear disposed of (53 percent) and the Maldives the lowest (17 percent). This may be due to the fact that Bangladesh has far greater reliance on fishing gear such as monofilament gill nets, despite their prohibition. This type of net is easily damaged and entangled and is also difficult to repair. Fishers in the Maldives, on the other hand, use only lines and hooks; while these may also be lost or damaged, they are less likely to be discarded intentionally. Although this data does not offer insights into the disposal routes used • by the fishers surveyed, the most likely disposal option—given the lack of waste collection facilities in ports and harbors—is to dump EOL gear near ports or at landing sites. In fact, this practice is well-documented across the region, and very often dumping sites are not officially designated but arise informally (WWF-Pakistan 2021; Ujaan Foundation 2021). Managing Fishing Gear Waste This section focuses on how fishing gear is managed both on board vessels as well as onshore once the gear becomes waste, that is, it reaches the end of its useful life and cannot be repaired/reused nor is it recycled/reprocessed. Some of the sorted waste is repurposed, repaired, or recycled while the remaining is disposed of onshore. Fishers in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan were surveyed on their fishing gear waste practices in order to also determine the waste infrastructure that was provided to them onshore. Findings from Sri Lanka were excluded as data from the KI interviews did not provide sufficient information. The results of the survey are summarized in figure 2.4, reflecting the data for survey questions with positive responses. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 39 Figure 2.4 Annual waste management of fishing gear on board and on land (2021) BANGLADESH is sorted on boa THE MALDIVES Waste rd PAKISTAN rd oa i b W her 33% on ft as e a te re ble is no ila dis was 32% ava car are ded e bins 7% % bins 71% 25 t in se 55% % Waste 65 a 62 % 2% FISHING GEAR WASTE ON BOARD 6% FISHING GEAR 9% n place 16% 23% are i ness WASTE ON LAND Fishing d at po collecte 5% 0% 3% re % 78 asu awa 1% gea rt 75 res % % me aste 37 r is 7% W 25% % 65 sp OL e E st W ac l te d ow , a as ose as e 18% i c s n ure i f av t ab litie olle i re ct d ai le s a ctio he u is w at re n If t rastr ear er po rt inf ng g oth Waste i h i ture (eg. bi nfrastrucers) fish f wit ns, contain o is availa ble at port Source: World Bank. Note: (1) Percentages in figure represent ‘yes’ responses to survey questions asked regarding managing fishing gear waste. (2) Waste bins on board are for all types of waste, not only waste gear, and are provided by the fishers themselves. (3) Sri Lanka is not included due to lack of fisher survey data. EOL = end-of-life. The presence of waste management facilities onboard vessels as well as at • ports, fishing harbors, and landing sites was reviewed for this study. While the Maldives stands out for having at least some waste facilities on • board, the other countries show extremely limited capacity for waste storage or sorting. That said, the amount of space required on board for storage of line gear is significantly lower in the Maldives than it would be for nets or pots that are used elsewhere in the region. Waste management facilities and infrastructure on shore at ports, • fishing harbors, and landing sites are also extremely limited across countries surveyed. The provision of waste collection facilities is very limited, and even in cases • where they do exist, they are not always accessible nor organized into specific collection for particular types of waste. Additionally, hardly any information is provided nor measures taken to promote better waste management practices. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 40 Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear The study looked at ALDFG for each type of fishing gear in the surveyed countries, as summarized in figure 2.2. Figure 2.5 provides an aggregated picture of ALDFG across all gear types by country, such as the quantity of fishing gear abandoned, lost, or discarded, the value of the gear, and the frequency of ALDFG incidents. An ALDFG event refers to an incident where fishing gear was either abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded. The possible reasons for ALDFG events are provided in figure 2.6. Disaggregated data for ALDFG by fishing gear in each country is provided in appendix B. Figure 2.5 Summary of annual ALDFG data by country (2021) Number of ALDFG 6 59 2 NA events per vessel 237,018 102,643 42,341 NA Total number of ALDFG events 6,085,577 24,666 2,608,058 812,987 Quantity of ALDFG from all vessels (kg) 41% 30% 30% 19% Fraction of ALDFG compared to total gear onboard all vessels (%) 72,383,573 122,144 35,956,738 276,080 Cost of replacing ALDFG from all vessels (%) 54% 11% 27% 19% Value of ALDFG compared to total value of gear onboard all vessels (%) BANGLADESH THE MALDIVES PAKISTAN SRI LANKA Source: World Bank. Note: Number of ALDFG events per vessel per year rounded off to the nearest whole value. ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, NA = not available. The results of the survey show that annual gear loss is significant across • all countries, with over 40 percent in Bangladesh and one-third of gear abandoned, lost, or discarded in the Maldives and Pakistan. While the quantity of ALDFG is far smaller in the Maldives compared to • the other countries, mainly due to the nature of fishing gear (that is, line fishing instead of nets), this lower weight should not be equated with a reduced threat to marine wildlife or to the overall marine environment. Monofilament line can also lead to entanglement and be ingested by marine wildlife. For this reason, it may be advisable to develop effective, comparable metrics of the threat or impact of different types of gear for use in future ALDFG reporting and assessments. While not reflected in this data, a high proportion of ALDFG in Bangladesh • derives from small commercial and artisanal use of monofilament gillnets in coastal waters. Monofilament netting has a greater propensity for snagging and entanglement, resulting in greater quantities of deliberate discard. While it may weigh less than other forms of plastic fishing gear, once lost, it has a considerable impact on the marine environment, particularly through ghost fishing. Overall, the results from Sri Lanka are perhaps outliers, which may be • Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 41 explained given the use of KI interviews rather than a survey of fishers, as undertaken in the other countries. As a corollary, the results might reflect either an under-representation of the fishing sector and therefore, missing out on particular fishing activities, or an under-reporting of the situation as a result of stakeholder misconceptions. Reasons for ALDFG Fishers in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan (and stakeholders in Sri Lanka) were asked what caused fishing gear to be abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded. The results are summarized in figure 2.6. Figure 2.6 Reasons for ALDFG cited by survey respondents (2021) 6% 0% 9% 76% conflict/ Gear conflict/ Shipping Interaction Interaction 26% 0% 12% 21% Ocean/ Meteorological Meteorological Conditions 31% 0% 0% 4% Theft 4% 0% 62% 0% Snagging 31% 100% 16% 0% Other BANGLADESH THE MALDIVES PAKISTAN SRI LANKA Source: World Bank. Note: The reasons for ALDFG are summarized as follows: Gear conflict/shipping interaction refers to events where either there is adverse interaction between different fishing activities, such as between trawling and gill netting, or where shipping vessels sail through fishing grounds, resulting in nets and lines being cut. Oceano/meteorological conditions refers to fishing gear that is lost due to poor weather conditions, such as rough seas during the monsoons, strong currents, and so on. Theft is often cited as a problem by fishers where nets might be cut or traps are taken to be used elsewhere. Snagging refers to the catching of gear on either the seabed or sunken debris, with this being a particular problem in some Pakistani estuaries where there are submerged forests and mangroves. Other refers to natural breakage of lines (a problem particular to the Maldives), accidents, and garbage (interaction with flotsam or floating rubbish). The Maldives is different from other case study countries due to the sole use of line fishing in the country. The extent to which fishing gear becomes a source of intended or • unintended marine litter varies from location to location and depends on several key factors, including:  he type, complexity, and propensity for loss of the fishing gear •T used, including the use of very long nets or fleets of nets.  perational challenges of using various types of gear, including the •O ease and regularity of haulage.  onflicts between different types of gear, such as between mobile •C gear (trawl nets or encircling nets) and static gear (gill nets, trammels, traps, and longlines) where the mobile gear is dragged or towed across or through the static gear, thereby causing it to break and be lost.  he nature of the fishing environment, including the prevailing •T oceanic, meteorological, and seabed conditions (such as a rocky Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 42 substrate, which could lead to unintended snagging or entanglement). Lack of training and awareness of fishers on proper recycling or • disposal of ALDFG. The extent of existence, implementation, and effectiveness of • governance and waste management systems to mitigate the risk of ALDFG. Lack of waste collection points onshore for fishing gear that is • damaged or no longer useful, in other words, has reached its end-of- life. Collection points incur a management cost to the local government or authority, which may disincentivize this type of infrastructure as well as its use. The differences between the countries reflect the various threats faced by • fishers as well as the nature of the fishing gear used. In Bangladesh, in addition to bad weather and theft, nets were also cut • by the coast guard either to enforce safe passageway and navigation or because certain fishing gear is banned in some locations. For example, monofilament gillnets are banned in some coastal areas around Bangladesh. Monofilament nets are also particularly susceptible to entanglement and loss, and their use is often driven by exploitation of vulnerable fishing communities through the system of dadons (loans) provided by aratdars (middlemen) that enforces unsustainable fishing practices.3 In the Maldives, due to the predominant use of line gear, losses occur • simply due to the breaking of lines. In Pakistan, the reason for ALDFG was overwhelmingly due to fishing • gear getting snagged. This is an issue particularly in Pakistan due to the rocky substrate of the seabed as well as coastal mangrove areas with mangal stumps. Sri Lanka identifies interaction with shipping as being a chief cause of • ALDFG events, with two locations being particularly problematic: To the north of the country, there are ongoing problems with commercial trawlers from southern India, while in the southwest, key fishing grounds are intersected by a busy international shipping route. 3 Dadon refers to an informal loan charged at a high interest rate, with special riders requiring the sale of the catch to an aratdar at below-market prices. Aratdars are ‘syndicated’ middlemen who procure fishing gear from wholesalers or retailers before selling the gear to fishers. When a fisher is indebted to a dadondar (money lender), he must sell his harvest to a designated aratdar at a lower price, and almost 85 percent of the sale proceeds go to the dadondar against the debt, thus tying the fisher to an endless cycle of poverty and debt. Moreover, the most common type of fishing gear supplied by the aratdars is monofilament polyethylene nylon gillnets, which are illegal in some locations and directly correlated to ALDFG. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 43 Mapping ALDFG Occurrences in South Asia An important part of this study included mapping the locations where ALDFG events occur in the coastal and oceanic waters of the four case study countries. Based on the fisher surveys, heat maps and mass-based hotspots were created for Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan using QGIS V16.2 software, as shown in maps 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively. The heat maps show the density of ALDFG occurrence (hotspots), that is, where fishers stated that they had lost gear in a single ALDFG event. Individual fishers may have experienced a number of ALDFG events and, therefore, these multiple locations are cited on the map. The mass-based hotspot maps show the spatial distribution of ALDFG in terms of mass of gear (that is, kilograms) lost. In other words, the mass of each ALDFG event was also estimated and mapped accordingly. To aid the development of hotspot analysis, the weight attributes for these ALDFG events were categorized using the following ratio scale: 1. 0 to 50 kilograms 2. 51 to 199 kilograms 3. 200 to 499 kilograms 4. 500 to 999 kilograms 5. > 1,000 kilograms Clearly, there is a considerable degree of similarity between the two mapping approaches, which is reflected in the maps. The maps for Bangladesh and Pakistan show very pronounced clusters of ALDFG events in coastal areas associated with particular fishing activities. For example, in Bangladesh the clusters correlate strongly with the dominant form of fishing (small monofilament gillnetting), while in Pakistan there is a large cluster around the high-intensity fishing area of the Indus Delta. As might be expected, the widest distribution of ALDFG incidents is seen in the Maldives, an archipelago nation, although a strong cluster is apparent to the north of the country. The use of GIS mapping, including spatial distribution and hotspot analysis, however, illustrates both the scale and sources of ALDFG as well as demonstrates that the use of GIS with ALDFG baseline data are a powerful tool in supporting and enhancing marine spatial planning and management. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 44 Map 2.1 Bangladesh ALDFG maps (2021) a. Heat map b. Mass-based hotspot map Source: World Bank. Map 2.2 The Maldives ALDFG maps (2021) a. Heat map b. Mass-based hotspot map Source: World Bank. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 45 Since primary fisher data was not available for Sri Lanka, a granular mapping of specific ALDFG events was not possible. However, KIs were able to identify areas where problems of ALDFG were most common, which could then be mapped for the country, as shown in map 2.4. Additional layers were also mapped such as international shipping lanes that circumvent Sri Lanka and intersect with key fishing grounds. Other information that also arose from the survey included the location of interaction between Tamil Nadu (India) trawlers and Jaffna (Sri Lanka) fishers. However, this map does not reflect the actual quantities of gear lost in ALDFG events as was possible in the case studies of Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan given the limitations of the stakeholder survey approach. Map 2.3 Pakistan ALDFG maps (2021) a. Heat map b. Mass-based hotspot map Source: World Bank. Map 2.4 Mapping ALDFG in Sri Lanka (2021) Summary of Study Findings The survey data confirm that ALDFG in the four countries represents a significant contribution to marine plastic pollution (MPP) in the region. The countries reported a combined 382,291 ALDFG events that introduced 9.53 metric tons of plastic into the marine environment in 2021. These lost and abandoned nets, traps, and other gear will continue to catch and entangle a range of marine species, reduce the sustainability of fish stocks, and threaten the survival of protected species. Moreover, these values represent an estimate of the number of events and quantity of ALDFG for only a particular year (that is, 2021); therefore, the total amount of ALDFG that has accumulated over the years must be vast. Figure 2.7 shows key data aggregated at the regional level for the four countries that were surveyed in this study. Source: World Bank. Baseline Assessments of ALDFG | 46 Figure 2.7 Summary of study findings (2021) Source: World Bank. Note: Percentages for repair, recycle, and disposal are not mutually exclusive in the survey, hence do not add up to 100%. ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, kg = kilogram, MT = metric ton. 47 CHAPTER THREE The Policy Framework for ALDFG ALDFG Policies at the 49 National Level ALDFG Policies at the 51 South Asia Regional Level ALDFG Policies at the l 53 Internationa Level Looking Forward 59 48 The Policy Framework for ALDFG The issue of abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), and marine plastic pollution (MPP) in general, is inherently transboundary, trans-jurisdictional, and trans-sectoral. Due to its transboundary character, ALDFG can only be tackled through regional and international collaboration. National policies can be successful only if other countries follow a similar policy regime. As a transdisciplinary issue, ALDFG has scientific and technological factors, as well as those that impact the environment, economy, and social welfare. The increasing use of plastics globally leads to a range of detrimental impacts on environmental quality and climate change, causing harm to ecosystems and biodiversity, a threat to the sustainability of fisheries, and, ultimately, impacting human health negatively. However, advances in technology also offer an increasing number of solutions to anthropogenic problems. Key elements of the issue also include poor waste management systems and end-of-life processes, resulting from prevailing economic conditions and technological limitations of recycling and reprocessing. This chapter is divided into the following sections: First, it looks at existing national policies related to ALDFG in the South Asia region. This is followed by an overview of regional and international policies related to ALDFG. The final section of this chapter provides an analysis of regional ALDFG policy in the future. ALDFG Policies at the National Level Over the last decade, there has been an increase in plastics-related national policies in South Asia. While some of these policies may indirectly also address MPP by preventing littering (for example, plastic bag bans), improving solid waste management practices (for example, source segregation), and promoting recycling (for example, through extended producer responsibility [EPR]), the issue of plastic pollution still requires considerable societal and behavioral changes, improved implementation of policies, and sustained monitoring to be effective. Some South Asian countries have regulations to minimize the impacts of ALDFG. The Maldives licenses only line fishing activities and restricts all fishing nets. Bangladesh also has a legal restriction on the use of certain fishing nets. In Bangladesh, a 2002 amendment of the Protection and Conservation of Fish Act (1950), the Department of Fisheries, Government of Bangladesh imposed a ban on manufacturing, marketing, importing, storing, carrying, possessing, and using monofilament gill nets. Unfortunately, implementation of the policy by the Bangladesh Coast Guard, which is also responsible for pollution control, was hampered by numerous petitions in court challenging its enforcement as fisherfolk felt adversely affected by 49 the impact on their livelihoods (Roy and Shuvo 2015). In Sri Lanka, the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources is implementing regulations to reduce the impacts of ALDFG (Jayakody et al. 2021). Appendix C provides an overview of the key fisheries-related policies in the four countries. For ALDFG policies and regulations to be effective, there needs to be coordinated effort both within states or provinces as well as among neighboring countries within the region. However, there is a dearth of policy coordination across different states or provinces within a country, resulting in inconsistencies in national and subnational policies and variations in their implementation. This has led to inconsistent standards, and systemic illegalities are common. A similar situation exists at the regional level, as illustrated by Bangladesh’s annual 65-day fishing ban between May and July (and again for 22 days in October and November), intended to protect and augment fish populations in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Bay of Bengal. Nevertheless, without the cooperation of neighboring countries like India and Myanmar, the policy has had limited success. First, fish do not remain within boundaries and travel out of the EEZ where they are caught by fishers from other countries. Second, foreign fishers continue with their activities, so fish stocks are depleted. Third, foreign fishers—knowingly or unknowingly—enter Bangladesh’s EEZ, where sometimes they are arrested and jailed for months at a time (Arju 2020; Rahman and Muzahid 2021). As a result, the policy only harms Bangladesh’s fisher community instead of protecting it, in addition to causing political disputes among countries due to the arrest of its citizens. The same applies to the use of ALDFG; it does not matter which country the ghost gear is from because it affects fish stocks, marine wildlife, and the environment of the area in which it happens to be. So for any lasting effect of an ALDFG policy, cooperation among countries is key. The integration and coordination of policies on plastic pollution is inter-connected. Policy integration is fragmented, not only due to the transdisciplinary and transboundary nature of the problem but also because of the difficulties in aligning governance. With respect to ALDFG in particular, there is little evidence to date of progress in this regard. While policies specifically on ALDFG do not exist at the national level, there are scattered examples of NGOs working in this sector in South Asia. For instance, in India, the WWF engages with fishing communities to raise awareness on the impact of ghost fishing gear on sea turtles and promotes an incentive program to encourage fishers to return worn-out gear (WWF 2022). In the Maldives, a company providing technological solutions for responsible fishing, Satlink, has partnered with the Olive Ridley Project (ORP) and the International Pole & Line Foundation (IPNLF) to remove ALDFG from the Maldives. The project will focus on Noonu Atoll, a group of islands in the country, to work with local stakeholders to raise awareness, build capacity, and learn from local communities before expanding the program to other atolls. It also includes removing, reusing, and recycling nets through the artisanal fishing industry, small and mid- size enterprises, and local artists (Satlink 2022). While initiatives and treaties The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 50 operating either at the global or regional scale can both influence as well as drive national policy and regulation, it is essential to translate those broad goals into purposeful actions and enforcement at national and local levels. ALDFG Policies at the South Asia Regional Level A number of agreements on ALDFG are in place at the regional level. As part of these measures, countries cooperate to protect the marine environment and establish measures to track and monitor resources. For instance, the UN Environment Programme’s Regional Seas Programmes (RSPs) have more than 140 Member States. Established in 1974, the RSPs have become important regional mechanisms to address marine pollution and the degradation of oceans and coastal areas in countries sharing common bodies of water. Regional Seas Programmes are crucial in the development of programs and action plans to combat marine litter, and even ALDFG, bringing together stakeholders including governments, the scientific community, and civil society (Mead 2021; UNEP n.d.(d)). The coastal South Asian countries have signed several regional agreements aimed at resolving the marine plastic waste crisis, as shown in figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 Regional agreements and organizations related to marine plastic pollution South Asian Seas Programme Indian Ocean Tuna Commission One of 18 Regional Seas Programmes of the UNEP, Established in 1993, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission the South Asian Seas Programme (SASP) is a regional (IOTC) is an inter-governmental organization comprising platform focusing on various actions to address marine 30 Contracting Parties and is responsible for the pollution and degradation of oceans and coastal areas in the management of tuna and tuna-like species in the region. These actions include the preparation of regional Indian Ocean. Through cooperation among its members action plans and policies, a coral reef task force, capacity and Non-Contracting Parties, it encourages the development, raising awareness, and sharing experiences conservation and sustainable development of fisheries. among member countries. The deployment of fish aggregating devices (FADs) is a key issue and a resolution was passed (2019) and amended The South Asian Seas Action Plan (SASAP), adopted by the (2021) on procedures for a FAD management plan to region’s five maritime countries (Bangladesh, India, the reduce the amount of synthetic marine debris (IOTC 2023). Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) in 1995, aims to develop a regional program to monitor marine pollution from land- and sea-based sources (SACEP n.d.). The Regional MLAP was presented in 2019 to specifically target MPP and ALDFG including developing marine litter policies, plans, and strategies; enhancing inter-agency cooperation among the relevant institutions for effective management of marine litter; and undertaking research and innovation to determine the total quantity of marine litter coming into the coastal areas through all sources. The plan was prepared with data from country action plans The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 51 along with consultative workshops, literature review, and analysis of existing gaps and challenges (SACEP 2018). GloLitter Partnership Indian Ocean–South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding The GloLitter Partnership is a project between the Government of Norway, IMO, and FAO aiming to reduce The Indian Ocean–South-East Asian Marine Turtle marine litter—particularly plastic marine litter—within Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is a non-binding the maritime transport and fisheries sectors and identify inter-governmental agreement under the Convention on opportunities for the reduction of plastic uses in both the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals industries. One country in a region takes a Lead Partnering that aims to protect, conserve, and recover sea turtles Country (LPC) role to champion national actions to support and their habitats in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. the IMO Action Plan to Address Marine Plastic Litter from Since 2001 when the MoU came into effect, it has garnered Ships and the FAO Voluntary Guidelines for the Marking more than 35 signatories and offers support and capacity- of Fishing Gear. The LPCs foster regional momentum building assistance to these countries. All levels of by supporting Participating Countries (PCs) through a government, NGOs, and civil society are included in the twinning working arrangement (IMO 2019a). MoU. The use of fishing gear is directly mentioned in the MoU (CMS Secretariat 2020). (LPC) (PC) Indian Ocean Rim Association Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation The Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) is an inter- governmental association of 23 Member States, which The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical promotes sustainable growth, focuses on areas of economic and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) is a regional co-operation, and promotes liberalization and lowers trade organization established in 1997 for regional cooperation, barriers through understanding and cooperation. With collaboration, and mutual assistance. Member States lead regard to marine pollution, IORA is developing the IORA various sectors; fisheries is led by Myanmar. The country Declaration on Combatting Marine Debris and a Strategic is developing a Plan of Action and will generate concrete Framework of Action on Marine Debris in the Indian project-based activities for the promotion of fisheries and Ocean. The overarching principle is to minimize waste livestock (BIMSTEC 2023). generation on land, thus reducing the amount of plastic waste that enters rivers and oceans (IORA 2017). Note: Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, BIMSTEC = Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, FAD = fish aggregating device, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, IMO = International Maritime Orga- nization, IORA = Indian Ocean Rim Association, IOTC = Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, LPC = Lead Partnering Country, MLAP = Marine Litter Action Plan, MoU = Memorandum of Understanding, PCs = Participating Countries, SACEP = South Asia Co-operative Environ- ment Programme, SASAP = South Asian Seas Action Plan, SASP = South Asian Seas Programme. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 52 ALDFG Policies at the International Level Although ALDFG has widespread global impacts, there is no dedicated international tool in place to regulate, monitor, track, and report on this. The existing international frameworks, including agreements, conventions, voluntary guidelines, and resolutions, are fragmented, often voluntary, and use varying approaches in different regions and countries (GGGI and Ocean Conservancy. n.d.). Moreover, a number of recent global agreements focus on marine plastic pollution, but few directly reference ALDFG. On the global stage, a key actor has been the United Nations and its related bodies. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the main policy-making body comprising all Member States (193 countries), passes resolutions and provides a framework and scope for specialized UN bodies. Of these, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and its governing body, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), are the leading global mechanisms for providing environmental governance. One of the first global legal frameworks governing the use and management of the world’s oceans, including pollution of the marine environment, was the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994 (UN n.d.). Since then, the UN has recognized the growing problem of marine debris, macroplastics, and microplastics, and the need for urgent action. Almost 20 years after UNCLOS was adopted, a Global Ocean Treaty has been agreed in 2023 to address the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). The Global Ocean Treaty would supplement UNCLOS 1994 by providing a more comprehensive legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in the high seas and other ABNJ. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make specific reference to ‘conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development’ (SDG 14). Within SDG 14, a number of targets are either directly or indirectly relevant to addressing the issue of ALDFG, as summarized in figure 3.2. Figure 3.2 SDG 14 targets related to ALDFG Source: Global Goals. n.d. Image credit: UN. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 53 A timeline of global agreements, conventions, and resolutions that reference marine plastic pollution directly and ALDFG either directly or indirectly is provided in figure 3.3. Each of these is explained in more detail in table 3.1. While conventions are legally binding, agreements are not. Figure 3.4 presents a timeline of global programs, plans, and initiatives related to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG, which are further expanded in table 3.2. Additional information and analysis on the legal aspects of ALDFG in the context of marine fisheries has been published by FAO and IMO (Hodgson 2022). Figure 3.3 Timeline of global agreements, conventions, and resolutions related to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG Protocol of 1978 relating UNEA Resolution 3/7 to the International on Marine Litter and Convention for the Microplastics Prevention of Pollution from UN Sustainable Ships (MARPOL) Commonwealth Development Goals Plastic Waste Blue Charter (SDG14 - Life below Amendments to the London UN Fish Stocks Water) Basel Convention Convention Agreement 1972 1978 1995 2013 2015 2017 2019 1973 1982 1996 2014 2016 2018 2022 International London Protocol Stockholm Convention Convention for the POPs related to plastics Prevention of UNEA Resolution Pollution from United Nations 1/6 on Marine UNEA Resolution UNEA Resolution Ships (MARPOL) Convention on the Plastic Debris and 2/11 on Marine 5/14 to End plastic Law of the Sea Microplastics Plastic Litter and pollution: towards (UNCLOS) Microplastics an international legally binding instrument Note: UNCLOS = United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III, MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, POPs = persistent organic pollutants, UNEA = United Nations Environment Assembly, SDG = Sustainable Development Goal. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 54 Table 3.1 Global agreements, conventions, and resolutions relevant to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG Agreement/Convention/ Reference to Marine Plastic Pollution and ALDFG Reference Resolution to ALDFG London Convention •2016 Statement encourages Parties to combat marine litter by No and London Protocol (1) identifying and controlling it at source and (2) monitoring and knowledge sharing •Resolution LDC.22(9) prohibits disposal at sea of persistent plastic and other (LC) synthetic materials, e.g., nets and ropes International Convention • Pollution from discarded garbage from ships addressed in Annex 5, entered No for the Prevention of into force in 1988 Pollution from Ships • Specifies the distances from land and the manner in which garbage may be (MARPOL 1973) and disposed of Convention (1978) • Completely bans disposal of all forms of plastic into the sea (IMO 2019b) United Nations Convention • Member States to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment Yes on the Law of the Sea from any source (UNCLOS) • Section on marine pollution that refers to waste in general • Direct reference to ALDFG in Article 5(f), and implied elsewhere Agreement for the • Direct reference to MPP and ALDFG in Article 5(f) to minimize pollution, waste, Yes Implementation of the discards, and catch by lost or abandoned gear Provisions of the UN • Includes measures such as marking of fishing gear for identification Convention on the Law of • Using prohibited fishing gear is considered a serious violation (UN n.d.) the Sea Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement) Commonwealth Blue • Recognizes the need to tackle marine pollution “including litter, lost, abandoned and Yes Charter (CBC) discarded fishing gear, plastics” (The Commonwealth 2022) • One of the CBC action groups, Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, (CCOA) focuses on tackling marine plastic pollution • Other action groups within CBC, such as Sustainable Blue Economy, support better stewardship of the oceans and ‘blue’ resources. The Sustainable Coastal Fisheries Action Group, which is co-championed by the Maldives, supports fisheries actions to ensure sustainable and resilient coastal fisheries (The Commonwealth 2022) UNEA Resolution 1/6 on • Calls for comprehensive action on MPP, including an extensive study to identify key Indirect Marine Plastic Debris and sources and possible measures Microplastics • No direct mention of ALDFG although it mentions marine-based sources that impact the health of oceans and marine biodiversity (GRID-Arendal 2019) UNEA Resolution on • Recognizes MPP as a “rapidly increasing serious issue of global concern that needs Indirect Marine Plastic Debris and an urgent global response,” underscoring the need for harmonized definitions and Microplastics 2/11 monitoring (GRID-Arendal 2019) Note: Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, CBC = Commonwealth Blue Charter, CCOA = Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, EA = Environment Assembly, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, GRID = Global Resource Information Database, IMO = International Maritime Organization, LC = London Convention, MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MPP = marine plastic pollution, SDG = Sustainable Development Goal, UN = United Nations, UNCLOS = United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNEA = United Nations Environment Assembly, UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 55 Agreement/Convention/ Reference to Marine Plastic Pollution and ALDFG Reference Resolution to ALDFG UNEA Resolution 3/7 on • Recognizes the need for measures to prevent pollution from sea-based sources such Indirect Marine Plastic Debris and as fisheries Microplastics • Stresses “the importance of long-term elimination of discharge of [plastic] litter and microplastics to the oceans” • Includes improving accessibility to and use of port reception facilities (GRID-Arendal 2019) UNEA Resolution 4/6 on • Takes note of marine plastic litter from ships Yes Marine Plastic Debris and • Makes reference to sea-based sources of marine plastic litter and microplastics Microplastics • Stresses “the importance of more sustainable management of plastics throughout their life cycle in order to increase sustainable consumption and production patterns, including but not limited to the circular economy” (GRID-Arendal 2019) UN SDG 14 • Relates to “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for Indirect sustainable development” • FAO proposes a framework for the development of a global ‘umbrella’ program to support Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear and other measures, including voluntary and binding instruments. The program supports the implementation of SDG 14, particularly SDG 14.1, 14.2, and 14.4. (FAO 2018) Basel and Stockholm • Both conventions acknowledge the issue of marine plastics andmicroplastics. Indirect Conventions • As of 2019, 187 countries have taken a major step toward addressing plastic waste by adding plastic waste to the Basel Convention (Basel Convention Secretariat 2011a and 2011b) UNEA Resolution • Recognizes the impact of plastic pollution on the marine environment Indirect UNEP/EA.5/14.1: End plastic • Recognizes the transboundary nature of plastic pollution pollution: Towards an • MPP mentioned a number of times (UNEP 2022) international legally binding instrument Note: Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, CBC = Commonwealth Blue Charter, CCOA = Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, EA = Environment Assembly, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, GRID = Global Resource Information Database, IMO = International Maritime Organization, LC = London Convention, MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MPP = marine plastic pollution, SDG = Sustainable Development Goal, UN = United Nations, UNCLOS = United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNEA = United Nations Environment Assembly, UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 56 Figure 3.4 Timeline of global programs, plans, and initiatives related to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG International Maritime International Guidelines on Organization (IMO) Bycatch Management and Action Plan Reduction of Discards UNEP Clean Seas G7 Charlevoix Campaign Blueprint for Healthy UNEP Regional G7 Action Plan to Oceans, Seas and Seas Programme Combat Marine Litter Resilient Communities 1974 2011 2015 2019 2017 2018 2018 1995 2012 FAO Code of Conduct for G20 Action Plan on G7 Oceans Plastic Responsible Fisheries Marine Litter Charter Global Partnership World Environment Day Voluntary on Marine Litter ‘#BeatPlasticPollution’ Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear Note: G7 = Group of Seven, G20 = Group of Twenty, IMO = International Maritime Organization, UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme. Table 3.2 Global programs, plans, and initiatives relevant to marine plastic pollution and ALDFG Program/Plan/Initiative Reference to Marine Plastic Pollution Reference to ALDFG UNEP Regional Seas • Individual Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs) provide Yes Programme (RSP) inter-governmental frameworks to conserve and protect shared marine environments through legally binding framework conventions • Conventions are supplemented by protocols on marine litter, pollution from ships, and transboundary movement of waste including their disposal, to name a few • MPP mentioned a number of times in Regional Seas Conventions (UNEP n.d.(d)) FAO Code of Conduct for • Voluntary code recognizing the importance of fisheries and interests of those related Yes Responsible Fisheries to the fisheries sector • Promotes cooperation among States to develop technologies, materials, and operational methods to “minimize the loss of fishing gear and the ghost fishing effects of lost or abandoned fishing gear” (FAO 1995) Note: Bangladesh India Maldives Pakistan Sri Lanka ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, G7 = Group of Seven, G20 = Group of Twenty, GPML = Global Partnership on Marine Litter, IISD = International Institute for Sustainable Development, IMO = International Maritime Organization, IUU = illegal, unreported, and unregulated, MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MPP = marine plastic pollution, RSCAP = Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plan, RSP = Regional Seas Programme, UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme, UoT = University of Toronto. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 57 Program/Plan/Initiative Reference to Marine Plastic Pollution Reference to ALDFG International Guidelines • Provides voluntary guidelines to help states in formulating and implementing Yes on Bycatch Management measures to manage bycatch and reduce discards and Reduction of Discards • Direct reference to ALDFG and provides actions to assess and mitigate ALDFG impacts (FAO 2011) Global Partnership on • A key priority area is marine litter and plastic pollution, working with stakeholders Indirect Marine Litter (GPML) at different levels and encouraging collaboration and coordination • Facilitates the development and implementation of action plans to guide action on MPP (UNEP n.d.(b)) G7 Action Plan to Combat • Priority actions include addressing land-based sources of marine litter, removal of Yes Marine Litter litter, education, research, and outreach, including harmonized global marine litter monitoring efforts • Direct reference to ALDFG in Plan through the identification of options to address waste from the fishing industry and implement pilot projects where possible (IMO 2015) G7 Charlevoix Blueprint • Builds on previous commitments and takes a life cycle approach to plastics, promotes Yes for Healthy Oceans, Seas promotes harmonization of monitoring methodologies for marine litter and and Resilient Communities collaboration on research on marine litter impacts • Addresses challenges to sustainable fishing, including by promoting innovation for fishing gear design and recovery (IISD 2018; G-7 2018a) G7 Ocean Plastics Charter •Focuses on reduction of marine litter, especially plastics, by adopting a more Yes resource-efficient and sustainable approach to plastic management •Direct reference to ALDFG by accelerating implementation of G7 Action Plan and targeted investments for clean-up of ALDFG and global hotspots (G-7 2018b) G20 Action Plan on • Addresses pollution from sea-based sources, including waste from fishing and Yes Marine Litter aquaculture industries •Includes marine plastic litter and microplastics, and facilitates further concrete actions on the same •Includes establishment of port reception facilities in line with MARPOL (UoT and G20 Research Group n.d.) UNEP Clean Seas Campaign • Contributes to the goals of the GPML Yes • Campaign to catalyze change and end MPP (UNEP n.d.(a)) International Maritime • Addresses marine plastic litter from ships, aiming to enhance current regulations Yes Organization (IMO) Action Plan and introduce new measures to reduce marine plastic litter from ships, including improvements to port reception facilities and treatment • Direct reference to fishing gear • Relevant measures include mandatory marking of fishing gear, promoting reporting of loss of fishing gear, facilitating delivery of retrieved fishing gear to shore facilities, and training of fishing vessel personnel (IMO 2019c) Voluntary Guidelines on the • Voluntary guidelines that can be used as a tool to identify IUU fishing activities, Yes Marking of Fishing Gear primarily to help in implementation of a gear marking system for reporting, recovery and disposal of ALDFG or unwanted fishing gear and commercial traceability of fishing gear • Special considerations for developing States and small-scale fisheries • Assists States in meeting their obligations under international law (including international agreements, governance frameworks, and specific requirements for gear marking in FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries) (FAO 2019) Note: Bangladesh India Maldives Pakistan Sri Lanka ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, G7 = Group of Seven, G20 = Group of Twenty, GPML = Global Partnership on Marine Litter, IISD = International Institute for Sustainable Development, IMO = International Maritime Organization, IUU = illegal, unreported, and unregulated, MARPOL = International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MPP = marine plastic pollution, RSCAP = Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plan, RSP = Regional Seas Programme, UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme, UoT = University of Toronto. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 58 Looking Forward While many international mechanisms are already in place, there has, nevertheless, been a clear upward trend in the number of public policy responses to plastic pollution over the last decade, at all levels—global, regional, and national; however, direct referencing to ALDFG is far more limited and, in most cases, is only implied. On a global scale, five binding international policies were agreed prior to 2000, including UNCLOS and MARPOL 73/78. Since 2000, however, additional international policies have been agreed, focused largely on land-based sources, though these have been typically non-binding in nature (Karasik et al. 2020). An analysis of international policies on marine plastic pollution highlights key gaps, namely that there are no agreed global, binding, specific, and measurable targets to reduce marine plastic pollution in general, let alone ALDFG. Following successful discussions at the UNEA-5 in Nairobi, Kenya in 2022, 175 nations endorsed a historic resolution to develop an international, legally binding agreement on plastic pollution, including plastics in the marine environment. Such a binding treaty (expected to be agreed by 2024) would set clear global targets and standards for monitoring and reporting, and clearly define obligations and responsibilities (GGGI and Ocean Conservancy. n.d.). Any future policy framework for ALDFG would need to reflect the transboundary and trans-jurisdictional nature of the problem, involving a range of global, regional, and national governance organizations. Given the breadth and extent of the policy initiatives required to reduce ALDFG, it would also need to involve a multitude of additional stakeholders, including the private sector, informal sector, and NGOs. The Policy Framework for ALDFG | 59 CHAPTER FOUR Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond Recommendations for 65 Immediate Action Recommendations Related to 67 Global and Regional Frameworks on ALDFG Recommendations Related to 67 Cooperation and Collaboration for ALDFG Recommendations Related to 68 ALDFG Data and Knowledge Recommendations Related to 69 Private Sector Engagement Recommendations Related to 70 Mitigating ALDFG Recommendations Related to 71 Waste Management of ALDFG 60 Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond The study reveals the need for deeper insights into the issue of abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) and its solutions at national, regional, and international levels. The study suggests pursuing several lines of inquiry to extend the significance of this work. For instance, conducting a national baseline assessment of ALDFG for India could provide a full assessment of the South Asia region. However, the recommendations proposed to address ALDFG cannot be implemented immediately, and some require longer-term implementation horizons. Based on the baseline assessments for the four case study countries provided in chapter 2 and the policy analysis in chapter 3, some knowledge gaps and challenges are evident, as detailed below. It should be noted that the challenges are broadly in line with the challenges provided by the South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) in its 2018 Regional Marine Litter Action Plan for South Asian Seas Region (summarized in box 4.1). The identified knowledge gaps and challenges include: The number of unregistered fishing vessels: According to some estimates, • approximately up to 80 percent of vessels and fishers are unregistered in South Asia, indicating the ineffectiveness of licensing system and lack of ability to monitor implementation of policies and regulations related to ALDFG and, more broadly, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing (Morgan et al. 2007). Amount of fishing gear: The four countries use the internationally- • recognized Harmonized System (HS) of customs codes to identify products that move across their borders. Theoretically, it should be possible to use detailed customs data to analyze the types, quantities, value, and source country of imported fishing gear. However, tracking fishing gear inputs in South Asia is complicated by illegally imported or smuggled gear, making it difficult to identify sources of ALDFG in marine environments. Lack of monitoring of fishing gear: The lack of proper monitoring and • labeling of fishing gear further exacerbates the difficulty in identifying sources of ALDFG. Systemic focus needed: Effective, long-term solutions to address the issue • of ALDFG should consider the entire chain of events that lead to gear loss from the diversity of fishers (artisanal and large-scale commercial fisheries) as well as the more complex problem of IUU fishing. Lack of awareness: The lack of education and awareness on ghost fishing • among fishing crew and decision makers presents a significant barrier to reducing the amount of lost or abandoned fishing gear. 61 Box 4.1 Challenges and Recommendations on Marine Litter in South Asia in SACEP’s Regional Marine Litter Action Plan (2018) At the regional level in South Asia, the 2018 Regional Marine Litter Action Plan developed by SACEP highlights a number of challenges and provides recommendations on the issue of marine litter in the region. These are summarized in figure 4.1.1. The Action Plan also calls for improvements in coordination, monitoring, innovation, and awareness on marine litter. While all represent pertinent and valid calls to enable change, none of them directly refers to ALDFG and, to date, there is little evidence of any of these actions being implemented. This report presents baseline assessments and a policy gap analysis, which highlight several opportunities for further engagement through SACEP. These include (1) engaging with Member States to conduct in-depth country-level diagnostics using the methodology developed for this study, (2) establishing a regional database to track levels of MPP (including ghost fishing), and (3) deepening dialogue between Member States to coordinate policies on fishing gear use, bans, monitoring, enforcement, and more. Table B4.1.1 Challenges and recommendations provided in SACEP’s Regional Marine Litter Action Plan (2018) Challenges identified in Action Plan Recommendations provided in Action Plan • Lack of marine litter data (No recommendation provided) • Poor institutional system to manage marine litter • Establish and revamp institutional structure • Non-availability of a legal framework • Establish a new legal framework •Poor and insufficient enforcement of international • Involve public and private sectors and civil society treaties and laws • Lack of research and surveys  •E xpand research, surveys, and innovation of marine litter technologies • Weak formulation and enforcement of regulatory • Establish regional institutional mechanism for framework enforcement of marine litter-related multilateral environmental agreements • Lack of policies and strategies on marine litter • Encourage direct development activities to control and production and plastic consumption minimize marine litter • Lack of education and awareness • Develop education and awareness programs • Lack of marketing and economic instruments • Introduce market and economic instruments Source: SACEP 2018. Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 62 This chapter provides a number of recommendations aimed at addressing the problem of ALDFG, grouped by area of recommendation and appropriate stakeholder level, that is, who is best in a position to implement them. In some cases, a recommendation may apply to more than one area of intervention or stakeholder level. In practice, the recommendations proposed here cannot all be pursued immediately and some require longer-term rather than short-term implementation horizons. Based on feasibility, seven recommendations are proposed as near-term priorities, while others may require a more long-term implementation horizon. These recommendations are summarized in table 4.1, with more detailed descriptions in the remainder of the chapter. Figure 4.1 shows how the recommendations are broadly grouped. Figure 4.1 Classification of ALDFG recommendations AREA OF INTERVEN TION AL CHANGE AVIOR BEH NCING MECHANISM FINA EMENTATION AND IMPL INS TIT W LED GE AND AW UT KN O ARE IO S NA NE RK N SS L CA IO C Y AND REGU RA O LI N PO P EW T LAT IS IO A ION IN AC AM R G AT BO T OL TECHN OGY AND IT EN FR Y LA ND M INN STA GE OL AL OV E ME DG GA AT C ION GLO KEH N E ND EN T ECOM TIO REG N WL IO REG E BAL NA N NA OR EM OLDE NO E AC ION AG CT TIO AND ATIO DK TYPE OF R ON AN E SE AL T NAL R LEVEL IMMEDIA ATI EM DATA AN COOPER GLOBAL PRIVAT MITIG WAST Source: World Bank. Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 63 Table 4.1 Summary of ALDFG recommendations No. Recommendation Area of Stakeholder intervention level 1 Immediate Action 1.1 Conduct a national baseline assessment for India K N 1.2 Refine the ALDFG methodology K G, N, R 1.3 Conduct targeted outreach and awareness raising B, K N, R 1.4 Establish a working group and national reporting process under SACEP on MPP, and particularly ALDFG I, K, P, T R 1.5 Review the interactions between international shipping lanes and fishing activity in S. Asia K G, N, R 1.6 Validate viability of biodegradable fishing gear K, T N, R 1.7 Facilitate greater regional and global funding opportunities for targeted research F, K, T G, R 2 Global and Regional Frameworks on ALDFG 2.1 Strengthen implementation and enforcement of existing international and regional frameworks I G, R 2.2 Broaden the scope of existing mechanisms by inviting relevant international ALDFG stakeholders to participate in and inform policy dialogue in various international contexts P G 2.3 Consider including ALDFG in the global plastics treaty currently under development P G 3 Cooperation and Collaboration on ALDFG 3.1 Strengthen and increase cooperation across all relevant S. Asia networks and organizations I G, N, R 4 ALDFG Data and Knowledge 4.1 Strengthen international cooperation for data and information exchange, tracking, and recording ALDFG across regions, including capacity-building I, K G, R 4.2 Develop and test the efficacy of novel approaches aimed at monitoring and assessing ALDFG, including through the use of remote observation and satellite data I, K G, N, R 4.3 Develop cost-effective monitoring and assessment strategies for ALDFG I, K G, N, R 4.4 Review the use of FADs in S. Asia Marine ABNJ K G, N, R 4.5 Design and implement a pilot study on the use of bonds as part of an extended licensing system K G 5 Private Sector Engagement 5.1 Review and develop appropriate financial and market-based mechanisms to deliver change F G, N, R 5.2 Work with the private sector to mitigate ALDFG and MPP F N 6 Mitigating ALDFG 6.1 Promote a life cycle approach and 6R framework for plastic fishing gear B, K, T G, N, R 6.2 Improve fisheries management B, I, K, T G, N, R 6.3 Develop and embed supportive R&I landscapes to foster collaborative research between R&I actors to better address the problem of ALDFG K, T G, N, R 6.4 Explore opportunities to support women in developing fishing gear that contribute to a reduction in plastic ALDFG F, K, T G, N, R 6.5 Protect fishers and vulnerable fishing communities by improving access to safe sources of credit B, F, K G, N, R 7 Waste Management of ALDFG 7.1 Enhance waste management policies, practices, and infrastructure B, I, P N 7.2 Review current options for recycling EOL fishing gear T N, R 7.3 Review behavioral change models specific to S. Asia fishing communities to deliver a reduction in ALDFG B, K G, N, R 7.4 Conduct a S. Asia pilot study to promote a more circular fishing economy supported by training, education, and behavioral change B, K N, R Source: World Bank. Note: Areas of intervention are grouped as follows: B = Behavioral change, F = Financing mechanism, I = Implementation and institutional capacity, K = Knowledge and awareness raising, P = Policy and regulation, T = Technology and innovation. Stakeholder level is denoted as follows: G = global, N = national, R = regional. 6R = redesign, reduce, remove, reuse, recycle, and recover, ABNJ = areas beyond national jurisdiction, ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, EOL = end-of-life, FAD = fish aggregating device, MPP = marine plastic pollution, R&I = research and innovation, SACEP = South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme, S. Asia = South Asia. Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 64 1. Recommendations for Immediate Action Additional effort is required to gain greater insight into the ALDFG problem and potential solutions and to obtain further evidence to assess the outcomes of this study. Some recommendations to address ALDFG may be accomplished in the short term compared to others. These near-term priorities include: Recommendation 1.1: Conduct a national baseline assessment for India. In order to provide a comprehensive assessment of ALDFG in the South Asia region—as well as its contributions to global ALDFG given the size of the Indian fisheries sector—a similar study should be conducted in India, which has a large fishing sector and a coastline of over 7,500 kilometers. India is the third largest fish producing country in the world and accounts for almost 8 percent of global production. The marine sector contributed over 23 percent to total fish production in 2020-21 with the remainder from the inland fisheries sector (GoI 2022). Due to practical considerations and operational complexities, India was not included in this assessment. None- theless, the study’s methodology harmonizes data on ALDFG in the region and can be easily replicated in India (and other countries) to address this gap. Furthermore, the recommendations in this chapter are applicable to India, given the shared context in the region. Recommendation 1.2: Refine the ALDFG methodology. Refine the ALDFG methodology to develop metrics that best reflect the impacts of ALDFG and produce a methodological user guide with guidance to enable others to develop similar reporting mechanisms elsewhere. Recommendation 1.3: Conduct targeted outreach and awareness raising. Develop and implement targeted education and outreach for fishers to understand the nature of ALDFG, learn about its impacts, and identify mitigation measures. A number of on-the-ground facilitators with knowledge of local environ- ments and issues exist. South Asian fishers and fishing communities should be encouraged to take advantage of the various tools and benefits offered. South Asian countries should be encouraged to join and partner with various initiatives, such as the Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI, see box 4.2 for more information), in order to take advantage of the various tools and benefits offered. Women play a significant role in fishing communities, including in fishing activities and management, and therefore should be included in understanding the impacts of IUU and ALDFG. Awareness and education could be done through: •Using advertisements on media by government and non-government agencies •Raising awareness through training programs for fishers and fishing communities, including women, on ALDFG, as well as with public and civil society with respect to marine litter •Organizing focus group discussions at all major fishing centers to minimize ALDFG Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 65 Developing stakeholder networks, such as net manufacturers, recyclers, • and so on, to address various issues such as those related to sustainability of gear Including the handling of gear disposal as part of fishery licensing • requirements. Recommendation 1.4: Establish a working group and national reporting process under SACEP on marine plastic pollution (MPP), and particularly ALDFG, which feeds into the South Asian Seas Programme (SASP) and the Plastic-free Rivers and Seas for South Asia (PLEASE) projects. The working group should include fisheries stakeholders, SACEP focal points, and representatives from existing regional programs, such as the Indian Ocean–South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA MoU) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). The working group could be tasked with reviewing research, identifying indicators to track and monitor MPP and ALDFG, providing guidelines, and contributing to raising awareness on the topic. National reporting processes and coordination between relevant government agencies could be established through a single repository that all the relevant agencies have access to. This enables collection of data on a granular level to feed into decision making at the national and regional levels and to monitor the impact of existing and new policies. Recommendation 1.5: Review the interactions between international shipping lanes and fishing activity in S. Asia. Particularly for Sri Lanka, it is important to evaluate whether shifting shipping lanes would significantly address the problem of ALDFG events in the region, given the location of an international shipping lane to the southwest of the country. Recommendation 1.6: Validate viability of biodegradable fishing gear. Design, test, and validate the effectiveness of biodegradable plastics for use in fishing gear as a means of delivering greater substitutability and cost effectiveness in the South Asia region. Recommendation 1.7: Facilitate greater regional and global funding opportunities for targeted research by utilizing a range of mechanisms. Examples of further research could include, for instance: •Finding innovative ways to collect data on ALDFG as well as on retrieval of fishing gear •Understanding the interaction between marine life and ingestion and entanglement of ALDFG • Developing a publicly accessible ALDFG database (Richardson et al. 2019) •Providing incentives to fishers to reuse, recycle, and properly dispose of ALDFG •Surveying aquaculture as a related area. The focus of this ALDFG study has been on marine capture fisheries but aquaculture also represents a significant marine plastic pathway in South Asia and should be addressed in future assessments. Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 66 2. Recommendations Related to Global and Regional Frameworks on ALDFG Several existing global and regional mechanisms that relate to MPP, in part or whole, could be expanded to address ALDFG more specifically. Despite explicit mentions of ALDFG in some of these mechanisms, their effectiveness is often limited by inadequate implementation and enforcement. Additionally, not all countries are members of these mechanisms. For instance, in South Asia only Pakistan is a member of the London Convention and is not even a signatory to the London Protocol. The following are key recommendations for enhancing global and regional frameworks on ALDFG: Recommendation 2.1: Strengthen implementation and enforcement of existing international and regional frameworks related to ALDFG by encouraging Member States (especially in the South Asia region) that have not yet ratified such frameworks to do so, promoting compliance with respective instruments, and implementing stringent practices based on national and regional circumstances. Recommendation 2.2: Broaden the scope of existing mechanisms by inviting relevant ALDFG stakeholders to participate in and inform policy dialogue in various international contexts. These could include the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions, with respect to the management of chemicals and wastes; the World Trade Organization, with respect to trade and environment; institutional financing bodies (for example, GEF, the World Bank); and organizations already addressing marine litter such as UNEP, IMO, and FAO. Recommendation 2.3: Consider including ALDFG in the global plastic treaty currently under development, including harmonization of definitions, standards, targets, actions, indicators, and metrics, enabled through appropriate funding and infrastructural support, while working with stakeholders in the regions with highest contribution and needs. 3. Recommendations Related to Cooperation and Collaboration on ALDFG Greater coordination between the respective stakeholders of different mechanisms, as well as the mechanisms themselves, would better support the development of a more coherent policy framework, for example through the increased use of existing multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the Global Partnership on Marine Litter and the development of new groups as part of ongoing initiatives and mechanisms. Key recommendations for enhanced cooperation and coordination are: Recommendation 3.1: Strengthen and increase cooperation across all relevant South Asia networks and organizations, including international multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) and the GGGI. This is crucial, given that ALDFG is not solely a local or national problem, but expands into a regional and international one, requiring consistent and Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 67 cooperative action. Organizations like the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and SACEP could contribute toward promoting regional-level cooperation. One such area for cooperation is the deployment of fish aggregating devices (FADs). Apart from fishing gear, drifting FADs have become a perennial contention among IOTC Member States. The convening power of SACEP could also be instrumental in influencing actions toward recommendations to reduce ALDFG, including FADs, in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) and within the EEZ of member countries. 4. Recommendations Related to ALDFG Data and Knowledge There is considerable scope for improvement to achieve reductions in ALDFG through national and regional maritime management. Examples of fisheries management initiatives include evaluating the use of FADs in ABNJ and combating IUU fishing. To accomplish these objectives, comprehensive data and knowledge are essential. Therefore, the following are key recommendations for improving fisheries management to reduce ALDFG, while also emphasizing the importance of collecting and utilizing data and knowledge: Recommendation 4.1: Strengthen international cooperation for data and information exchange, tracking, and recording ALDFG across regions, including capacity building. For instance, improved charts could be drawn up for fishers to avoid shipwrecks or other benthic obstructions. Effective, comparable metrics to measure the threat or impact of different types of gear, in addition to gear weight, are key for future ALDFG tracking and reporting. With regard to South Asia, SACEP might be the obvious vehicle for facilitating such dissemination. Recommendation 4.2: Develop and test the efficacy of novel approaches aimed at monitoring and assessing ALDFG, including through the use of remote observation and satellite data. Already, approaches such as engaging in citizen science by using snorkelers and scuba divers to collect data and collaborating with wildlife rehabilitation groups are helping to close knowledge gaps (Richardson et al. 2019). This could also include conducting detailed investigations on problematic fishing gear, such as monofilament gillnets. Remote sensing and satellite data can detect movements and concentration of ALDFG, albeit largely at the surface level. Recommendation 4.3: Develop cost-effective monitoring and assessment strategies for ALDFG that take into account existing programs, particularly those operating at regional levels. In the development of such strategies, countries should: Promote the harmonization and standardization of methods (for example, • protocols, sampling) for ALDFG Develop key performance indicators to track and monitor ALDFG and to • guide the prioritization of targeted interventions Establish monitoring programs and action plans for ALDFG with a view to • establishing baselines mprove the identification, allocation, and analysis of material flow accounting •I Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 68 Report on actions that have been taken to prevent, reduce, and control • ALDFG Share ALDFG information, for instance, through a global or regional • platform, through periodic reporting. The addition of data through GIS, for instance to locate fishing grounds, marine protected areas, or conservation zones, is a particularly powerful tool. It allows sensitive areas to be highlighted, where new interventions to limit MPP might enhance protection of these areas. Adding additional data layers such as international shipping routes could similarly help to identify and correlate risk. Recommendation 4.4: Review the use of FADs in South Asia Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). FADs pose risks to sea turtles and marine mammals through entanglement. This limits the ability of marine life to swim and could, eventually, lead to death. FADs may also alter feeding behavior by conditioning marine wildlife to a temporary and unnaturally aggregated food source (NOAA. n.d.). Biodegradable and non-entangling FADs could be one possible solution, which would not only reduce marine pollution but also avoid bycatch (ISSF 2022). Another possibility is that FADs could be labelled, and the number of FADs deployed in a given area counted at the beginning and at the end of the fishing season. Coordinating with regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), such as IOTC, to review the use of FADs may also be useful. Recommendation 4.5: Design and implement a pilot study on the use of bonds as part of an extended licensing system. Agreed bonds would be given by fishers as a form of guarantee of funds or deposit paid, against which the ‘polluter pays’ principle could be employed. This could also be done at a smaller scale by district or at the state/provincial level through relevant fisheries departments or offices. This could be introduced where a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) is already being employed in the form of a system to tag fishing gear as a means of reducing ALDFG. 5. Recommendations Related to Private Sector Engagement While strengthening institutional coordination and developing comprehensive international mechanisms are essential to establish a robust framework for ALDFG, this alone is insufficient to drive significant change unless the private sector is actively engaged. Broader stakeholder engagement is also vital for supporting practical interventions. To enhance private sector engagement, the following recommendations are provided: Recommendation 5.1: Review and develop appropriate financial and market-based mechanisms to deliver change, taking account of economic, social, and environmental costs of ALDFG, including: Identifying biodegradable plastic alternatives, developing a preferential tax • regime to support uses and the production and use of biodegradable gear Internalizing the external costs of fishing gear (cost internalization), for • Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 69 instance through extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, which transfers the responsibility for the end-of-life management of a product to the producer (in this case, the manufacturer of fishing gear) rather than the consumer (fishers) or local government Incentivizing plastic fishing gear collection programs and providing • economic opportunities to support alternative livelihoods. Recommendation 5.2: Work with the private sector to mitigate ALDFG and MPP by: •Ensuring that producers of fishing gear adhere to laws that prohibit the production of certain kinds of gear • Phasing out production of illegal gear (for example, monofilament netting) •Connecting research and innovation (R&I) actors with key private sector players, including venture capitalists, to support the latest technologies and innovative solutions, such as biodegradable fishing gear, to eliminate or re-use plastic waste and to drive change •Exploring international funding streams for development initiatives as well as revenue generation options to improve waste management systems, such as product levies and earmarked eco-taxes. 6. Recommendations Related to Mitigating ALDFG Achieving a circular economy that effectively tackles ALDFG and MPP has numerous challenges, particularly when it comes to the technical difficulties associated with incorporating biodegradable plastic into fishing equipment. Given the multidisciplinary and transboundary nature of ALDFG, a diverse range of R&I perspectives are necessary to enhance understanding of the issue and to identify opportunities for progress. Despite a growing body of research on ALDFG, significant knowledge gaps remain, such as identifying biodegradable polymers and cost-effective alternatives for plastic fishing gear. The following recommendations are aimed at mitigating the problem of ALDFG: Recommendation 6.1: Promote a life cycle approach and ‘redesign, reduce, remove, reuse, recycle, and recover’ (6R) framework for plastic fishing gear, by: •Enhancing sustainable engineering and design principles in materials selection and gear manufacture •Exploring the potential of biodegradable and recyclable fishing gear •Working with net manufacturers on the type of material used (for instance, single versus multi polymers) •Enhancing the process of ‘closing the loop’ in product and process devel- opment and manufacturing as well as in life cycle chains of fishing gear • Strengthening the ability of fishers to shift to more sustainable practices. Recommendation 6.2: Improve fisheries management. Better fisheries management, such as by removing the use of unsustainable gear (for example, trawls) and improved spatial management would significantly reduce conflicts among different gear types and lost gear, as well as reduce overfishing. Recommendation 6.3: Develop and embed supportive R&I landscapes to foster collaborative Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 70 research between R&I actors to better address the problem of ALDFG, including technical, scientific, and social science solutions, with the ultimate goal of achieving circularity. Some fishing activities are more resource intensive than others and, therefore, may play a larger role in biodiversity and climate change impacts. This could also be a useful additional line of further study. Recommendation 6.4: Explore opportunities to support women in developing fishing gear (such as net weaving) that contribute to a reduction in plastic ALDFG. As practiced in Pakistan, this could provide a mechanism for supporting both gender equality and help reduce ALDFG. Recommendation 6.5: Protect fishers and vulnerable fishing communities by improving access to safe sources of credit. This would help reduce the preponderance of illegal monofilament gillnetting, which also significantly contributes to ALDFG in places like Bangladesh. 7. Recommendations Related to Waste Management of ALDFG To develop a plastic value chain that prevents intentional discarding of fishing gear and minimizes plastic waste, several factors must be addressed. Plastic waste needs to be re-evaluated as a resource, and effective waste management infrastructure should be provided with accessible disposal options. Regulatory measures such as EPR could encourage manufacturers to employ collection and recycling schemes, while economic incentives and behavioral changes through education and awareness could also drive change. Based on this, the key recommendations for reimagining the waste value chain for plastic fishing gear are as follows: Recommendation 7.1: Enhance waste management policies, practices, and infrastructure, encouraging: Improved waste management through appropriate port reception facilities • Improved effectiveness of waste infrastructure including sorting and • recycling and the promotion of integrated waste management. An in-depth mapping of waste infrastructural capacity can contribute toward highlighting deficiencies and areas for further interventions in terms of enhancing waste management policies, practices, and financing infrastructure. Recommendation 7.2: Review current options for recycling end-of-life (EOL) fishing gear. This study identified that recycling of some EOL gear was taking place across the South Asia region, particularly in Sri Lanka. A review of where and how this is occurring in the region (and elsewhere) would be useful in terms of providing a compilation of best practices as a narrative for change. Creating linkages within regional recycling markets, including expansion to East Asia and the Middle East since these regions share seas with South Asia, should also be encouraged. Moreover, the cost of abandoning nets can be better understood through a life cycle cost analysis of various EOL Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 71 interventions, which would require clarifying system boundaries, where the cost of abandoning comes from, and what the fate of fishing nets is. Recommendation 7.3: Review behavioral change models specific to South Asia fishing communities to deliver a reduction in ALDFG. Behavioral change is considered fundamentally important in addressing marine plastic pollution generally, as well as ALDFG specifically. The application of behavioral change modelling to the problem of ALDFG should be one of the key areas for future work. Recommendation 7.4: Conduct a South Asia pilot study to promote a more circular fishing economy supported by training, education, and behavioral change. A targeted study of localized recycling efforts could focus on the potential for fishing net/gear buy-back schemes, with the specific aim of providing practical and robust policy recommendations to address ALDFG issues. Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 72 Box 4.2 The Global Ghost Gear Initiative The Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI) is the first global multi-stakeholder alliance committed to creating economically viable and sustainable solutions for ALDFG worldwide, thus improving the health of marine ecosystems, protecting marine animals from harm, and safeguarding human health and livelihoods (WAP n.d.; McBain n.d.). The GGGI was founded by World Animal Protection in 2014. In 2019, the Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas program became the host of the GGGI, and it now has 20 member governments (none of which are in the South Asia region) and more than 120 member organizations. The GGGI works with partners both to remove ghost gear that is currently lost in the ocean as well as to prevent more fishing gear from being lost or abandoned in the future. This is achieved through three working groups: Build Evidence Working Group, which has built a global data portal and • app to report and track lost gear Best Practice Working Group, which developed a Best Practice • Framework for Management of Fishing Gear and also guides national and corporate policies that prevent, mitigate, and remediate ghost gear Solutions Working Group, which scales up and replicates innovative • solutions to address ghost gear around the world (Ocean Conservancy 2022; Dixon n.d.). The Best Practice Framework for Management of Fishing Gear (BPF) guides stakeholders throughout the seafood supply chain—including gear manufacturers, fishermen, regulatory authorities, and seafood businesses —to reduce the causes and impacts of ALDFG through improved management practices and processes. Recommended actions include voluntary guidance, third-party certification schemes, regulatory measures, and awareness building (GGGI. n.d.(a)). Some of the elements of the BPF were reflected in FAO’s 2018 Voluntary Guidelines for the Marking of Fishing Gear, which highlights fishing gear marking as an important best practice to prevent and mitigate ghost gear. This includes making gear (1) more visible through lighting, flagging, and buoys; (2) marking gear by location through satellite buoys and other means; and (3) marking gear to identify its owner. Collectively, these methods help fishers keep track of their gear, help prevent gear loss, assist with gear recovery, and help fisheries regulators identify IUU-related fishing gear (GGGI. n.d.(a)). Recommendations to Address ALDFG in South Asia and Beyond | 73 APPENDIX A  Summary of Study Methodology To assess the quantity and associated parameters of abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) in South Asia, assessments were carried out in four countries and focused on capture fisheries, including fish traps and static nets in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, and on pole/ hook and line fishing in the Maldives in 2021. Evolved Research and Consulting Ltd. (United Kingdom) designed the study methodology and carried out the data analysis. In order to deliver national baseline assessments for the four countries, the study included surveys with fishers (in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan), key informant (KI) interviews (in Sri Lanka), analysis of supply chain data along with spatial distribution, hotspot mapping, and triangulation. Stakeholder engagement activities and workshops were also conducted (figure A.1). Figure A.1 Inputs for this study Spatial Stakeholder Fishers’ distribution engagement Triangulation surveys and hotspot and mapping workshops Surveys of fishers were conducted in Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan. Due to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, KI interviews were undertaken in Sri Lanka. The outcomes contributed toward mapping the distribution of individual ALDFG events as event- specific heat maps, as well as the development of mass-based heat maps based on estimates of the quantities of gear lost. The surveys also yielded data on the amount of fishing effort, fishing gear employed over a year, and what happens to that gear, including repair, recycling, disposal, or, being lost at sea as a result of being abandoned, lost, or discarded. Triangulating this with the total fishing gear used over a year as derived from the fishers’ survey was intended to help provide confidence in the results. As an additional means of gathering data and supporting information, two workshops were held in each country to engage with relevant stakeholders, as well as to share results and discuss potential solutions, opportunities, barriers, and challenges to delivering change. 74 Fishers’ Surveys and Key Informant Interviews A list of key parameters was created to gather quantitative data on the life cycle of fishing gear, specifically the amount lost as a part of ALDFG, the quantity of gear repaired, as well as the end-of-life (EOL) quantities recycled and disposed of. In Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan, the national fishing sector was first classified by primary fishing activity: trawlers, gillnets, surrounding nets, and line gear. The classification allowed for identification of the total number of vessels in each grouping. Using a sampling protocol of 95 percent confidence level with a 10 percent error margin, the sample size per grouping was then defined. The fishing activity for these three countries, survey areas, total number of vessels, sample size and actual sample size are provided in table A.1. Table A.1 Categorization of primary fishing activity, total number of vessels, and sample sizes by country Country Fishing activity categorization Survey areas Total number Sample Actual of vessels protocol sample size size BANGLADESH • Trawlers Multiple fishing ports 40,774 349 408 • Gillnets and landing sites in four • Set bag nets coastal districts: Barisal, • Line gear Khulna, Chattogram, and Cox’s Bazar THE MALDIVES • Pole and line 80 fishing ports in 1,737 92 337 • Hand line for yellowfin tuna 20 atolls • Hand line for reef fish and groupers (No nets are used in the Maldives except as bait nets) PAKISTAN • Trawlers Multiple fishing ports 22,910 96 1,162 • Gillnets and landing sites in o Large gillnets: with a dry weight > 1000 kg two coastal regions of o Medium gillnets: with a dry weight of 151-999 kg Balochistan and Sindh o Small gillnets: with dry weight of up to 150 kg Provinces • Surrounding nets (with seine line) • Line gear • Traps/cages SRI LANKA KI survey conducted comprising government Four coastal districts NA NA NA officers, harbor managers, fishing society leaders, representing the four boat owners, and fishers’ representatives4 regions of the country: Jaffna (north), Ampara (east), Matara (south), and Gampaha (west) Source: World Bank. Note: Fishers’ survey was not carried out in Sri Lanka. kg = kilogram, KI = key informant, NA = not available. 4 KIs were selected in such a way as to balance coastal fisheries and offshore/high seas fisheries. They also represented the operation of fiber-reinforced plastic boats with outboard engines in coastal fisheries and multiday boats offshore/high-seas fisheries, as these are the dominant types of craft used in Sri Lanka. Appendix A | 75 The impact and constantly evolving context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka precluded data collection from a fisher survey in the country. Instead, a semi-structured interview and reporting format was developed for selected representative stakeholders or KIs. Twenty-eight KIs were selected to participate comprising government officers, harbor managers, fishing society leaders, boat owners, and fisher representatives in four coastal districts, one in each of the four regions of Sri Lanka: north (Jaffna), south (Matara), east (Ampara), and west (Gampaha). The districts were selected as being representative of fishing activities on each of the four coasts. The KIs were selected to represent both coastal fisheries and offshore/ high seas fisheries. The KIs were also selected to represent the operation of fiber-reinforced plastic boats with outboard engines in coastal fisheries and multi-day boats offshore/high-seas fisheries, as these are the dominant types of craft used in Sri Lanka. The classification of KIs is shown in table A.2. Table A.2 Classification of key informants in Sri Lanka Number of key informants Region Government Coastal Offshore Total North (Jaffna) 3 3 1 7 East (Ampara) 1 2 2 5 South (Matara) 3 3 2 8 West (Gampaha) 4 2 2 8 Total 11 10 7 28 Source: World Bank. Note: Fishers’ survey was not carried out in Sri Lanka. kg = kilogram, KI = key informant, NA = not available. Box A.1 discusses the effectiveness of the methodology used to create the baseline assessments for individual countries in the South Asia region in this study. Box A.1 Effectiveness of Baseline Assessment Methodology Used in This Study In considering the efficacy of the baseline methodology, one analysis may consider the pattern of the results produced and whether they reflect what might be expected. The results for Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan appear to show a pattern reflecting the size of their respective fishing fleets: Bangladesh (with 40,774 vessels) has a higher value for many parameters than either Pakistan (22,910 vessels) or the Maldives (1,737). This pattern emerges clearly in the data on ALDFG: 6,085,577 kilograms of gear lost at sea is estimated for Bangladesh; reports 2,608,058 kilograms for Pakistan; and a significantly lower value at 32,052 kilograms for the Maldives. Results from Sri Lanka, with 27,403 vessels, fit the pattern less well, with a signifi- cantly smaller quantity of ALDFG at 812,987 kilograms. This could be looked at in various ways. It is likely that the selection of stakeholders resulted in Appendix A | 76 particular fishing activities to be overlooked, or perhaps stakeholders’ misconceptions caused some data to be under-reported. On the other hand, perhaps the data for Sri Lanka is more accurate, and for the other countries, the data is exaggerated. It is also possible that both are correct, and the differences in the results for Sri Lanka simply reflect the interactions with different causal factors leading to different results, including different fisher behavior. To enhance confidence in the results, the data was triangulated with customs data to verify the scale of plastic fishing gear imported into each country. A clear correlation should be seen between supply (fishing gear imported into a country) and demand (its use by fishers). This correlation will neither be exact nor precise since Bangladesh and Sri Lanka both manufacture their own gear to a certain extent. For Pakistan and the Maldives, however, which manufacture little or no fishing gear, the customs data and survey data in theory should be similar. Aside from triangulation, ground-truthing would be another way to provide additional confidence in the survey results through some other type of granular quantification and survey carried out on the ground, or through potentially novel observation and monitoring methods such as drones or satellites. In analyzing the efficacy of the approach taken in this study, it is also important to assess whether it used appropriate metrics. The key metrics were simplified to the weight (in kilograms) of plastic gear entering the marine environment and its economic value (in US dollars), but there are arguments for obtaining a more comprehensive assessment of the threat and impact of plastic fishing gear by measuring physical characteristics such as length (in meters and other metrics such as polymer type). One example of how weight is not the best indicator of threat is polystyrene (PS). Widely used in floats, PS is an acknowledged problem in many areas, particularly those with extensive aquaculture. PS is particularly susceptible to fragmentation, floats on the water surface, and can be consumed by marine animals, including turtles. In addition to filling the stomachs of marine animals, it also releases persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and is a health risk. Another example is the monofilament netting used extensively in Bangladesh. It may weigh less than other plastic gear, but its propensity to snag and tangle causes it to be lost and deliberately discarded at a high rate, which results in ghost fishing and heightens the threat to marine ecosystems. Monofilament line has the same propensities as monofilament netting for entanglement, loss, and marine species mortality. Appendix A | 77 APPENDIX B Classification of Fishing Categories by Country The classification by fishing category facilitated the identification of the total number of vessels operating within each grouping. This appendix provides the classification by fishing category for Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Pakistan in tables B.1-B.3, respectively. As a stakeholder survey was not carried out for Sri Lanka, the data in table B.4 are not categorized by fishing category. The data provided in this appendix is for 2021. Table B.1 Classification by fishing category for Bangladesh (2021) Gear Type Trawlers Gillnets Longline/ Set bags Total all handline fisheries Total number of vessels 187 25,369 2,453 12,765 40,774 Total dry weight 14,668,467 kg Gear on board 94,817 kg 8,957,411 kg 444,495 kg 5,171,745 kg Dry weight per vessel 507 kg 353 kg 181 kg 405 kg 360 kg Cost of dry weight all vessels $3,596,721 $86,780,379 $12,66,400 $30,292,785 $133,336,285 Cost of dry weight per vessel $19,234 $3,421 $5,164 $3,421 $3,270 Amount Weight all vessels 79,393 kg 1,082,782 kg 133,309 kg 391,876 kg 1,687,360 kg repaired/ Weight per vessel 425 kg 43 kg 54 kg 31 kg 41 kg reused Cost all vessels $997,158 $36,979,639 $10,971,600 $10,868,870 $59,817,266 Cost per vessel $5,332 $1,458 $4,473 $851 $1,467 Amount Weight all vessels 90,012 kg 2,384,407 kg 212,011 kg 1,134,933 kg 3,821,363 kg What happens to the gear recycled/ Weight per vessel 481 kg 94 kg 86 kg 89 kg 94 kg reprocessed Cost all vessels $1,130,519 $73,339,934 $17,448,964 $17,205,186 $109,12,603 Cost per vessel $6,046 $2,891 $7,113 $1,348 $2,676 Amount Weight all vessels 49,610 kg 5,561,924 kg 288,503 kg 1,939,704 kg 7,839,739 kg disposed of Weight per vessel 265 kg 219 kg 118 kg 152 kg 192 kg Cost all vessels $1,956,389 $45,143,996 $20,805,900 $17,690,562 $85,596,847 Cost per vessel $10,462 $1,779 $8,482 $1,386 $2,099 Amount Weight all vessels 173,159 kg 3,750,570 kg 55,527 kg 2,106,321 kg 6,085,577 kg lost at sea Weight per vessel 926 kg 148 kg 23 kg 165 kg 149 kg Cost all vessels $516,657 $52,083,951 $4,014,000 $15,768,965 $72,383,574 Cost per vessel $2,763 $2,053 $1,636 $1,235 $1,775 Number of All vessels 450 170,056 7,582 58,930 237,018 of ALDFG Per vessel 2.41 6.70 3.09 4.62 5.81 events Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, kg = kilogram. 78 Table B.2 Classification by fishing category for the Maldives (2021) Gear Type Pole and line Yellowfin tuna Reef fish Grouper Total all fisheries Number of vessels 676 294 621 146 1,737 Total dry weight of fishing 49,914 kg 1,814 kg 26,809 kg 4,677 kg 83,213 kg gear all vessels Gear on board Average dry weight of fishing 74 kg 6 kg 43 kg 32 kg 48 kg gear per vessel Total cost of replacement of $296,054 $149,763 $538,367 $90,887 $1,075,072 gear (all vessels) Average cost of fishing gear $438 $509 $867 $623 $619 per vessel Amount Weight all vessels 3,921 kg 17 kg 38 kg 0 3,976 kg repaired/ Weight per vessel 6 kg 0.10 kg 0.10 kg 0.0 2 kg reused Cost all vessels $12,312 $42 $223 $0 $12,578 Cost per vessel $18 $0 $0 $0 $7 Amount Weight all vessels 1,084 kg 758 kg 8,785 kg 1,445 kg 12,072 kg What happens to the gear recycled/ Weight per vessel 1.60 kg 2.60 kg 14.10 kg 9.90 kg 6.90 kg reprocessed Cost all vessels $3,405 $1,855 $52,056 $7,724 $65,040 Cost per vessel $5 $6 $84 $53 $37 Amount Weight all vessels 11,222 kg 836 kg 1,959 kg 489 kg 14,506 kg disposed of Weight per vessel 16.60 kg 2.80 kg 3.20 kg 3.30 kg 8.40 kg Cost all vessels $35,242 $2,045 $11,607 $2,614 $51,508 Cost per vessel $52 $7 $19 $18 $300 Amount Weight all vessels 6,354 kg 1,307 kg 13,941 kg 3,064 kg 24,666 kg lost at sea Weight per vessel 9.40 kg 4.44 kg 22.45 kg 20.98 kg 14.20 kg Cost all vessels $19,955.07 $3,196.54 $82,613.16 $16,379.15 $122,143.91 Cost per vessel $29.52 $10.87 $133.03 $112.19 $70.32 Number of ALDFG events 28,352 4,868 60,341 9,082 102,932 Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, kg = kilogram. Appendix B | 79 Table B.3 Classification by fishing category for Pakistan (2021) Gear Type Shrimp Large Surround- Longlines/ Medium Small Traps Total all trawlers gillnets ing nets Handlines gillnets gillnets fisheries Total number of vessels 2,853 709 820 567 5,701 11,985 275 22,910 Total dry weight 1,088,743 kg 2,341,930 kg 762,971 kg 108,923 kg 3,199,849 kg 1,151,892 kg 63,250 kg 8,717,556 kg Gear on board Dry weight per vessel 382 kg 3,303 kg 930 kg 192 kg 561 kg 96 kg 230 kg 381 kg Cost of dry weight all vessels $21,809,665 $74,514,675 $22,140,854 $560,626 $22,860,461 $11,650,996 $479,860 $154,017,136 Cost of dry weight per vessel $7,644 $105,098 $27,001 $989 $4,010 $972 $1,745 $6,723 Amount Weight all 180,500 kg 1,430,900 kg 77,353 kg 20,003 kg 637,485 kg 680,038 kg 10,395 kg 3,036,674 kg repaired/ vessels reused Weight per 63 kg 2,018 kg 94 kg 35 kg 112 kg 57 kg 38 kg 133 kg vessel Cost all $3,615,767 $45,527,870 $2,244,737 $102,953 $4,554,340 $6,878,353 $78,864 $63,002,884 vessels Cost per $1,267 $64,214 $2,737 $182 $799 $574 $287 $2,750 vessel Amount Weight all 136,191 kg 56,194 kg 36,998 kg 6,363 kg 210,141 kg 433,324 kg 6710 kg 885,920 kg recycled/ vessels reprocessed Weight per 48 kg 79 kg 45 kg 11 kg 37 kg 36 kg 24 kg 39 kg vessel Cost all $2,728,170 $1,787,955 $1,073,644 $32,750 $1,501,293 $4,382,929 $50,907 $11,557,648 vessels Cost per $956 $2,522 $1,309 $58 $263 $366 $185 $504 What happens to the gear vessel Amount Weight all 418,630 kg 116,988 kg 242,095 kg 46,751 kg 1,136,265 kg 1,879,661 kg 50,050 kg 3,890,440 kg disposed of vessels Weight per 147 kg 165 kg 295 kg 82 kg 199 kg 157 kg 182 kg 170 kg vessel Cost all $8,385,988 $3,722,286 $7,025,425 $240,629 $8,117,739 $19,012,135 $379,715 $46,883,917 vessels Cost per $2,939 $5,250 $8,568 $424 $1,424 $1,586 $1,381 $2,046 vessel Amount Weight all 315,390 kg 221,551 kg 228,663 kg 20,476 kg 861,993 kg 952,230 kg 7,755 kg 2,608,058 lost at sea vessels Weight per 111 kg 312 kg 279 kg 36 kg 151 kg 79 kg 28 kg 114 kg vessel Cost all $6,317,876 $7,049,241 $6,635,627 $105,389 $6,158,280 $9,631,490 $58,835 $35,956,739 vessels Cost per $2,214 $9,943 $8,092 $186 $1,080 $804 $214 $1,569 vessel Number All vessels 6,429 874 2,597 1,024 9,390 19,442 2,585 42,340 of ALDFG Per vessel 2 1 3 2 2 2 9 events Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, kg = kilogram. Appendix B | 80 Table B.4 Summary of information for Sri Lanka (2021) Gear Type Numbers Cost All vessels Per vessel All vessels Per vessel Total number of vessels 27,403 vessels 1 vessel 27,403 vessels 1 vessel Gear on board Total dry weight 4,209,386 kg 154 kg $1,429,456 $52 Weight renewed 1,258,610 kg 46 kg $411,631 $15 per year What happens Amount repaired/ 284,087 kg 10.40 kg $92,472 $4 to the gear reused Amount recycled/ 3,605,393 kg 131.60 kg $1,224,348 $44.70 reprocessed Amount disposed of 1,018,419 kg 37.20 kg $345,843 $13 Amount lost at sea 812,987 kg 29.70 kg $276,080 $10 Total 5,720,886 kg 171.70 kg $1,938,743 $71.70 Number of NA ALDFG events Source: World Bank. Note: ALDFG = abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear, kg = kilogram. Appendix B | 81 APPENDIX C Fisheries-related Governance in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka This appendix provides a summary of governance related to the fisheries sector in the four case study countries: Bangladesh, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Table C.1 provides a brief overview by country of the ministry responsible for fisheries governance and related policies. Table C.1 Overview of national fisheries governance in the four countries Aspect BANGLADESH THE MALDIVES PAKISTAN SRI LANKA Responsible Ministry of Fisheries Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Maritime Ministry of Fisheries ministry and Livestock Marine Resources and Affairs and Aquatic Resources Agriculture Related policies •M arine Fisheries • Maldives Fisheries Act • Exclusive Fishing • Fisheries and Aquatic Ordinance, 1983 (Act No. 5/87) Zone (Regulation of Resources Act, No. 2, 1996 • National Fisheries • Ocean Territories Act Fishing) Act, 1975 • Purse-seine Net Fishery Policy 1998 (Act No. 6/96) 1975 (amended 1993) Regulations (amended by • Fisheries Strategy • Environment • Policy Framework Gazette No. 859/3, 1995) 2006 Protection and for the Development • Fisheries Committee • 2002 amendment to Preservation Act of Fisheries and Regulations (Gazette Protection and (Act No. 4/93) Aquaculture, 2007 Extraordinary No. 859/3, Conservation of 1995) Fish Act (1950) •Fisheries Committee Regulations (Gazette Extraordinary No. 972/15, 1997) •Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (Amendment) Act No. 35, 2013 Source: FAO 2023a, FAO 2023b, FAO 2023c, FAO 2023d. BANGLADESH The Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock is responsible for governing fisheries Governance and policies: •  in Bangladesh, with primary functions to (1) preserve fisheries resources, (2) improve socio-economic conditions of fishermen, (3) create employment opportunities for rural unemployed and landless people, (4) expand foreign exchange earnings through exports, and (5) innovate new technologies for fisheries development and preservation. The Ministry is also responsible for enabling, implementing, and enforcing international agreements related to fisheries. The zoning of fishing gear usage and limits on the depth of fishing are • established by the Marine Fisheries Ordinance (1983); for instance, set bag nets at ≤40 meter depth, hook and line at ≤40 meter depth, Hilsa and other drift 82 gillnets at ≤40 meter depth, and trawling outside the 40 meter depth curve. The current fisheries framework and policy were introduced in 1998, • with a Fisheries Strategy adopted in 2006 aimed at poverty reduction, co-management, conservation of resources, and creating an enabling environment for management and development. In theory, the industrial fisheries sector is regulated through licensed Operations and •  Management of vessels and designated ports for landing, quality control measures, and Fisheries Sector: regulation of mesh sizes for fishing gear. Monofilament nets are banned. The Bangladesh Navy and the Coastguard patrol the exclusive economic • zone (EEZ) to inspect fishing vessels for compliance with national laws. However, in the absence of a Vessel Management System (VMS) to share information among institutions the lack of a functioning monitoring, control and surveillance system, industrial trawlers are observed near coastal waters (less than 40 meter depth) harvesting lucrative shrimp resources, causing conflicts with artisanal fishers. Although artisanal fisheries comprise the largest marine capture group, • they are largely unregulated and are increasingly resorting to destructive and unsustainable practices. For example, despite a ban on fry fishing, the absence of enforcement has resulted in its continued expansion. The modernization of the artisanal sector in recent years, including the rise of mechanized fishing boats, has led to the transfer of destructive gear and unsustainable practices from the industrial sector, exacerbating the strain on fish stocks. Given that the government has difficulty in deploying patrol units and Challenges: •  monitoring the operations of artisanal fishers, village surveillance communities are being formed to collaborate with authorities in enforcing sustainable fishing practices. Despite Bangladesh’s early awareness of plastic pollution (it was the • first country in the world to ban plastic bags in 2002), regulation and enforcement in the artisanal fishing fleet are limited with regards to abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG). Reliable information is scarce, making it challenging to extrapolate statistics. The impacts of poverty and lack of effective control exacerbate the issue. THE MALDIVES The Maldives Fisheries Act (14/2019) is the principal fisheries legislation in Governance and policies: •  the Maldives, which was enacted in 2019 and replaced the previous act of 5/87. The Act empowers the Ministry of Fisheries, Marine Resources and Agriculture to establish and administer regulations for sustainable utilization and conservation of fisheries stocks and living marine resources. The Act requires the development and implementation of management plans for all commercial fisheries, including tuna and tuna-like species. Appendix C | 83 The Maldives Fisheries Act does not specifically mention ALDFG, but • emphasizes the need for meeting international obligations, good governance, and ensuring sustainable fisheries. The Coast Guard of the Maldivian National Defense Force, the Maldives • Police Service, and the Maldives Customs Service are responsible for enforcing the Act. Fishing is a key industry in the Maldives, with pole and line fishing for tuna Challenges: •  being the largest fishery. Under the Fisheries Act 2019, the majority of fishing activities likely to lead to ALDFG are banned, but line fishing is allowed. While line fishing is not likely to cause entanglement or continued capture of fish from ‘lost’ lines, it still contributes to plastic accumulation in the ocean, potentially leading to entanglement issues in convergence zones. Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear is, nevertheless, a • problem within Maldivian waters, likely largely from ALDFG that drifts in from outside of the EEZ. PAKISTAN The Ministry of Maritime Affairs oversees fisheries governance in Pakistan Governance and policies: •  and has created a policy framework and strategy for the development of fisheries and aquaculture. This guides the sector’s overall direction to develop the fisheries sector and its role in reaching Pakistan’s overall development goals. The Office of the Fisheries Development Commissioner is responsible for • policy, planning, and coordination of fisheries with provincial fisheries departments and national and international agencies. The Office of the Fisheries Development Commissioner reports to the Ministry and oversees marine capture fisheries through the Marine Fisheries Department (MFD). Federal authorities are responsible for managing marine fisheries beyond Operations and •  Management of the 12 nautical mile limit, while provincial administrations handle fisheries Fisheries Sector: management within territorial limits. Common fisheries management measures include prohibiting harmful or • destructive fishing gear, regulating mesh size limits, and implementing closed seasons and areas. Licensing is used to manage capacity, but only applies to industrial fishing as there is no regulation limiting the number of small-scale fishing boats. Industrial fishing licenses are issued by the MFD based on vessel gross registered tonnage and aim to allocate different-sized vessels to various EEZ zones. Pakistan, as with many other countries, struggled to restrict Flags of Convenience vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, particularly deep-sea fishing trawlers. Appendix C | 84 Challenges: •  ALDFG awareness is generally lacking in Pakistan. While all fishing gear contributes to ALDFG and plastic input in the ocean, in Pakistan certain gear, such as encircling seine gear (katra), lead to overfishing of small fishes such as sardinellas, anchovies, and scads; the use of estuarine set bag net (locally known as bhulla) with a small mesh size catch juveniles as well as larvae of commercially important species. Gillnets with small mesh and extended length are also a serious threat to marine biodiversity. Deep-sea trawling is seen as a significant threat, and regulations are aimed • at ensuring their operation outside a 35-mile limit, but weak surveillance and enforcement often result in intrusions in coastal and territorial waters. SRI LANKA Governance and policies: •  The Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (MFAR) governs Sri Lankan fisheries and develops national policies. MFAR achieves its objectives through a number of government agencies and departments: The Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DFAR) regulates and manages fisheries and aquatic resources; the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) conducts marine fisheries research. MFAR, through DFAR, enables, implements, and enforces international fisheries agreements in Sri Lanka. Challenges: •  Fishing is a key industry in Sri Lanka and has been increasing in scale and productivity in recent years. There is distinct pressure on coastal fisheries associated with increasing vessel numbers exacerbated by a narrow continental shelf. Vessel numbers are also increasing in EEZ and beyond exclusive economic zone (BEEZ) waters. •The substitution of natural materials with plastics in fishing gear and increased fishing effort has likely led to an increase in ALDFG in Sri Lankan fisheries. The situation is likely affected by the proximity to India, the prevailing currents from the Bay of Bengal, and the Sri Lankan fishing fleet.   Appendix C | 85 REFERENCES AFD. 2019. “Sustainable Employment in Sri Lanka Requires Reports and Studies 185. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Tech- Improved Fishing Practices.” Agence Française de Dévelop- nical Paper 523. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. pement. https://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/sustainable-employ- ment-sri-lanka-requires-improved-fishing-practices. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Dis- Arju, M. 2020. “EEZ Lines Won’t Save Fish in the Bay of Bengal.” cards. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www. The Maritime Executive. https://www.maritime-executive.com/ fao.org/responsible-fishing/resources/detail/en/c/1316864/. editorials/eez-lines-can-t-save-fish-in-the-bay-of-bengal. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2018. Addressing Envi- ronmental Issues during Fishing Operations: Progressing to- Basel Convention Secretariat. 2011a. “Basel Convention Plastic wards the 2025 Reduction of ALDFG. Committee on Fisheries Waste Amendments.” http://www.basel.int/Implementation/ (COFI), 33rd Session, Rome, July 9-13. COFI/2018/Inf.24. https:// Plasticwaste/Amendments/Overview/tabid/8426/Default.aspx. www.fao.org/3/MW869EN/mw869en.pdf. Basel Convention Secretariat. 2011b. “Related initiatives and guid- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2019. Voluntary Guide- ance within BRS-Conventions.” http://www.basel.int/Default. lines on the Marking of Fishing Gear. Rome: Food and Agricul- aspx?tabid=7994. ture Organization. https://www.fao.org/3/ca3546t/CA3546T.pdf. Bhuyan, Md.S. 2022. “Effects of Microplastics on Fish and in Hu- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2021. “Training on man Health.” Front. Environ. Sci. Sec. Toxicology, Pollution and FAO ALDFG Global Survey.” November 17. Responsible the Environment. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.827289. Fishing Practices for Sustainable Fisheries. https://www.fao. org/responsible-fishing/news-events/news/news-details/ BIMSTEC. 2023. “Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral en/c/1457173/. Technical and Economic Cooperation”. Dhaka, Bangla- desh: BIMSTEC Secretariat. https: //bimstec.org. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2023a. Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles. Bangladesh, 2010. Country Profile Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division CMS Secretariat. 2020. “IOSEA Marine Turtles.” Bonn, Germany: [online]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. https:// Convention on Migratory Species Secretariat. https://www. www.fao.org/fishery/en/facp/bgd?lang=en. cms.int/iosea-turtles/en. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2023b. Fishery and Davis, John. 2019. “What is marine plastic pollution costing us? Aquaculture Country Profiles. Maldives, 2009. Country Pro- The impacts of marine plastic on the Blue Economy.” Seattle, file Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [on- WA: OCTO (Open Communications for the Ocean). line]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www. fao.org/fishery/en/facp/mdv?lang=en. Dixon, C. n.d. “The Global Ghost Gear Initiative: Global Approaches to Addressing ALDFG.” Presentation. https://static1.square- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2023c. Fishery and space.com/static/58525fe86a4963931b99a5d1/t/5ce4f3ed- Aquaculture Country Profiles. Pakistan, 2009. Country 166b0e000119ae95/1558508544551/Day2_04.pdf. Profile Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [online]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. https:// Dixon, C. 2020. “Ghosts in the ocean – it’s time to take on plastic www.fao.org/fishery/en/facp/pak?lang=en. pollution from the fishing industry.” June 6. Blog. UK: Envi- ronmental Investigation Agency. https://eia-international.org/ FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2023d. Fishery and blog/ghosts-in-the-ocean-its-time-to-take-on-plastic-pollu- Aquaculture Country Profiles. Sri Lanka, 2006. Country tion-from-the-fishing-industry/. Profile Fact Sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [on- line]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www. do Prado Leite, Isabel, André Menegotto, Paulo da Cunha Lana, fao.org/fishery/en/facp/lka?lang=en. Luiz Laureno Mafra Júnior. 2022. “A new look at the poten- tial role of marine plastic debris as a global vector of toxic G-7. 2018a. Charlevoix Blueprint for Healthy Oceans, Seas and benthic algae.” Science of The Total Environment. 838 (3), Resilient Coastal Communities. Group of Seven. https://www. 156262. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ mofa.go.jp/files/000373849.pdf. S0048969722033599. G-7. 2018b. Ocean Plastics Charter. Group of Seven. https://www. Down to Earth. 1999. Eyeing the coastlines. http://www.indiaenvi- consilium.europa.eu/media/40516/charlevoix_oceans_plas- ronmentportal.org.in/content/339/eyeing-the-coastlines/. tic_charter_en.pdf EC (European Commission). 2018. Plastics: Reuse, recycling and Geyer, R., J.R. Jambeck, and K.L. Law. 2017. “Production, use, and marine litter: final report. European Commission, Director- fate of all plastics ever made.” Science Advances. 3(7). DOI: ate-General for Environment, Publications Office. https://data. 10.1126/sciadv.170078. europa.eu/doi/10.2779/724160. GGGI. n.d.(a). Effective Ghost Gear Solutions – Learning from FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1995. Code of Conduct What Works. Global Ghost Gear Initiative. https://static1. for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi- squarespace.com/static/5b987b8689c172e29293593f/t/5faaefc9 zation. https://www.fao.org/3/v9878e/v9878e.pdf. 4ea65d7df575637b/1605038112701/GGGI-WWF+Solutions+Re- port+-+FINAL.pdf FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas GGGI. n.d.(b). “The Best Practice Framework for the Management 86 of Fishing Gear.” Global Ghost Gear Initiative. https://static1. IMO. 2019b. “International Convention for the Prevention of squarespace.com/static/5b987b8689c172e29293593f/t/5bb- Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).”  London, UK: International 64c428165f5891b932b91/1538673732299/gggi_best_practice_ Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/en/About/Con- summary.pdf. ventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Preven- tion-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx#:~:text=The%20 GGGI and Ocean Conservancy. n.d. The Impact of Fishing Gear International%20Convention%20for%20the,2%20Novem- as a Source of Marine Plastic Pollution: A Global Ghost Gear ber%201973%20at%20IMO. Initiative (GGGI) Information Paper to Support Negotiations in Preparation for UNEA 5.2. https://static1.squarespace. IMO. 2019c. “Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), com/static/5b987b8689c172e29293593f/t/6204132bc0f- 73rd session, 22-26 October 2018.” London, UK: International c9205a625ce67/1644434222950/UNEA+5.2_GGGI.pdf. Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/ MeetingSummaries/Pages/MEPC-73rd-session.aspx. Gilman, Eric, J. Humberstone, J.R. Wilson, E. Chassot, A. Jack- son, P. Suuronen. 2022. “Matching fishery-specific drivers of Invest Maldives. 2023. “Fisheries - The Maldivian skipjack pole- abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear to relevant inter- and-line fishery industry is the most sustainable form of fish- ventions.” Marine Policy. 141: 105097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ery in the world.” https://investmaldives.gov.mv/Opportunities/ marpol.2022.105097. Fisheries. Global Goals. n.d. “14 – Life Below Water.” https://www.globalgoals. IORA (Indian Ocean Rim Association). 2017. ‘Priorities & Focus Ar- org/goals/14-life-below-water/. eas: Blue Economy.’ Mauritius: Secretariat of the Indian Ocean Rim Association. https://www.iora.int/en/priorities-focus-areas/ GoI (Government of India). 2022. Annual Report 2021-22. Depart- blue-economy. ment of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India. https://dof.gov.in/sites/default/ IOTC (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission). 2023. “Indian Ocean Tuna files/2022-04/Annual_Report_2021_22_English.pdf. Commission.” Food and Agriculture Organization. https://iotc. org. GRID-Arendal. 2019. “UNEA Resolutions on Marine Litter.” https:// unea.marinelitter.no. ISSF. 2022. “Non-Entangling & Biodegradable FADs Guide.” International Seafood Sustainability Foundation. https:// Guerra, Juvenio. 2021. NEW RESEARCH: Fishing Gear Accounts for www.iss-foundation.org/fishery-goals-and-resources/ an Alarming Amount of Plastic Pollution in Oceans. Septem- our-best-practices-resources/non-entangling-and-biodegrad- ber 16. Santa Barbara, CA: The Nature Conservancy. https:// able-fads-guide/. www.nature.org/en-us/newsroom/ca-ocean-plastic/. IUCN. 2021. Marine Plastic Pollution. Issue Brief. https://www.iucn. Guzman, R. 2020. “The Ghost Gear that Haunts the World’s org/resources/issues-brief/marine-plastic-pollution. Oceans.” October 16. Asian Development Blog. Philippines: Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb.org/contacts/main. Jambeck, J.R., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T.R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan, and K.L. Law. 2015. “Plastic waste inputs Hodgson, S. 2022. Legal aspects of abandoned, lost or otherwise from land into the ocean.” Science. 347(6223): 768-771. http:// discarded fishing gear. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi- science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768/. zation and International Maritime Organization. https://doi. org/10.4060/cb8071en. Jayakody, S., S. Udagedara, Y. Naveendra, and A.W. Fernando. Hossain, Md., Md. Hassan, Md. Alam, Sadia Islam, Mst. Akter, and 2021. Marine Waste Management Process in Sri Lanka: Out- Farzana Khanum. 2021. “Livelihood vulnerability and adapta- comes from Institutional, Policy, and Legislative Review. UK: tion strategies of coastal areas in the face of climate change Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. in Bangladesh: A literature review.” Journal of Materials and Environmental Science. 12. 1601-1613. Karasik, R., T. Vegh, Z. Diana, J. Bering, J. Caldas, A. Pickle, D. Rittschof, and J. Virdin. 2020. 20 Years of Government Re- Hossain, Mostafa and Rudra Shrestha. 2019. “Fisheries in South sponses to the Global Plastic Pollution Problem: The Plastics Asia: Trends, Challenges and Policy Implications.” In Agri- Policy Inventory. Durham, NC: Duke University. cultural Policy and Program Framework: Priority Areas for Research & Development in South Asia, 332-346. Dhaka, Ban- Kozioł, Anna, Paso, Kristofer, and Kuciel, Stanisław. 2022. “Proper- gladesh: SAARC and Bangkok, Thailand: APAARI. ties and Recyclability of Abandoned Fishing Net-Based Plastic Debris.” Catalysts. 12: 948. 10.3390/catal12090948. IISD. 2018. “Five G7 Countries and EU Pledge to Tackle Pollution in Ocean Plastics Charter.” International Institute for Sustainable Li, W.C., H.F. Tse, and L. Fok. 2016. “Plastic waste in the marine Development Sustainable Knowledge Hub. https://sdg.iisd. environment: A review of sources, occurrence and effects.” org/news/five-g7-countries-and-eu-pledge-to-tackle-pollu- Science of the Total Environment. 566: 333-49. https://www. tion-in-ocean-plastics-charter/. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716310154. Lindwall, C. 2020. “Single-Use Plastics 101.” New York, NY: NRDC. IMO. 2015. “Action plan to combat marine litter.” Nov. 19. London, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/single-use-plastics-101. UK: International Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/ en/MediaCentre/Pages/WhatsNew-500.aspx. McBain, D. n.d. “The Global Ghost Gear Initiative: Driving solutions to lost & abandoned fishing gear worldwide.” Presentation. IMO. 2019a. “GloLitter Partnerships Project.”  London, UK: Interna- https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Session%20B_Glob- tional Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/ al%20Ghost%20Gear%20Initiative.pdf. PartnershipsProjects/Pages/GloLitter-Partnerships-Project-.aspx. 87 Mead, L. 2021. “The “Crown Jewels” of Environmental Diplomacy: Pakissan. 2017. “All About Fisheries – A Brief on Fisheries in Paki- Assessing the UNEP Regional Seas Programme.” April 27. stan.” https://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/fisheries/a. Deep Dive, International Institute for Sustainable Develop- brief.on.fisheries.shtml. ment. https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/crown-jew- els-environmental-diplomacy-assessing-unep-region- Parker, L. 2019. “The world’s plastic pollution crisis explained.” al-seas-programme. National Geographic Environment Explainer. https://www. nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-pollution. Meijer, Lourens J.J., T. van Emmerik, R. van der Ent, C. Schmidt, L. Lebreton. 2021. “More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of Parker, P.A. 1990. “Cleaning the oceans of the plastics threat.” Sea global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean.” Science Ad- Frontiers, 36:18-27. vances, 7: 18. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803. Pew and SystemIQ. 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Com- Morgan, G., D. Staples, and S. Funge-Smith. 2007. Fishing capaci- prehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping ty management and IUU fishing in Asia. Asia-Pacific Fishery Ocean Plastic Pollution. Pew Charitable Trusts and SystemIQ. Commission-Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/arti- fao.org/3/ah997e/ah997e00.pdf. cles/2020/07/23/breaking-the-plastic-wave-top-findings. Mrema, E.M. 2016. “Regional Seas Programme: The Role Played Rahman, H. and F.A. Muzahid. 2021. “Fishing in Bay: Stymied by by UNEP in its Development and Governance.” Law Explorer. poor catch, lengthy ban.” Nov. 21. The Daily Star. https://www. https://lawexplores.com/regional-seas-programme-the-role- thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/fishing-bay-stymied- played-by-unep-in-its-development-and-governance-eliza- poor-catch-lengthy-ban-2227876. beth-maruma-mrema/. Richardson, Kelsey, R. Asmutis-Silvia, J. Drinkwin, K. Gilardi, I. MSC (Marine Stewardship Council). n.d. “Fishing methods and Giskes, G. Jones, K. O’Brien, H. Pragnell-Raasch, L. Ludwig, K. gear types.” London, UK: Marine Stewardship Council. https:// Antonelis, S. Barco, A. Henry, A. Knowlton, S. Landry, D. Mattila, www.msc.org/what-we-are-doing/our-approach/fishing- K. MacDonald, M. Moore, J. Morgan, J. Robbins, E. Hogan. 2019. methods-and-gear-types. “Building evidence around ghost gear: Global trends and analysis for sustainable solutions at scale.” Marine Pollution NOAA. n.d. Fishing Gear: Fish Aggregating Devices. Washington, Bulletin. 138: 222-229. DC: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ Richardson, Kelsey, B.D. Hardesty, J. Vince, and C. Wilcox. 2022. national/bycatch/fishing-gear-fish-aggregating-devices. “Global estimates of fishing gear lost to the ocean each year.” October 12. Science Advances, 8(41). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv. NOAA. 2015. 2015 Report on the impacts of “ghost fishing” via abq0135. derelict fishing gear. Impact of “ghost fishing” via Derelict Fishing Gear. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Marine Debris Program. Ritchie, H. 2021. “Where does the plastic in our oceans come https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publica- from?” Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/ tions-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf. ocean-plastics. Ocean Conservancy. 2022. “The Problem of Ghost Fishing Gear.” Ritchie H. and M. Roser. 2022. “Plastic Pollution.” Our World in Washington, DC: Ocean Conservancy. https://oceancon- Data. https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution. servancy.org/trash-free-seas/plastics-in-the-ocean/glob- al-ghost-gear-initiative/. Roy, P. and M. Shuvo. 2015. “Gill Nets Burnt; Factories Boom.” Part 2: Hilsa & Killer-nets. April 19. The Daily Star. https://www.the- Ocean Governance. 2022. Entanglement in fishing gear and other dailystar.net/frontpage/gill-nets-burnt-factories-boom-77984. installations. Marine mammals management toolkit. https:// marine-mammals.info/entanglement/#. Rundgren, D.C. 1992. “Aspects of pollution of False Bay, South Afri- ca.” University of Cape Town (unpublished Master’s thesis). OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment). 2021. Towards G7 Action to Combat Ghost Fishing Gear SACEP. n.d. “Action Plan for the Protection and Management of - A background report prepared for the 2021 G7 Presidency the Marine and Coastal Environment of the South Asian Seas of the United Kingdom. OECD Environment Policy Paper No. Region.” Colombo, Sri Lanka: South Asia Co-operative Envi- 25. http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/environment/2021-policy-pa- ronment Programme. http://www.sacep.org/pdf/Declarations/ per-ghost-gear-report.pdf. South-Asian-Seas-Action-Plan-1995.03.24.pdf. OSPAR. 2009. Marine litter in the North-East Atlantic Region – As- SACEP. 2018. Towards Litter Free Indian Ocean – Summary of the sessment and priorities for response. London: OSPAR. https:// Regional Marine Litter Action Plan for SAS Region. Colombo, www.ospar.org/documents?v=7129. Sri Lanka: South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme. http://www.sacep.org/pdf/Regional_Marine_Litter_Action_ Our World in Data. n.d.(a) “Primary plastic production by polymer Plan_for_SAS_Region.pdf. type, 2015.” https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/plastic-produc- tion-polymer. SACEP. 2021. “About Us.” Colombo, Sri Lanka: South Asia Co-oper- ative Environment Programme. http://www.sacep.org/about- Our World in Data. n.d.(b) “Primary plastic waste generation us. by polymer, 2015.” https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/plas- tic-waste-polymer. Satlink. 2022. “Satlink, ORP and IPNLF launch a collaborative fishing gear reuse project in the Maldives.” March 22. Madrid, 88 Spain: Satlink. https://www.satlink.es/en/media/trends/satlink- UNEP. 2022. “UNEA Resolution 5/14 entitled ‘End plastic pollution: orp-e-ipnlf-ponen-en-marcha-un-proyecto-para-la-recupera- Towards an international legally binding instrument’.” Nairobi, cion-y-reutilizacion-de-artes-de-pesca-en-las-maldivas. Kenya: UNEP. UNEP/PP/OEWG/1/INF/1. https://wedocs.unep. org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39812/OEWG_PP_1_INF_1_ Smith M, D.C. Love, C.M. RochmaN, R.A. Neff. 2018. “Microplastics UNEA%20resolution.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=y. in Seafood and the Implications for Human Health.” Curr Environ Health Rep. Sept, 5(3):375-386. doi: 10.1007/s40572-018- UoT (University of Toronto) and G20 Research Group. n.d. “G20 0206-z. Action Plan on Marine Litter.” Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2017/2017-g20-marine- TDAP. 2021. “Fisheries: Potential of Pakistan.” Trade Development litter.html. Authority Pakistan. Series 01/2021. https://tdap.gov.pk/wp-con- tent/uploads/2022/03/Fisheries-Potential-of-Pakistan-Sal- WAP (World Animal Protection). n.d. “Global Ghost Gear Initiative.” ma-Nusrat.pdf. London, UK: World Animal Protection. https://www.world- animalprotection.org/our-work/animals-wild/sea-change/ Thiele, C.J., M.D. Hudson, A.E. Russell, M. Saluveer, and G. Sid- our-work/gggi?gclid=Cj0KCQjwvLOTBhCJARIsACVldV2n- aoui-Haddad. 2021. “Microplastics in fish and fishmeal: an dyEOu-fK800AOXcejcNyDyuERg4UWivhj3rJp9qKisTVka3kG- emerging environmental challenge?” Sci Rep 11, 2045. https:// 0saAlk1EALw_wcB. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81499-8. World Bank. 2020. “South Asia Ramps up Eco-Innovation to Curb The Commonwealth. 2022. “Commonwealth Blue Charter.” Marine Plastic Pollution.” June 8. Press Release. Washington, https://thecommonwealth.org/bluecharter. DC: The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/ press-release/2020/06/08/south-asia-ramps-up-eco-innova- Tsydenova, Nina and P. Patil. 2021. “6 reasons to blame plastic tion-to-curb-marine-plastic-pollution. pollution for climate change.” November 9. World Bank Blogs: End Poverty in South Asia. Washington, DC: The World Bank. World Bank. 2021a. Maldives Systematic Country Diagnostic Up- https://blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/6-rea- date. Report No. 157675-MV. Washington, DC: The World Bank. sons-blame-plastic-pollution-climate-change. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35512. Ujaan Foundation. 2021. Personal communication in Bangladesh. World Bank. 2021b. “South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI).” Wash- ington, DC: The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/ UN. n.d.(a). “1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement”. UN programs/sawi#1. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/oceans/unfishstock. Wright, L.S., I.E. Napper, R.C. Thompson. 2021. “Potential micro- plastic release from beached fishing gear in Great Britain’s UN. n.d.(b). “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” region of highest fishing litter density.” Marine Pollution https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/ Bulletin. 173B, 113115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ unclos/unclos_e.pdf. article/pii/S0025326X21011498. UNEP. n.d.(a). “Face the Plastic Truth.” Clean Seas. Nairobi, Kenya: WWF. 2022. “Stopping Ghost Gear.” Washington, DC: World Wild- UNEP. https://www.cleanseas.org. life Fund. https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/stopping- ghost-gear. UNEP. n.d.(b). “Global Partnership on Marine Litter.” Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://www.gpmarinelitter.org. WWF-Pakistan. 2021. Personal communication in Pakistan. UNEP. n.d.(c). “Intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution.” Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://www.unep. org/about-un-environment/inc-plastic-pollution.  UNEP. n.d.(d). “Regional Seas Programme.” Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/ regional-seas-programme. UNEP. n.d.(e). “South Asian seas.” Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https:// www.unep.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/wor- king-regional-seas/regional-seas-programmes/south-asian?_ ga=2.32438462.1470474338.1651827509-1582706558.1651643581. UNEP. 2009. Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Edited by N. Meith. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://stg-wedocs.unep.org/bit- stream/handle/20.500.11822/31632/MLAGC.pdf?sequence=1&is- Allowed=y. UNEP. 2018. Single-use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability (Rev. ed.). Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://wedocs.unep.org/bit- stream/handle/20.500.11822/25496/singleUsePlastic_sustain- ability.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1. 89 The South Asia Water Initiative The South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI) is a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) supported by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and administered by the World Bank. The MDTF was launched in 2008 to strengthen water resources management within and between the countries sharing the rivers of the Greater Himalayas (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan) to deliver sustainable, fair, and inclusive development and climate resilience. SAWI works in three river basins (Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra) and one landscape (Sundarbans). The aims of SAWI are to (1) Strengthen awareness and knowledge about regional water issues, (2) Enhance technical and policy capacity, (3) Support dialogue and participatory decision processes to build trust, and (4) Scope and inform World Bank investments. SAWI is also involved in regional cross-cutting work that supports non-basin specific a ctivities such as groundwater management and water resources planning. In this context, the program seeks to promote poverty alleviation, economic development, gender inclusion, and climate change adaptation. The PROBLUE Multi-Donor Trust Fund PROBLUE is a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) administered by the World Bank. The MDTF was launched in 2018 to support the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in healthy oceans (the blue economy). PROBLUE supports the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Under Water) and is fully aligned with the World Bank’s mission is to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity on a livable planet. PROBLUE is part of the World Bank’s overall Blue Economy program, which takes a multi- pronged, coordinated approach to ensuring the protection and sustainable use of marine and coastal resources. PROBLUE focuses on four key themes: (1) Improving fisheries by tackling the underlying causes of overfishing and strengthening aquaculture sustainability, (2) Addressing threats posed to ocean health from marine pollution, including litter and plastics, from marine or land- based sources, (3) Enhancing sustainability of key oceanic sectors such as tourism, maritime transport and offshore renewable energy, and (4) Building government capacity to manage marine resources, including nature-based solutions, and to mobilize private sector finance. PROBLUE was established in response to client demand, and it helps the World Bank identify current trends and emerging threats to oceans, and solutions for action. © 2023 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org