1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on Circular Business Model (CBMs) and circular design of fishing gear—two new concepts and issues for the sector. Essentially, producers and assemblers have produced a variety of fishing gear to catch fin-fish and shell-fish and issues related to circular economy are new to leadership teams and designers/developers. The growing awareness of circular economy worldwide amongst policymakers, civil society, business and academia is leading to a discussion over the need for a transition away from linear take-make-waste economy to a more circular economy. This is particularly being driven by the European Commission through its Circular Economy Action plans and the Sustainable Product Initiative. Circularity is impacting on the fishing gear sector through the development of EPR legislation and new European standards that are now being developed  under the technical committee: CEN TC 466. Waste fishing gear in the world’s oceans is a widespread and enduring problem globally. There is agreement on this fact, however, the size of the problem is fully not agreed on. One study suggests that 10% of all marine plastics are waste fishing gear (Macfayden et al. 2009), and the European Commission (EC) use a figure of 27% (by weight) of marine plastics being waste fishing gear (EC 2018). Another study suggests that 70% of floating macro plastics in the ocean gyres is fishing related (UNEP 2016; Eriksen et al. 2014). Fishing gear containing plastic poses a significant risk to marine ecosystems, biodiversity and human health: there are additional risks to marine-related economic activities including tourism and shipping.

There are essentially two categories of waste fishing gearFootnote 1: end-of-life of fishing gear; and abandoned, lost or discarded gear (ALDFG) which is commonly known as ghost gear (EC 2008). End-of-life gear is often left in piles in harbour facilities due to the absence of a waste management plan for fishing gear, which means it often goes to landfill or incinerators as a final destination. Ghost gear is abandoned, discarded or accidentally lost fishing gear that fish or marine animal predators and scavengers can get caught and, typically, die as a result.

To tackle the marine plastics problem, the EC have passed measures to reduce the impact of certain plastic products in the marine environment through the Single Use Plastics (SUP) Directive (EU) 2019/904. This includes the reporting and monitoring requirements of fishing (and aquaculture gear) being placed on the market. The annual (calendar year) reporting period began on 1 January 2022. Reporting will need to be in place 18 months after the calendar year by each Member States of the European Union (e.g. by June 2024). The SUP Directive will place increased responsibilities on fishing gear producers and assemblers (that place plastic fishing gear on the market), and governments to improve the recovery, accountability and outcomes related to fishing gear within the context of a circular economy. EPR legislation will come into force on 31 December 2024. As indicated above, in addition, there are European standards that are being developed through a new technical committee: CEN TC466.

Research (Circular Ocean, n.d and CfSD, n.d) has indicated that there are a series of key points to be considered, when thinking about circular business models (CBMs) and circular design for fishing gear.

Economics

  • Fishing operators work to very tight margins and do not want their fishing gear to fail

  • Fishing gear can be expensive, with some individual fishing gear costing up to €200,000; however, some monofilament fishing nets are even more expensive

Manufacturing and assembly

  • There is a range of scientific working groups that work on technical requirements for the development of fishing gearFootnote 2

  • Fishing gear is often assembled in Europe, for example, with polymers and components procured from suppliers in India, China and South Korea

  • Fishing gear is generally made to order; therefore, there is often considerable dialogue between the fishers and fishing gear manufacturers and assemblers

  • Customisation of fishing gear is common, with adaption based on individual experience of fishers, leading to a variety of co-design of fishing gear.

Design and development

  • A complex and wide variety of fishing gear is used to catch finfish and shellfish in fresh water, saltwater and in aquaculture farms.

  • New gear design and development requires technical trials and the construction of model fishing nets built to scale to take account of vessel size, engine types, fish behaviour and gear interaction.

  • Design and development processes for fishing gear often appear to be based on senior people’s knowledge and experience in fishing gear production or assembly rather than following a structured product design and development process, e.g. a stage-gate process that might be found in other market sectors.

  • Fishing gear is typically repaired and modified by the fishers and/or sometimes by the fishing gear suppliers as part of “take back” contracts with fishers.

2 Fishing Gear

Fishing gear comprises a complex series of products used for active and passive fishing in addition to rearing or growing different types of finfish and shellfish. Fishing gear includes nets, ropes, components and peripherals. A significant proportion of fishing gear is produced from polymers, but metals, rubber and other materials are also used. The table below illustrates the variety of gear used for different types of fishing. This chapter uses the term waste fishing gear when referring to fishing nets, ropes, components and peripherals (FNRCPs).

Table 5.1 is an indicative classification of fishing gear used to catch finfish and shellfish. The table was compiled from multiple sources (Sea Choice n.d, MSC n.d and FAO 1990) and should be viewed as a indicative document for further discussion and research. There were three main challenges in compiling the table: lack of easily accessible information on the topic; many different terms used in the fishing sector that vary geographically as well as between policy, academia and industry; and distinguishing between different types of fishing gear and fishing techniques is not always clear cut. It is recommended that further research is completed with input from gear technologists, industry experts and other stakeholders from the fishing community.

Table 5.1 Fishing gear category and corresponding gears

There is a significant variety of fishing gear used to capture finfish and shellfish with different requirements for the fishing gear dependant on the finfish and shellfish targeted. Comprehensive lists of gear have been difficult to find; however, the need for such categorisation is now being driven by legislative and standards development in Europe. In addition, there are different polymers used for different types of gear. The focus historically purely on the function of the gear rather than what materials they were made from.

3 Legislative and Standards Development in Europe

The development EPR legislation in Europe by the EC is now leading to emerging discussion over circular economy in the fishing gear sector. Whilst most producers of fishing gear will focus on compliance, a number are likely to be interested in new circular business models. In addition, to the legislative development new European standards are now being taken forward by CEN through TC 466 that includes guidance for stakeholders on circular design and circular business models (see later section).

The EPR legislation embedded within the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) aims to tackle the many challenges posed by waste and end-of life fishing gear made from plastics. The SUPD is based on the “Polluter Pays” principle: the aim is to make fishing gear producers and/or assemblers responsible for the end-of-life phase of fishing gear by taking on the costs of managing the products’ waste streams. Prior to implementation of the EPR there are requirements to collect and report data on fishing gear placed on the market and on waste fishing gear (containing plastic) collected in Member States. In addition, implementation of the Port Reception Facilities (PRF) Directive will mean collection infrastructure will need to be set up for waste and end-of-life fishing gear. EPR will seek to increase the collection rate of waste and end-of-life fishing gear, thus reducing disposal at sea as well as disposal by landfilling and incineration, and the associated environmental and economic impacts of marine plastics.

Under the SUPD, member states will need to bring into force laws, regulations and administrative provisions to enable the introduction of EPR for fishing gear by the 31st December 2024. Member states will be able to design and implement tailored legal, administrative and economic instruments to create local solutions at ports and/or within fishing communities.

In 2027, the EC will evaluate the SUPD and may include new legislative proposals or binding collection targets related to the EPR of fishing gear.

Under EPR, member states will have the flexibility to develop EPR schemes in consultation with stakeholders including producers and assemblers of fishing gear, fishers, recyclers, SMEs, entrepreneurs, co-operatives or social enterprises.

4 European Standards Development: European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) TC466

4.1 Background

A Standardisation request M/574 (COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION) related to circular design of fishing gear in support of Directive (EU) 2019/904 was submitted by the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) to CEN in November 2019. In November 2020, CEN established a technical committee—CEN TC 466—to progress standards development related to circular design, circular business models (CBMs) and recyclability of fishing gear as highlighted in M/574 (CEN 2020). The secretariat for the CEN TC 466 is provided by the NEN (Dutch standards body). The deadline for publication of the standards is May 2024, but NEN has applied for an extension to December 2024 to align with legislative development. As at March 2022, seven standards are being developed under three working groups (WGs), convenors of the WGs have been appointed and writing of the text has now started. Of note, is the secretariat of WG2—that is developing guidance on CBMs—moved to CENTEXBELFootnote 3 in January 2022.

4.1.1 Scope

The scope of CEN TC 466 is standardisation in the field of circularity and recyclability of plastic-based materials in fishing gear and aquaculture equipment. Excluded is standardisation work concerning fish processing, fish packaging, fish food products and general work on materials and equipment covered by other CEN technical committee.

Table 5.2 CEN TC 466 working groups (WGs)

5 Circular Business Models (CBMs) and Circular Design

Growing awareness of Circular Economy opportunities, EPR legislation and standardisation activities may encourage fishing gear producers to explore new CBMs, e.g. reuse, modular design, leasing, etc. and start to integrate circularity in gear design and development. Further discussion of CBMs related to fishing gear can be found in the next section.

Extending the life of fishing gear—through repair—is already commonplace amongst fishers but not reported or monitored. For example, fishers in British Columbia, Canada, often take salvageable and reusable parts of old fishing nets (that would otherwise have been discarded) and use them to patch up their current, serviceable fishing nets.

The implementation of the PRF Directive will mean that infrastructure for the regular collection of waste and end-of-life fishing gear in all European Union (EU) member state harbours and ports will need to be set-up, which will potentially create a market for 2nd life polymers and other materials. PRF Directive and EPR in EC member states and outside the EU, e.g. in Norway and UK, could also become a trigger for innovative solutions for start-ups, SMEs, entrepreneurs, co-operatives and social enterprises:

  • Ports, coastal cities and towns, and fishing communities could establish initiatives to support local SMEs in the reuse, upcycling, repurposing and recycling of waste fishing gear to tap in the national targets for a circular economy

  • Centralised collections might be established to facilitate public–private partnerships to undertake larger scale repair, servicing, remanufacturing and recycling activities

  • Solutions need not be small scale and/or artisan. They could be industrial scale within a local circular economy model.

The implementation of EPR could result in the development of new products, new businesses and jobs, for example, by:

  • Using recycled plastics from fishing gear to produce pellets (using mechanical recycling) for use in injection moulding of products, e.g. sunglasses, skateboards, toys, surfing and fishing accessories

  • Using recycled fibres using the de- and re-polymerisation (chemical recycling) of nylon fishing nets to produce socks, clothes, swimwear, carpet tiles, etc

  • Repurposing of fishing gear into bracelets, keyrings, necklaces, dog leashes, bike, garden accessories and mats.

In 2018, The Centre for Sustainable Design ®Footnote 4 (CfSD) at UCA Business School completed research into commercial products produced from recycled plastics, e.g. pellets from fishing nets, or through the re-use of fishing gear or materials. It indicated that the number of commercially available products was limited at the time of publication (Charter et al. 2018). There are indications that the number of commercialised products has increased, but total numbers are still small.

Informal discussions with fishing gear manufacturers have indicated that the product design and development processes operated by fishing gear producers and/or assemblers are often not formalised; and formal product design and development training, tools and methodologies are less likely to be used in the sector compared to many other market sectors. Therefore, at present, ecodesign and more specifically circular design strategies, processes and tools are unlikely to be implemented by fishing gear manufacturers and assemblers, unless there are external drivers, e.g. from customers (fishers) and/or there are policy drivers. One gear technologist indicated that he had used specialist computer-aided design (CAD) software to design fishing gear, but the current CAD software did not include any environmental modules. Environmental modules provide guidance on design strategies to reduce product-related environmental impacts, e.g. design for modularity, design for repairability, design for dismantlability, etc. This is reinforced by unpublished cross-sectoral research completed by CfSD, that indicated that few CAD tools have incorporated environmental modules to date and none have integrated product circularity modules.Footnote 5 Further research needs to be completed in this area.

When implementing ecodesignFootnote 6 (or, more specifically, circular design) and CBM-related fishing gear, several key issues need to be considered:

  • Functionality: The design of fishing gear should target specific fish, the respective water environment conditions and fishing techniquesFootnote 7

  • Cost: Fishing operators work to tight margins and global prices for catches fluctuate

  • Customisation: The design of fishing gear needs to be tailored to a fishing method and fishing operator activity such as those outlined in (see Table 5.1a Fishing Gear Category and Corresponding Gears and Table 5.1b Indicative classification of Fishing Gear)

  • Material selection: Fishing gear needs to survive harsh conditions. Fishing nets and ropes are therefore typically made from nylon, polypropylene and polyethylene (polymers) which are either braided or twisted.Footnote 8 Newer plastics, such as Dyneema®Footnote 9 has been developed to improve the efficiency and productivity of fishing or to increase the lifespan of the fishing nets and ropes. However, these advanced technical materials raise additional challenges at end-of-life (Plastix n.d).

  • Failure modes and effects: Key failures come from tearing and stretching. Durability is key but depends on external factors that cannot be overcome through design, e.g. entanglement of nets in ocean debris, sabotage from competing fishing operators, destructive fishing practices or unskilled fishing operators.

5.1 Circular Business Models

Thinking proactively about the development of CBMs for fishing gear amongst producers/assemblers is a new area. It has been primarily fishers (customers) that have been involved in product life extension through repair, but some producers have explored take-back model where they will repair fishing gear and return to fishers.

Below are existing and potential CBMs that might be considered by fishing gear stakeholders: see Tables 5.2 and 5.3. The classification of CBMs is based on Clause 6 (“Guidance on enabling mechanisms and business models”) in BS8001:2017 (bsi 2017)—Framework for implementing the principles of the circular economy in organisations—that was further developed to focus on fishing gear in a chapter by Charter and McLanaghan in Designing for the Circular Economy (2018). A report further developed the original thinking, and this is highlighted in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (Charter et al. 2020).

Table 5.3 Summary of key targets and dates related to the SUP and PRF Directives

Table 5.2 highlights existing CBM practices and potential additional opportunities that may be becoming more relevant, particularly given current trends and policy changes. The table highlights potential models related to customisation, e.g. production on demand, product life extension, facilitated reuse and modular design. With emergence of EC legislative recycling requirements from EPR and new CEN guidance standards on circular design, it is likely that these options may be considered with modular design perhaps being a less complex strategy to adopt.

Table 5.3 identifies new CBMs and outlines opportunities and threats. It considers the stakeholders owning and implementing the business model, the opportunities provided by the models, and threats that could hinder the models’ introduction. The EC EPR legislation will drive potential opportunities for CBMs, some will be more complex and require, significant organisational change and other will require primarily adaption of design and development processes. Some of the key challenges associated with implementing CBMs will be the change of mindset associated with circularity thinking, potential development costs, e.g. reverse logistics, new collaboration with fishers (and other stakeholders) and (re)training of producer’s design/development teams.

Strategies related to—and aimed at improving the business and product circularity of fishing gear—are embedded in the respective tables. The tables have been designed to initiate discussion.

Many of the CBMs outlined in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are a potentially disruptive and a radical departure from the “business as usual” in the industry. Therefore, any implementation of these CBMs would require extensive research, piloting and testing (Tables 5.4 and 5.5).

Table 5.4 Existing circular business models and additional opportunities
Table 5.5 New circular business models’ opportunities and threats

5.2 Ecodesign

CEN 466 has now started standardisation activities related to the circular design of fishing gear as part of new EC activities covering a variety of other sectors including energy-related products and textiles. At present, ecodesign or more specifically circular design is a new issue for the fishing gear sector. 80% of a product’s environmental impact is determined at the design and development stage (Smallpiece Trust 1989). However, this figure should be treated as a “rule of thumb”: the important point is that consideration of environmental issues at the design and development stage is essential to improve product-related environmental performance throughout the lifecycle of fishing gear. Ecodesign is a process to reduce product-related environmental impacts in design and development and has been practised by leading companies in other industry sectors—outside of the fishing gear—since the 1990s. Other terminology is used worldwide that is equivalent to ecodesign and includes environmentally conscious design (ECD), design for environment (DfE), green design and environmentally sustainable design. The term ecodesign is used below and throughout this report.

Two international standards on ecodesign have been published: IEC 62430:2019 and ISO 14006:2020.

Ecodesign is the systematic approach which considers environmental aspects in the design and development with the aim to reduce adverse environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of a product

(IEC 62430:2019 (IEC 2019) and ISO 14006:2020 (ISO 2020))

As indicated previously, informal conversations amongst fishing gear producers and assemblers indicated that (fishing gear) design and development often seems to be an informal process based on personal experience and learning of company leaders—rather than formalised design and development process as typically seen in other market sectors. In addition, dialogue has also indicated that neither ecodesign or more specifically circular design has been practised in (fishing gear) design and development. There needs to be further research into this area.

Also as indicated previously, EC DG MARE was tasked in the Circular Economy Action Plan in 2015 with initiating European standards development related to circular design of fishing gear. A mandate was delivered to CEN in 2019 and TC466 has been established to take forward standards development. There are three of the key areas for standard development: circular design; CBMs; and recyclability of fishing gear (see earlier section on CEN TC466).

As indicated above, ecodesign and circular design are new concepts in the fishing gear sector. However, there are indications that R&D in circular design of fishing gear is starting. For example, Sotenäs Marine Recycling Centre (SMRC) and its partners have initiated a R&D project related to the circular design of fishing gear (see Chapter 10).

There appears to be a lack of awareness and understanding of the principles of lifecycle thinking that is embedded in ecodesign within the fishing gear sector. As fishing gear is a materials-based product, e.g. non-energy using in the use phase, the biggest product-related environmental lifecycle impacts are likely to be associated with the procurement of the materials in the supply chain, e.g. polymers and metals, and waste at the end-of-life. However, fishing gear is often repaired many times by the fishers (in the use phase of the gear) despite a lack of ‘design for repairability' being included in design and development.

Effective implementation of ecodesign (and within it, circular design) requires increased awareness and understanding of a life cycle perspective that might consider designing for product life extension, e.g. “multiple lives” of fishing gear. However, designing more circular fishing gear will include a range of additional considerations that include:

  • Identifying potential trade-offs between material durability and circular material loops such as recyclability

  • Assessing commercial viability of using reusable components, given the labour-intensive nature of fishing gear assembly and disassembly, and the unpredictable supply of waste or end-of-life fishing gear

  • Determining key components to make (fishing gear) modular without impacting on fishing gear performance.

As Circular Economy becomes an increasingly important policy driver in the sector, it will be important—from an environmental and economic standpoint—to extend the life of and retain the value of fishing gear in economic and social systems. Therefore, designing for the closed loops, e.g. producers and assemblers developing and implementing take back systems for fishing gear to enable the repair and refurbishment of fishing gear will increase. Where closed systems do not exist, extracting value from fishing gear in the open loop may emerge as entrepreneurs start to see business opportunities (Bakker et al. 2018).

From a product circularity perspective, a key consideration in fishing gear (product) design and development should be how to proactively design for product life extension e.g. repairability, durability, etc. Materials recycling should be considered as the final end-of-life stage of fishing gear lifecycle. In this context, product circularity should be thought of as a process to design and develop fishing gear, as a product/service, to retain the value in fishing gear for as long as possible in economic and social systems.

Thinking about closed loop design might lead to contracts between, fishing gear producers and assemblers, and fishers, where the fishing gear is sold as a service rather than as a physical product with, for example, take-back, and repair and modification services built into contracts. Proactive open loop design will mean that fishing gear in its 2nd life is designed to be reused in different applications outside of the fishing sector. Such proactively designed systems do not exist at present. Products produced from waste fishing gear in the open loop are generally not part of a designed system, as such, with the fishing gear collected and/or procured by designers and entrepreneurs, as end-of-life waste materials from the fishing system. For example, (Verdura n.d) re-uses sections of fishing nets for shoes, (Bureo n.d) recycles polymers from fishing gear into pellets for injection moulding into various products including skateboards, and (Fishy Filaments n.d) turns polymers from fishing gear into filament for 3D printing.

There is a diversity of materials (polymers, metals, rubbers, etc.) that are used in the current design and development, production and/or assembly of fishing gear. Simplifying the types and number of the materials used in the development of fishing gear will enable more effective recycling at end-of-life when product life extension or reuse options are no longer feasible.

There will need to be awareness-raising of the business and environmental benefits of ecodesign (and circular design) targeted at fishing gear producers and assemblers. In addition, new education and training courses will need to be established to help the designers and developers of fishing gear think through design strategies related to improving the product circularity of fishing gear. Tailored grant aid and financial support will also be needed to help increase awareness, understanding and build skill sets within the industry.

As Circular Economy policy increasingly emerges and EPR for fishing gear is implemented in European member states and elsewhere there will be a need to develop improved chemical and mechanical recycling infrastructure, as at present there is only one significant chemical recycler—Aquafil who produce (Econyl, n.d) fibres—and one mechanical recycler—Plastix Global (Plastix, n.d) who produce pellets—in Europe, that specialises in the regeneration and/or recycling of polymers from end-of-life fishing gear.

Implementing EPR in Europe will require all stakeholders to rethink the present way that fishing gear is produced and used through to the final end-of-life once product life extension and reuse has been exhausted. This will take time and money. It will also require significant cultural change and capacity-building amongst all key stakeholders in the fishing gear lifecycle and system. EPR will mean that there will also be the need to be “systems design” of collection, sorting, reuse and recycling of end-of-life fishing gear at regional and national levels.

It is currently unclear how EPR for fishing gear will be implemented in member states. The EC has not clearly set out the methods for calculating a producer EPR fee, and has not, so far, established minimum collection or recycling rates. This may change after the initial evaluation of the SUPD in 2027.

To fully address opportunities and challenges, there will be a need to bring together direct and indirect stakeholders in ports and related coastal areas (from fishing sub-systems) with stakeholders from the business and innovation sub-systems in ports and related coastal areas. Experience from Blue Circular Economy (BCE) stakeholder workshops organised by The Centre for Sustainable Design ® in Ålesund, Norway, and Galway, Ireland indicated the prime benefit of such events was to facilitate networking between role players who had never previously met, stimulating new connections, thinking and perspectives in those regions.

EPR and an increase in Circular Economy practices could result in waste fishing gear being harvested, e.g. cleaned and stored into materials banks—presenting an opportunity for start-ups, SMEs, entrepreneurs, co-operatives or social enterprises to develop new products (e.g. clothing) from the materials, new services (e.g. training, cleaning, repair) and new business models (e.g. rental of fishing gear). Combined with advances in technology (e.g. 3D printing) and tapping into local innovation systems, the possibilities could be substantial. Lessons should be learnt from existing leading-edge initiatives, e.g. Sotenäs Marine Recycling Centre in Sweden (see Part III, Chap. 10).

However, not all fishing gear will be reusable and/or recyclable and there is a need to classify and then manage degraded and contaminated gear, materials, components and peripherals. This may highlight further new opportunities for a start-ups or existing businesses. Green public procurement could be used by local authorities (that host ports and harbours) to kick-start the demand side and stimulate innovation—for example, incentivising the reuse of waste fishing gear in the open loop in building and construction products in coastal areas.

Systems will also need to set up to tackle the significant backlog of fishing gear that needs to be recycled and/or disposed of. There is abundance of usable gear in regional harbours, but unless there is a demand or incentives for repair is unlikely that gear will move back into use.

There is a need to change the mindset from thinking about waste and end-of-life fishing gear to maximising the value in fishing gear, components and materials for as long as possible in economic and social systems. This change in approach will require all key stakeholders to buy into a more holistic strategy that utilises products-services-systems (PSS) strategies, as well as systems design.

6 Conclusion

National Circular Economy policy development is increasing in Europe, and EPR and the CEN standards on the circular design, CBMs and recycling of fishing gear will come into force in 2024. These developments are likely to present significant challenges for the sector but may highlight new opportunities for the development of new CBMs and ecodesign (including circular design) of fishing gear across its life cycle. In addition, this may present opportunities for further development of products re-using fishing gear and using recycled polymers from waste and end-of-life fishing gear in new applications within or outside of fishing sector. However, at present, the number of commercial products developed in the open loop is limited.

Stakeholders benefiting from changes in the sector are likely to include start-ups, recyclers, SMEs, entrepreneurs, co-operatives or social enterprises focused on new opportunities related to development the recycling infrastructure through European member states, as well as those involved in converting waste and end-of-life fishing gear into products.

To ensure long-term benefits, the fishing gear sector should, ideally, adopt a joined-up, Europe-wide strategy and not just focus on a country and/or regional level approach—although regional and local plans will need to be developed as this is where issues will need to be tackled. It is also recommended that the fishing gear sector—working with other stakeholders—develops a clear vision, strategy and action plan that addresses circularity and EPR. The implementation of EPR in Member States and elsewhere could become a trigger for innovative solutions—including start-ups, SMEs, entrepreneurs, co-operatives and social enterprises focused on more circular solutions for the fishing gear sector. However, there will need to develop new systems to expand recycling systems within Europe related to EPR and to build knowledge around the ecodesign (and more specifically circular design) of fishing gear. Utilising best practice and lessons learnt from initiatives that have already progressed thinking and practice, e.g. Sotenäs Marine Recycling Centre (SMRC) and Steveston Harbour Authority in Canada will be essential. A key lesson learnt from these case studies is to include fishers in discussions from the start. The new business models, design strategies and innovation presented in this chapter provide a useful starting point for stakeholders to consider the next steps in tackling waste and end-of-life fishing gear.