Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Transcription

1 Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Eighth Meeting of the Working Group on Reduction of Pressures from the Baltic Sea Catchment Area Berlin, Germany, April 2018 PRESSURE Document title Update from the MARELITT Baltic project Code 3-8 Category INF Agenda Item 3 Marine litter Submission date Submitted by WWF Poland Reference Outcome of PRESSURE , para Background PRESSURE took note of the information from WWF Poland that the MARELITT project is developing BATs and BEPs for the lost gear retrieval and is ready to contribute into the development of a HELCOM Recommendation on abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) (Outcome of PRESSURE , para. 3.17). This document contains an update on the activities conducted in the frame of the MARELITT Baltic project on: (i) derelict fishing gear recycling possibilities; (ii) port reception facilities; and (iii) first results of the derelict fishing gear search and retrieval operations at sea. The project is to continue until spring 2019 and will provide more elaborated results at later stages. Action requested The Meeting is invited to take note of the information and make use of it in connection with document 3-3. Page 1 of 19

2 MARELITT Baltic Draft conclusions of the feasibility study for recycling possibilities for derelict fishing gear April 2018, WWF Germany Recycling feasilibity analysis conducted has revealed so far: Material recycling is impeded especially for gillnets with high lead content. Material needs to be proved for toxicity because high lead content was also found in samples processed in the same machines. REACH analysis is very helpful, as not only lead but also chlorine was enhanced in some net samples. Material recycling is feasible with end-of-life nets where metal parts, floats, sink lines were removed. For non-recyclable materials, thermal processing can regain the polymer energy and extract lead and magnetic metal for metal recycling. High-temperature evaporation of polymers is the most promising strategy: Polymers and other organic substances are completely disintegrated, and no toxic emissions result at 1000C or more. A high-hydrogen content energy gas results. The hart residue contains sediments and metals, including lead. Pyrolysis proves much more difficult because of toxic emissions when PA or PET are processed. Pyrolysis is extensively discussed for at-sea processing of collected marine litter, but it should be noted that this works best for polyolefins PE and PP, where no toxic emissions result (the pyrolysis liquid can then be used as engine fuel, but materials need to be rather pure which is hardly the case with marine litter). A true circular economy with nets, including DFG, will be difficult to achieve. But parts of the nets and ropes can be made fit for recycling, and mixed materials can be processed to regain the energy content. Crucial for DFG recycling is pre-processing: large metal items need to be removed to avoid machine damage. Therefore some infrastructure in the harbours will be needed, and preferably nearby small-scale recycling/thermal processing plants. This will be a goal for future projects.

3 The MARELITT Baltic Harbour Survey Survey on Harbour Reception Facilities at selected Baltic Sea fishing harbours Marek Press, Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy Tallinn, June 2017 The survey was carried out within the scope of the MARELITT Baltic project, work package 4. The objective was to assess the readiness, capability and capacity of Baltic Sea fishing harbours to receive, separately collect and sort the derelict fishing gear (DFG) collected from the sea as well as end-of-life fishing gear. Fifty fishing harbours by the Baltic Sea were visited during the survey. The level of the port reception facilities (PRF) and the waste reception and handling procedures (operations related to the separate collection and sorting of DFG) used at the harbour were observed and assessed. Data was collected for the survey in the course of on-site visits, interviews and background checks. The results reveal that more than half of the harbours selected for participation in the survey have organised waste management services at a reasonably good level. The survey results also indicate that fishing harbours in Germany and Poland have somewhat better general ability to organise waste management than those in Sweden and Estonia. The survey reveals that almost half of the harbours do not have enough containers suitable for the separate collection of waste. However, it must be noted that adding more containers alone will not solve the deficiencies and problems of waste management at harbours. The addition of containers and other reception facilities must be accompanied by an increase in the quantity and quality of suitable supporting waste management services. The principles set out in the EU waste hierarchy, which promote waste prevention, reuse and recovery of materials, must be followed when developing and implementing harbour waste reception and handling plans (which is not the case at the moment). Fishing gear (DFG and end-of-life fishing gear) is not separately collected in almost half of the fishing harbours at present. Instead, it is placed in the same container as other municipal waste. In most cases, the harbour personnel do not know what happens next to separately collected fishing gear if the waste management companies to whom the waste is transferred have the competency and technical facilities required for reprocessing and recovery of the material. Such a lack of knowledge and information does not promote the separate collection and handling of fishing gear at harbours. There are also deficiencies in the provision of information to the harbour users. Fishermen do not always know where and when end-of-life fishing gear must be collected. No attention has been given to ICT opportunities for introducing the waste management rules and organisation of work at harbours (e.g. the harbour s website does not provide enough information). A few exceptions aside, it can be said that regional cooperation in solving the problems caused by derelict fishing gear is lacking. Baltic Sea countries also lack a common national understanding of the challenges related to the collection and handling of DFG at harbours. visit to read the full report

4 Search and retrieval operations within the MARELITT Baltic project WORK PACKAGE 2- state of play WWF Poland April 2018

5 STEPS DFG Hot spots designation DFG search and retrieval methodology development Environmental Impact Assessment - best practice DFG search and retrieval

6 Analysis of fishing effort data

7 POLAND - DFG HOT SPOTS

8 POLAND - DFG findings in randomized areas [in green]

9 Analysis of Swedish gillnet fishery DFG HIGH DENSITY DFG LOW DENSITY

10 SWEDISH RANDOMIZED AREAS [in colour]

11 SWEDISH DFG FINDINGS [in red]

12 ESTONIAN DFG FINDINGS [in red]

13 GERMAN DFG FINDINGS [in red]

14 DRAGGING DEVICES SWEDEN ESTONIA GERMANY & POLAND

15 SEARCH & RETRIEVAL RESULTS in 2017 [kg] DE EE PL SE DRAGGING ACTIONS 2377* ** WRECKS CLEANING DIVING OPERATIONS * In two years (2016 and 2017) ** estimated weight of m of gillnets

16 BY-CATCH OF SPIECES Estonia 8 flatfish, 1 seal, 1 goby Germany young eel Poland 2 kg of flatfish Sweden flounders, cods, sculpins; no exact weight provided + crabs, mussels, seashells

17 DRAGGING ACTIONS

18 WHAT S NEXT? Guidelines on safe and effective DFG search and retrieval Post project plan including cost analysis of DFG search and retrieval GIS Public Baltic map - tool for sea users DFG hot spots identified and verified 3D sonar tested for DFG detection

19 Follow the project visit and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates