Wp6ffldatanalysis

Fishing for Litter pilot action (WP 6.3)

DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS

0

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Index Introdution ..........................................................................................................................................................2 Analysis of the findings ........................................................................................................................................3 Distribution of litter collected by Country...................................................................................................3 Distribution of litter collected by year ........................................................................................................4 Yearly distribution of litter collected by Country ........................................................................................4 Distribution of waste collected by port .......................................................................................................5 Yearly distribution of litter collected by port ..............................................................................................6 Distribution of litter collected divided by typology .....................................................................................7 Distribution of litter collected by country divided by typology...................................................................7 Distribution of litter collected by port divided by typology ........................................................................8 Distribution of litter collected by port and by typology ..............................................................................9 Data analysis results in each port ......................................................................................................................11 Chioggia (IT) ...............................................................................................................................................12 Vira (HR).....................................................................................................................................................12 Molfetta (IT)...............................................................................................................................................12 Ancona (IT).................................................................................................................................................13 Tribunj (HR)................................................................................................................................................13 Cesenatico (IT) ...........................................................................................................................................13 Bar (MN) ....................................................................................................................................................14 Herceg Novi (MN) ......................................................................................................................................14 Cattolica (IT)...............................................................................................................................................14 Budva (MN) ................................................................................................................................................15 Fano (IT) .....................................................................................................................................................15 Corfu (GR) ..................................................................................................................................................15 Monopoli (IT) .............................................................................................................................................16 Izola (SL) .....................................................................................................................................................16 Koper (SL)...................................................................................................................................................16

1

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Introduction This report presents the results of the pilot action for marine litter collection (Fishing for Litter) by the fishermen. The ports involved in each country and the period of collection in each port are shown in the table below. The fishermen participation increased during the project. In 2014 in the 5 countries involved, 8 ports participated in the collection; in 2015, 12 ports; and in 2016 following the prolongation of the project, the number of ports rose to 15. The local partners' experts used a form to collect the data (the same form for each port), where they had to record the quantities and types of marine litter caught in the nets. The fishermen voluntary participation in the project did not allow for recovering qualitative information that would be statistically significant. The pilot action's added value was to introduce a good practice on board and on land allowing the fishermen to manage the collected waste in accordance with the current legislation, in the hope that this behavior would also continue after the project had finished.

The form not only required information on the collection of the marine litter fished, but also the number of nets or abandoned gear of the fishermen themselves or coming from aquaculture farming.

The collection began in September 2014 in Slovenia and closed in most of the ports involved in August 2016.

2

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

2014 FB

Ports

FB1 ISPRA

Chioggia (IT)

9

1 0

2015

1 1

1 2

2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ancona (IT) Cattolica (IT) FB3 Mediterran ean Consortium

FB5 IWRS FB7 IOF

FB9 UMIMB

Molfetta (IT) Monopoli (IT) Fano (IT) Cesenatico (IT) Koper (SL) Izola (SL) Vira (HR) Tribunj (HR) Herceg Novi (MN) Bar (MN) Budva (MN)

FB13 HCMR

Corfu (GR)

Analysis of the findings Distribution of litter collected by Country In total, in the 15 ports involved in the project, 143,622.70 kg of marine litter was collected. 58.6% (84,174.1 kg) of the waste came from Italy, where the highest number of ports (7) participated. In 2 Croatian ports 21.4% (30,769.2 kg) of the total was collected and in Montenegro (3 ports involved) 16.7% (24,034.4 kg). The remaining 3.2% was collected in Greece (2.7%, 1 port) and in Slovenia (0.5% in 2 ports).

Country Greece

Tot (2014-2016) (kg) 3918,1

Montenegro

% 2,7

24034,4

16,7

726,9

0,5

Croatia

30769,2

21,4

Italy

84174,1

58,6

143622,70

100,0

Slovenia

TOTALE

3

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

National distribution Fishing for Litter (24 months) Greece 3%

Montenegro 17%

Slovenia 0% Croatia 21%

Italy 59%

Distribution of litter collected by year Analyzing the collection by year, there emerges that in 2014 (September-December) in the 8 ports involved, 4% of litter was collected; in 2015, in the 12 ports involved, 57%; and in 2016, 39% (15 ports).

Fishing for Litter (2014-2016) 2014 4%

2016 39%

2015 57%

Yearly distribution of litter collected by Country Italy collected the most litter both in 2016 (73.5%) and in 2015 (51.1%), while, in 2014 Montenegro collected the highest quantity of marine litter (36.8 %).

4

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

National Distribution/year 80 70 60 %

50 40

2014

30

2015

20

2016

10 0

Distribution of waste collected by port The ports that collected the highest quantities of marine litter for the period 2014-2016 were Chioggia (21.6%), Vira (13.7%), Molfetta (10.5%) and Ancona (9%). These 4 ports collected more than 45% of the total marine litter; the remaining 55% came from the other 11 ports.

Period

2014 2015 2016

Ports

%

Chioggia (IT)

21,6

Vira (HR)

13,7

Molfetta (IT)

10,5

Ancona (IT)

9,0

Tribunj (HR)

7,7

Cesenatico (IT)

7,4

Bar (MN)

6,8

Herceg Novi (MN)

5,3

Cattolica (IT)

5,1

Budva (MN)

4,6

Fano (IT)

4,5

Corfu (GR)

2,7

Monopoli (IT)

0,5

Izola (SL)

0,3

Koper (SL) TOTALE

0,2 100,0

5

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Total distribution Fishing for Litter/port (24 months) % 0

5

10

15

20

25

Chioggia (IT) Vira (HR) Molfetta (IT) Ancona (IT) Tribunj (HR) Cesenatico (IT) Bar (MN) Herceg Novi (MN) Cattolica (IT) Budva (MN) Fano (IT) Corfu (GR) Monopoli (IT) Izola (SL) Koper (SL)

Yearly distribution of litter collected by port The collection findings are analyzed for the 15 ports for each year, the port of Vira (HR) is seen to have collected the most waste (29.8%) in 2014, the port of Chioggia (IT) in 2015 with 28.2%, and the port of Cesenatico (IT) in 2016 with 18.8%.

%

FfL/port (2014-2015-2016) 35,0 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0

2014 2015 2016

6

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Distribution of litter collected divided by typology The marine litter was divided into 7 items representing the main types of waste found at sea. In the Croatian ports (Vira and Tribunj) and in the Italian port of Chioggia, textiles were also included in the marine litter items. As well, wood (natural) was included, as even if it cannot be considered waste, it is nevertheless a material that remains caught up in the fishing nets.

The most fished items are plastic (45%), metal (12%) and rubber (11%). A good 14 % is wood (natural) while, glass (6%), wood (machined), textiles and other from fishing activities each make up 4% of the total.

Marine litter Typology

metal

plastic

glass

rubber

wood (machined)

wood (natural)

textile

kg

17651,31

64270,78

8102,717

16208,47

5655,784

19852,65

6320,418

other (from fishing activity) 5560,555

%

12

45

6

11

4

14

4

4

Total 143622,7 100

Marine litter/type (24 months)

textileother 4% 4% wood (natural) 14%

metal 12%

wood (machined) 4% rubber 11%

plastic 45%

glass 6%

Distribution of litter collected by country divided by typology If the types of marine litter fished in each country are analyzed, it can be noted that, except for textiles (69% in Croatia) which was an item recorded only in 3 ports (in both the Croatian ports and in Chioggia), and the item 'other' (39% in Montenegro and 35.8% in Greece), all the other materials were mainly fished in Italy. In fact, 44.3% of the metal, 69.5% of the plastic, 51.8% of the glass, 49.8% of wood (machined) and 78% of wood (natural) were collected in Italian ports.

7

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

National distribution (2014-2016) 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 0 Greece

metal

plastic

glass

Montenegro

rubber

Slovenia

wood (machined)

Croatia

wood (natural)

textile

Italy

other (from fishing activity)

Distribution of litter divided by typology collected by port During the project period, the port of Chioggia (IT) was by far the port that collected the highest quantity of marine litter. Litter included plastic (38.3%), which was in general the most common material collected, and rubber (19.1%) collected in the port of Chioggia (IT); metal (16.5%) and wood (machined) in Molfetta; glass (19.4%) and textiles (43.3%) in Vira; wood (natural) in Cesenatico (28.4%); and 'other' in Corfu (35.8%).

Port distribution (24 months) 45 40 35 30 25 %

20 15 10 5 0 metal

plastic

glass

rubber

wood (machined)

wood (natural)

textile

other (from fishing activity)

Corfu (GR)

Herceg Novi (MN)

Bar (MN)

Budva (MN)

Koper (SL)

Izola (SL)

Vira (HR)

Tribunj (HR)

Ancona (IT)

Monopoli (IT)

Fano (IT)

Cesenarico (IT)

Molfetta (IT)

Chioggia (IT)

Cattolica (IT)

8

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Distribution of litter collected by port and by typology Over the 3 months of 2014, the 8 ports that participated in the collection fished 4% of the total – 5,788.8 kg of marine litter. The 3 most fished materials were plastic, rubber and wood (natural). In Corfù (GR), Koper (SL), Izola (SL) and Vira (HR) plastic was the main waste collected (8.8%, 0.7%, 1.5% and 12.8% respectively for the total in that year); in Herceg Novi, rubber (6.6%); in Bar (MN), Budva (MN) and Cattolica (IT), wood (natural) (4.8%, 1% and 10% respectively).

Port distribution (2014) 14,0 12,0 10,0 8,0 % 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0 Corfu (GR) Herceg Novi Bar (MN) Budva (MN) Koper (SL) (MN)

metal

plastic

glass

rubber

wood (machined)

wood (natural)

Izola (SL)

textile

Vira (HR) Cattolica (IT)

other (from fishing activity)

In 2015, the number of ports increased from 8 to 12. During the year 81,153.8 kg di marine litter (57% of the total) were collected. Plastic is by far the material mainly collected in the ports: 

Izola (SL) 0.11%



Vira (HR) 5.7%



Tribunj (HR) 3.5%



Ancona (IT) 2.2%



Molfetta (IT) 4.9%



Chioggia (IT) 22.3%



Cattolica (IT) 2.8%

In Herceg Novi (MN), Budva (MN) and Koper (SL), metal is the most fished material (2.2%, 2,.% and 0.14% respectively of the total for the year). In Bar (MN), wood (natural) was the main material making up 2.4% of total marine litter. The high quantity of plastic collected in Chioggia was due to the collection of the mesh used in mollusc farming and fished by a vessel equipped with rapid gear – trawl nets with rigid net mouths used for catching demersal fish – operating in the sea zone near the mollusc farms.

9

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Port distribution/type (2015) 25 20 15 % 10 5 0

metal

plastic

glass

rubber

wood (machined)

wood (natural)

textile

other (from fishing activity)

In the last year, the collection occurred in 15 ports and contributed to 39% of the total marine litter fished (56,680 kg). 2 of the 3 new Italian ports introduced in 2016 (Cesenatico and Fano) contributed to more than 30% of the marine litter collected. More than a half of the ports involved (Herceg Novi (MN), Budva (MN), Koper (SL), Izola (SL), Vira (HR), Tribunj (HR), Molfetta (IT) and Chioggia (IT)) mainly collected plastic, followed by wood (natural) in the Italian ports of Ancona, Fano, Cattolica and Cesenatico.

Port distribution/type (2016) 12 10 8 % 6 4 2 0

metal

plastic

glass

rubber

wood (machined)

wood (natural)

textile

other (from fishing activity)

10

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Data analysis results in each port The table below shows the results of each port concerning the total of marine litter collected. Chioggia (IT) is the port contributing the most, collecting 22% of the total waste collected (31,085 kg), followed by Vira (HR) (14%) and Molfetta (IT) (11%).

Total recovery/ports

Corfu (GR) 3% Cattolica (IT) Herceg Novi (MN) 5% 5% Bar (MN) 7% Chioggia (IT) 22%

Budva (MN) 5% Izola (SL) Koper (SL) 0%

0%

Vira (HR) 14% Molfetta (IT) 11%

Cesenatico (IT) 7%

Tribunj (HR) 8% Ancona (IT) 9%

Fano (IT) 4%

Monopoli (IT) 0%

Following, the data of each port is shown divided by the typology of material collected. The ranking is based on the percentage of material collected by each port.

11

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Chioggia (IT)

Chioggia (IT) metal 4% textile rubber 7% 10%

plastic 79%

Vira (HR)

Vira (HR) other (from metal fishing activity) textile 13% 5% 14% wood (machined) 7% rubber plastic 11% 42% glass 8%

Molfetta (IT)

Molfetta (IT) wood (natural) 4% wood metal (machined) 19% 10% rubber 12% glass 9% plastic 46%

12

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Ancona (IT)

Ancona (IT)

metal 14%

wood (natural) 32%

wood (machined) 1%rubber 13%

plastic 29% glass 11%

Tribunj (HR)

Tribunj (HR)

other textile 2% metal 13% 15% wood (machined) 8% rubber 12% glass 8%

plastic 42%

Cesenatico (IT)

Cesenatico (IT) other 1% metal 4%

wood (natural) 53%

plastic 38% glass 1%

wood rubber(machined) 2% 1%

13

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Bar (MN)

Bar (MN)

other 14%

metal 14%

plastic 21%

wood (natural) 26%

glass wood (machined)rubber 5% 3% 17%

Herceg Novi (MN)

Herceg Novi (MN)

other wood 7% (natural) 16% wood (machined) 1% rubber 25%

glass 4%

metal 25%

plastic 22%

Cattolica (IT)

Cattolica (IT)

metal 6% wood (natural) 41% rubber 4%

plastic 43%

wood glass (machined) 4% 2%

14

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Budva (MN)

Budva (MN) wood (natural) wood 10% (machined) 3%

metal 32%

rubber 30% plastic 15%

glass 10%

Fano (IT)

Fano (IT)

metal 14%

wood (natural) 34%

rubber wood 2% (machined) glass 7% 13%

plastic 30%

Corfu (GR)

CorfĂš (GR)

metal 5%

other 51%

plastic 42% wood (machined) 1% rubber 1%

15

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Monopoli (IT)

Monopoli (IT)

metal 10%

other textile12% 0% wood (natural) 18% wood (machined) 9% rubber 8%

plastic 29%

glass 14%

Izola (SL)

Izola (SL)

metal 18%

other 20%

wood (machined) 2% rubber 6% glass 3%

plastic 51%

Koper (SL)

Koper (SL)

other 17% metal 37%

rubber 6% glass 1%

plastic 39%

16

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

In making a general evaluation and confirming the non-statistical validity of data, it can be said that the materials collected, cause of the characteristics of the fishery (mainly bottom trawlers), is waste present on the seabed, and from this it can be derived that plastic, mainly present as floating litter, even though in a very high percentage also on the bottom, is not representing the real presence in the sea.

The collection by the fishermen of wood (natural), which makes up a high percentage even though not belonging to the category of "waste", is due to the fact that tree trunks and branches, especially floating ones, can damage the fishing gear and, therefore, are very often collected and brought back to port by the fishermen.

17

The project is co-funded by the European Union, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance