Stakeholders’ Perspectives for Taking Action to Prevent Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear in Gillnet Fisheries, Taiwan

Abstract

Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) and ghost fishing are becoming increasingly severe, hurting marine ecology and inspiring worldwide concern. The Global Ghost Gears Initiative (GGGI) is committed to building a best practice framework for the management of fishing gear and believes that proper and systematic marking of fishing gear will help mitigate the impacts of ALDFG and ghost fishing. However, the mandatory marking of gear for fishery management, without considering the geographical characteristics of each region, could lead to confrontations between the government and the industry. This study used ranking, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and interviews to obtain the opinions of different groups regarding the choices and preferences of stakeholders in the assessed factors of taking action to prevent ALDFG and reduce the harm caused by ghost fishing. The results show that the factors “B2, Informing and counseling”, “P2, Fishing gear marking”, and “P1, Regulation” had consensus and were valued by each group. In contrast, “P3, Announcing the location”, “R1, Equipment for boat recovery”, and “R5, Environmental label” were not yet in line with the custom of gillnet fisheries in Taiwan. These results can accelerate the integration of opinions, consider appropriate compromise solutions, and coordinate ideas among different groups to implement reasonable and efficient fishing gear marking management measures.

1. Introduction

The amount, distribution, and effects of abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) have risen substantially over recent decades, with the rapid expansion of fishing activity and fishing grounds and the transition to synthetic, more durable, and more buoyant materials used for some or all fishing gear types [1,2,3,4,5]. Although it is commonly cited that 640,000 tons of ALDFG enters the ocean each year, this figure remains difficult to substantiate [6]. ALDFG residues trap and entangle marine organisms in the sea, causing a phenomenon known as “ghost fishing,” resulting in the loss of fish stocks [7] and a decline in fishery productivity and overall fishery resources. In addition, ALDFG can cause widespread regional destruction of habitat [8], including vulnerable coral reefs [9,10,11,12] and benthic marine habitats [13,14,15]. The impact of ALDFG on marine organisms has been widely documented [16,17,18,19,20]. It causes depletion and accelerated deterioration of fish stocks while increasing the trend of illegal fishing [21]. Fishing gear may be intentionally discarded to hide evidence of illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing activity. Under these circumstances, fishers may abandon or intentionally discard their gear to evade capture [20]. Moreover, marine plastic litter costs marine ecosystems approximately USD 13 billion a year in environmental damage [22]. ALDFG has significant negative economic and social costs [2] and poses a severe threat to the safety of maritime navigation [2,4,23].

Bad weather is the most commonly reported cause of gear loss across all studies (69%), the second is gear conflict (57%), and the third is the ensnarement of fishing gear on bottom obstructions [24]. Other causes include poor gear conditions, unaccounted-for gear left at sea, and inappropriate disposal [25]. Drinkwin [26] mentioned that gillnets and trammels nets (which are similar to a gillnet but are made up of three layers of netting) are widely acknowledged to be the most damaging type of ALDFG. They are easily lost due to conflicts with other gear, vessels, and animals, as well as through snagging on bottom obstructions, especially demersal types [27,28,29]. The negative impacts of ghost fishing caused by ALD gillnets can be severe [30,31,32,33,34].

The World Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has held several expert consultation meetings on fishing gear marking and adopted the Voluntary Guidelines on the Marketing of Fishing Gear in July 2018 [35] as a reference for national legislation. It has also collaborated with the Global Ghost Gears Initiative (GGGI) to address the global ALDFG issue. In 2019, FAO and GGGI collaborated to organize seminars [36] that indicated various best practices and management strategies suggested by different stakeholders, totaling 74 recommended practices. GGGI [37] suggests that the best practices to prevent ALDFG and reduce the ongoing harm of ghost fishing can be divided into three measures: prevention, mitigation, and remediation. The stakeholders mentioned by GGGI include fishers, fisher’s organizations, fishery control/regulatory bodies, fishery managers, ports/port operators, aquaculture companies, fishing gear designers/manufacturers, aquaculture certification programs, fisheries, marine researchers, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Chen [38] reported that management schemes addressing marine litter can be divided into four categories: preventive, mitigating, removing, and behavior change, among which the management measures of prevention and behavior-changing are essential in addressing marine litter. Solutions for prevention include source reduction, reuse of waste, recycling, management measures when entering the sea, and gear marking. The environmental, economic, and social impacts of ghost fishing must be studied and communicated to stakeholders, of which fishers and other resource users are critical stakeholders in the use of fishing gear [5]. Fishers’ perspectives on gear-marking-related practices and regulations should also be understood to effectively implement policy and management measures. By doing so, best practices can be adopted to promote collaboration among fisheries stakeholders at the national, regional, and international levels [39].

Gillnet fisheries’ operation has several advantages: they are highly efficient, simple to operate with low energy consumption and low costs, and do not require the cooperation of complex machines. Therefore, they are a common and straightforward way to get started in fishing operations. Gillnet fisheries are the most critical artisanal fisheries along Taiwan’s coastal waters. The artisanal gillnet fisheries’ operation usually only requires 1–2 people and use a small fishing boat less than 20 m long. There are 7662 fishing vessels authorized to operate, primarily in gillnet fisheries, and 2524 fishing vessels operating part-time on a fishing license, accounting for about 50% of the total number of fishing vessels nationwide. The western coastline of Taiwan is the principal place of operation for artisanal gillnet fisheries. Studies indicate that Taiwan’s coastline is polluted by derelict fishing gear and that 70% of marine debris is waste from fisheries [40,41]. Gillnets are not allowed within 3 nautical miles of Taiwan, but ALDFG is often found offshore. In 2017, Keelung City carried out fishery management involving a gillnet marking system with local regulations and obtained good successful experience. To address the problem caused by ALDFG, Taiwan has planned to fully implement the legalization of regulations for marking fishing gillnets as of 2021 to restrict fishing activities. The regulations are supported by the complementary mechanisms of loss notification and recycling of ALDFG to reduce the impact of ghost fishing on marine ecology.

Giskes et al. [20] noted that a key component in the successful management of ALDFG involves heeding the lessons learned from existing projects around the world while acknowledging that management strategies vary significantly across geographies. Therefore, new strategies must be evaluated based on local conditions and needs. The newly implemented gillnet marking system in Taiwan affects various stakeholder groups. However, it is often not implemented or difficult to enforce due to incomplete policies and ordinances, or a lack of organizational compliance, reducing the effectiveness of implementing legalized gear marking. Fishers may have questions and suggestions about fishing gear management measures. Furthermore, implementing the new system may affect fishing operations, affect livelihoods, or result in conflict among user groups with competing interests over the same limited resources [42]. This could result in the ineffective implementation of well-intentioned new measures. The support and acceptance of stakeholders’ attitudes regarding the prevention of ALDFG problems and the adoption of a gear marking management system have a significant impact on management effectiveness. Therefore, this study explored the perspectives of different stakeholders on taking action to prevent ALDFG and reduce the persistent harm of ghost fishing. The goal is to help integrate the views of different stakeholders, understand and mitigate conflicts in fishery management systems, and obtain best practice recommendations that are locally appropriate and consensual to improve the efficiency and appropriateness of management measures.

2. Materials and Methods

This study’s questionnaire was conducted using the ranking and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on taking action to prevent ALDFG and reduce the persistent harm of ghost fishing. According to Chen [38], marine litter management measures include prevention, mitigation, removal, and behavior change. The questionnaire framework adopted the four dimensions. A total of 16 key factors for taking action to prevent ALDFG are summarized based on GGGI best practices list (

Table 1. Key factors based on the GGGI best practices list for stakeholders who can act to prevent lost fishing gear or reduce harm from gear after it is lost.

Code	Factors	Description	Suggested Sources *
Prevention
P1	Regulation	Development of laws, regulations, and penalties—specify legal provisions and penalties to prevent ALDFG and avoid non-compliance with fishing gear marking regulations.	FC6, FC7
P2	Fishing gear marking	Fishing gear marking with the owner to ensure traceability—the fishing gear, buoys, and other components must have the owner’s mark or identifier to make the fish traceable.	F8, FO7, FO8, FC1, GD1, F07, GD7, R1
P3	Announcing the location	Announcement of the location of ALDFG—in conjunction with ALDFG notification, announce the location of the latest ALDFG to prevent gear and net conflicts and navigational risks.	F6, F19, FM11, FM13
P4	Fishing gear restrictions	Restrictions on fishing gear use—restrict the use of specific fishing gear and limit how and when the gear is used, and conduct gear labeling to reduce conflicts with other fishers or ALDFG.	F1, F3, F4, F5, FM1, FM2, FM9, SF1
P5	Fishery zoning	Fishery zoning and restricted operations—restrict the use of specific fishing gear in particular areas, carry out the zoning of fishing grounds, and establish no-fishing zones to avoid gear conflicts.	F1, F3, FO3, FM1, FM2, FM9, SF1
Mitigating
M1	Outbound inspection	Fishing gear inspection is required when fishing vessels leave port—when fishing vessels operate out of port, check whether the fishing gear conforms to the marking regulations and complies with the requirements concerning preventing ALDFG.	FC2, FC3, FC4, FC5
M2	Automatic identification system	Instant location reporting for fishing gear in use—the fishing gear can show the position in real-time, visible to fishing vessels and other vessels, or observed on electronic instruments.	F2, F7
M3	Biodegradable material	Fishing gear made of biodegradable materials—the fishing gear should be made of biodegradable material so that after producing ALDFG, it can decompose in the natural environment.	FM3, GD3, GD6, R2, R3,
M4	Escape mechanism	Adoption of fishing gear with a fish escape mechanism—after ALDFG, the mechanism for fish to escape should still be available on the gear, disabling the gear catch function.	F16, GD2
Removing
R1	Equipment for boat recovery	The vessel should have gear retrieval equipment—the vessel should be equipped with gear retrieval equipment for immediate retrieval and removal of gear in the case of an ALDFG.	F17, F18, FM6, FM5, SF2
R2	Marine waste temporary storage area	Fishing gear retrieval equipment facilities set up on the shore of the fishing port—recycling facilities for discarded fishing gear at fishing port shore facilities, development of fishing waste disposal strategies at the fishing port shore, and provision of places for the fisher to scrap their fishing gear.	F14, F15, P1, P2, P4
R3	Reporting mechanism	Establishing a mechanism to announce ALDFG—report the date, time, place, reason, identification mark, and other messages of loss and be able to hand it over to the relevant departments for integration.	F12, F20, FO5, FM11, FM12, FM14, P3, R4
R4	Incentives and subsidies	Set up subsidies or incentives for the removal and recovery of fishing gear—subsidize or reward the removal of lost fishing gear and recovery and reuse of fishing gear.	FO6, P5, SF5, R5, R6, GD5, N3
R5	Environmental label	Products need to have environmental certification labels—third-party certification with relevant environmental certification labels is required to sell aquatic products.	FO4, F09, SF3, SF4
Behavior changing
B1	Advocacy materials	Production of guidebooks and promotional materials for gear marking and ALDFG circulars—produce instruction manuals and related promotional materials on gear marking and ALDFG notification to promote how to prevent ALDFG and what to do in case of ALDFG.	FO1, E1, E2, E3, N1, N2, FM7, FM8
B2	Informing and counseling	Conducting educational activities such as fisheries counseling and crew training—provide counseling to fishing vessel captains and crew members. Encourage and train them, and conduct educational activities related to ALDFG prevention and gear marking.	FO2, F13, SF1, FM4, FM10

* The translation is based on the contents of [36] (in Appendix 4 workshop materials, handout 1. GGGI best practices list, pp. 72–75). Available online: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9348en (accessed on 2 November 2022).

). The questionnaire framework of the AHP was created, including the 4 dimensions and 16 factors (Figure 1).

The ranking method allows respondents to rank the importance of the factors under the dimensions according to their preferences and perceptions. This process allows them to express their opinions on the main topic and state their reasons and preferences for ranking the factors and reduce logical errors when comparing characteristics. The AHP [43] is used to determine the relative importance of objectives and to derive an appropriate set of weights. This technique has been used widely in fishery management [44,45,46,47,48,49]. The relative importance of each objective is determined through a series of pairwise comparisons. The objectives are arranged in pairs, and in each case, the respondent is asked to indicate the importance of one objective relative to the other using a scale of 1–9.

The scores are considered reciprocal. A matrix of scores can be developed from the comparisons given by

$$A=a_{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{cc}1& a_{12}\\ 1/a_{12}& 1\end{array}& \begin{array}{cc}\cdots & a_{1n}\\ a_{23}& a_{2n}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{cc}⋮& 1/a_{23}\\ 1/a_{1n}& 1/a_{2n}\end{array}& \begin{array}{cc}1& ⋮\\ \cdots & 1\end{array}\end{array}\right]$$

(1)

$${\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^n{a}_{ij}{w}_j={\lambda }_{max}{w}_i\mathrm{x} ,\forall \mathrm{i}\left(a_{ji}=1/a_{ij} and a_{ij}>0\right)$$

(2)

where a_i is an individual element of the preference matrix, i and j indicate the i th and j th indicators, λ max is the largest eigenvalue, and the weights (w) are normalized appropriately,

$${\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^n{w}_i=1 ,w_i=\frac{{\left[{{\displaystyle \prod }}_{j=1}^n{a}_{ij}\right]}^{1/n}}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^n{\left[{{\displaystyle \prod }}_{j=1}^n{a}_{ij}\right]}^{1/n}} {\forall }_i=1,2,\cdots ,n$$

(3)

The positive reciprocal matrix (A) and Equation (2) were solved using the eigenvector method. The solution was normalized in this case, as shown in Equation (3). Furthermore, an indication of respondents’ consistency in providing responses to each pairwise comparison. A consistency index (CI) was measured for the comparison matrix, where

$$CI=\frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1} , CR=\frac{CI}{CR}$$

(4)

The matrix A is considered to be consistent when w_i = a_ijw_j, and its principal eigenvalue is equal to n. The matrix A is said to be inconsistent when λmax > n. The variance of the error inherent in estimating a_ij (a quantitative measure of each respondent’s judgment concerning the importance of objective i over objective j) may then be shown to equal (λmax − n)/(n − 1) [50,51]. A consistency ratio (CR) can be determined and compared to an indicative consistency produced from randomly developed matrices, where the variance of the error is divided by an average consistency index derived from the RI. Perfect consistency occurs when λ max equals n (CR = 0); therefore, the closer λ max is to n, the better the consistency. CR values of less than 10% are desired; however, many authors have accepted values up to 20% in post analysis [50]. If the ratio is more than 0.15, that indicates an invalid matrix [52]. In this study, we used Excel software to write the calculation procedure according to the formula [53]. The field CI ≤0.15 was set as the acceptable level. If the field CI >0.15, the test subjects were asked to recheck the field and were assisted in finding the logical error in the AHP method questionnaire by using the ranking results and then correcting the field. Their questionnaires were considered invalid if the participants were unwilling to make corrections.

In this study, the stakeholder groups were revised to be more consistent with the actual situation in Taiwan, namely: (1) fishermen, (2) fisher cooperatives, (3) fishery managers, (4) researchers, and (5) NGOs. The respondents were identified as: “fishermen” included a group of fishers in the local fishing port; “fisher cooperatives” included the director general or head of the local fishery association; “fishery managers” included the section chief or official contractors in charge of gillnet fisheries in local government; “researchers” included a group of researchers related to gillnet fisheries; and “NGOs” included a group of non-governmental organizations and volunteers appearing in relevant online news.

Due to the professional expertise, perspectives, and attitudes of the expert group, adopting an expert questionnaire survey can shed light on the relative importance of various factors. The anonymous questionnaire was used in this study, and all participants were fully informed of the guaranteed anonymity and informed why the research was being conducted. In the first questionnaire survey, questionnaires were distributed to participants who had agreed to complete the questionnaire. About 15–16 questionnaires were distributed to each group, including 10 to the NGOs. A total of 71 questionnaires were distributed. Those who agreed to be interviewed but were unwilling to answer the questions and those who filled out the same questionnaire were considered invalid. As such, 63 (fishermen, fisher cooperatives, fishery managers, researchers, and NGOs: 14, 12, 16, 13, and 8, respectively) questionnaires were valid for the ranking, and 59 (13, 11, 15, 13, and 7, respectively) for the AHP method. The sampling locations were primarily fishing ports, local governments, and local fisher’s associations throughout Taiwan (see Figure 2). In the interview survey, to explore the reasons for choosing a particular factor, the researcher asked participants to describe their feelings and motivations on the issues they care about and expand the opportunities for free talking and discussion. Excluding the discussion time of other topics, the expert interviews lasted approximately 30 min–1 h.

3. Results

3.1. Stakeholders’ Perspective on the Four Dimensions

The first questionnaire survey used ranking and the AHP method to explain stakeholders’ attitudes toward the main topic (Figure 3). Among the five stakeholder groups, four groups, including fisher cooperatives, fishery managers, researchers, and NGOs, considered “prevention” the most important. These four groups also shared the view that “removing” should be ranked last. “Behavior changing” was the most important to the fishermen, while “mitigating” was the least important. From the interviews, most stakeholders in the four groups suggested that “prevention” was better than cure. In addition, fishermen revealed that most fishers do not want the government to strengthen fishery control. However, suppose the government should implement measures such as gear marking regulations and ALDFG notification. In that case, it must inform the fisherman in advance and advocate for them frequently to remind and assist them in cooperating with the relevant matters to establish operational habits. However, the gear marking system would increase their labor and cost. Therefore, while the government is strengthening fishery management, fishermen expect fisher cooperatives and fishery managers to provide timely assistance and advocacy to reduce complicated procedures. This way, fishermen can find that it is easy to operate, and the change will not affect their income.

3.2. Stakeholders’ Perspective on the Factors

3.2.1. Preventive Dimension

The AHP method is used to establish factors’ importance for taking action to prevent ALDFG. In the preventive dimension result (Figure 4A and

Table 2. Additive weight and rank among important factors for taking action to prevent ALDFG based on stakeholder groups’ AHP questionnaires.

	Fishermen (13)				Fisher Cooperatives (11)				Fisheries Managers (15)
	Weight	Rank in Dimension	Additive Weight	Rank in Factors	Weight	Rank in Dimension	Additive Weight	Rank in Factors	Weight	Rank in Dimension	Additive Weight	Rank in Factors
Preventive	0.240				0.323				0.398
P1	0.248	2	0.059	5	0.279	2	0.090	5	0.196	3	0.078	5
P2	0.249	1	0.060	4	0.291	1	0.094	4	0.282	1	0.112	2
P3	0.158	5	0.038	11	0.139	5	0.045	11	0.096	5	0.038	10
P4	0.184	3	0.044	8	0.146	3	0.047	9	0.229	2	0.091	3
P5	0.161	4	0.039	10	0.145	4	0.047	10	0.196	4	0.078	6
Mitigating	0.123				0.256				0.186
M1	0.340	1	0.042	9	0.436	1	0.112	3	0.233	3	0.043	9
M2	0.289	2	0.036	12	0.186	3	0.048	8	0.113	4	0.021	15
M3	0.185	3	0.023	14	0.222	2	0.057	6	0.394	1	0.073	7
M4	0.185	4	0.023	15	0.156	4	0.040	13	0.260	2	0.048	8
Removing	0.262				0.176				0.135
R1	0.093	4	0.024	13	0.208	3	0.037	14	0.253	1	0.034	11
R2	0.173	3	0.045	7	0.293	1	0.051	7	0.160	4	0.022	14
R3	0.188	2	0.049	6	0.200	4	0.035	15	0.211	3	0.029	13
R4	0.470	1	0.123	3	0.230	2	0.041	12	0.241	2	0.033	12
R5	0.076	5	0.020	16	0.069	5	0.012	16	0.134	5	0.018	16
Behavior	0.375				0.245				0.281
B1	0.42	2	0.157	2	0.486	2	0.119	2	0.288	2	0.081	4
B2	0.58	1	0.218	1	0.514	1	0.126	1	0.712	1	0.200	1
	Researchers (13)				NGOs (7)
	Weight	Rank in dimension	Additive weight	Rank in factors	Weight	Rank in dimension	Additive weight	Rank in factors
Preventive	0.421				0.433
P1	0.375	1	0.158	2	0.372	1	0.161	1
P2	0.261	2	0.110	3	0.276	2	0.120	3
P3	0.078	5	0.033	12	0.069	5	0.030	13
P4	0.151	3	0.064	5	0.151	3	0.065	5
P5	0.136	4	0.057	7	0.131	4	0.057	7
Mitigating	0.199				0.256
M1	0.405	1	0.081	4	0.414	1	0.106	4
M2	0.176	3	0.035	11	0.178	3	0.046	8
M3	0.262	2	0.052	8	0.237	2	0.061	6
M4	0.157	4	0.031	13	0.171	4	0.044	9
Removing	0.145				0.129
R1	0.177	3	0.026	14	0.174	4	0.022	15
R2	0.147	4	0.021	15	0.261	2	0.034	11
R3	0.253	2	0.037	10	0.196	3	0.025	14
R4	0.311	1	0.045	9	0.309	1	0.040	10
R5	0.112	5	0.016	16	0.060	5	0.008	16
Behavior	0.235				0.181
B1	0.246	2	0.058	6	0.182	2	0.033	12
B2	0.754	1	0.177	1	0.818	1	0.148	2

The codes (P1, P2,…) are explained in Table 1.

), fishermen (weight in dimension: 0.249), fisher cooperatives (0.291), and fishery managers (0.282) chose P2, Fishing gear marking as the most critical factor. Researchers (0.375) and NGOs (0.372) chose P1, Regulation, as the most critical factor. Most stakeholder groups ranked these two factors in the top position and agreed that implementing a gear marking system for gillnet fisheries and establishing relevant legal rules and penalties would be extremely helpful in mitigating the ALDFG problem. On the contrary, if the fishing gear marking system adopts a flexible approach of persuasion and counseling, management effectiveness would be limited. All stakeholder groups mentioned that prior persuasion has limited effectiveness based on human nature. However, when penalties and fines are imposed and suppression is strengthened, management is effective and will gradually become habitual and common sense. Reasons for choosing factors P1 and P2 include that the gear marking system focuses on attributing responsibility. Fishing gear marking can increase a fisherman’s caution and sense of honor when working at sea, make it easier to identify the location of fishing nets, improve the safety of the marine environment, and reduce marine debris. It can reduce conflicts with other fishery species and can be used to remind and supervise each other within the group. As a downside, fishermen believe that fishing operations will be restricted, directly impacting additional workforce and funds and carrying the pressure of fines and penalties for operations. Fishery managers and fisher cooperatives must bear the complaints from fishermen, spend extra budgets, increase personnel to conduct counseling activities and print publicity materials, cooperate by establishing a regulatory notification mechanism, and coordinate cross-unit collaboration.

The five stakeholder groups assigned the lowest importance ranking to factor P3, Announcing the location. The weight and ranks within the dimension are as follows: fishermen (0.158, 5), fisher cooperatives (0.139, 5), fishery managers (0.096, 5), researchers (0.078, 5), and NGOs (0.069, 5). Each group noted that this factor had no discernible effect. They specified that gillnet fisheries use floating gillnets; even if the location of loss is recorded in real-time, there is no way to find it after drifting away because the recorded location does not match the actual operation. Furthermore, respondents described that gillnet gear had cost considerations, as gear needs to be repaired when broken, involving human labor, and gear needs to be repaired when entangled with small trash or tree branches. Fishermen do not intentionally risk having their gillnet entangled with extensive reefs. Moreover, fishers usually know the location of extensive reefs on the seafloor and will avoid them when working. Therefore, each group ranked the P3 factor last within the preventive dimension. In addition, in P4, Fishing gear restrictions, and P5, Fishery zoning, three groups (fishery managers, researchers, NGOs) recommended enhancing fishery restrictions, but two groups (fishermen, fisher cooperatives) did not perceive the benefits, and some people question the fairness of these restrictions and the potential for conflicts of interest.

3.2.2. Mitigating Dimension

In the mitigating dimension results, shown in Figure 4B and Table 2, the M1, Outbound inspection factor had the highest importance among all of the stakeholder groups: fishermen (0.340, 1), fisher cooperatives (0.436, 1), fishery managers (0.233, 3), researchers (0.405, 1), and NGOs (0.414, 1). The M1 factor has a reminder effect on fisher’s operations and acts as an advocate. Fishermen generally cooperated with the government’s management policy in fishing ports where there were inspections or joint audits of gillnet gear marking. They allowed people from fishery managers or fisher cooperatives to assist in marking gillnet gear. However, checking gillnet gear marking when fishing vessels are out at sea requires additional government personnel. Therefore, cross-unit collaboration and enforcement are critical points for effectiveness. The inspection may lead to complaints from fishermen about the cumbersome and time-consuming procedures at sea, which may weaken the significance of this factor and cause different implementation intensities at local fishing ports. The M3, Biodegradable material factor, was ranked second in importance. Ideally, suppose nets comprise degradable materials. In that case, the occurrence of ALDFG does not create a problem. However, fishermen believe that biodegradable materials mean that the gear is not durable; non-durable tools will undoubtedly increase costs. Fishermen are unwilling to buy biodegradable gear unless it is used uniformly at the source of gear production, if it is strictly required, or if biodegradable materials are already widely accepted worldwide. If fishermen are unwilling to adopt a well-intentioned approach, the original design and development will be lost. Fishermen still prefer nets composed of durable materials that require less effort to operate. This factor can provide a reference for researchers to develop new materials in the future that can decompose in the natural environment but that need to be durable. Therefore, more research is required to convince fishermen to use new materials.

The M4, Escape mechanism factor was ranked as the least important under this dimension. The M4 factor focuses on the fact that gear still has an escape mechanism for fish after ALDFG is generated, making the gear capture function dysfunctional. The ALDFG issue includes cage gear, and the respondents felt that this factor should be applied to the cage gear category. It is difficult to imagine a way for fish and crabs to escape after losing gillnet gear. Therefore, the M4 factor does not correspond to the actual operation of gillnet fisheries. Fishermen think that the M2, Automatic identification system factor is well-intentioned and usable. However, considering operating costs, the cost and the legality of AIS are crucial points for fishermen to adopt. The number of artisanal gillnet fishing vessels in Taiwan that use AIS to mark the location of fishing gear is still small. He and Suuronen [54] mentioned that using automatic identification systems (AIS) as gear markers is in a grey area regarding legality. The technology is mature, reasonably priced, and has the potential to avoid gear conflicts, allowing for location tracking, capacity management, and combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing fisheries.

3.2.3. Removing Dimension

In the removing dimension results, shown in Figure 4C and Table 2, the R4, Incentives and subsidies factor ranking was higher under this dimension: fishermen (0.470, 1), Fisher Cooperatives (0.230, 2), fishery managers (0.241, 2), researchers (0.311, 1), and NGOs (0.309, 1). The interviews with the fishermen indicate that they found the measures to subsidize or reward the removal and recovery of fishing gear highly attractive. Under the current policy, the local government supports the recovery of gillnet at NTD 15 per kg. Fishermen are willing to hand gillnets over to the local government for recovery when the gillnet is broken and unusable. Interviews with other groups revealed that this is labor-intensive for local fisher cooperatives and fishery managers that assist with gillnet recovery. Only some nets can be used as raw materials for other supplies. Those that are badly damaged are not easily disposed of; they cannot be recycled and are instead sent to incinerators. The Researchers and NGOs agreed that subsidies or incentives could be provided to increase the fisher’s willingness to recycle fishing gear.

On the other hand, the NGOs believe that “user pays” should be introduced instead of relying on government budget subsidies. Fishing nets are a tool for fishers to make money. The profits from the catch should be partially returned to the marine environment. They suggest that the cost of purchasing fishing nets could be increased to become a net sea funding, or the government can directly tax the net-making companies. For the R5, Environmental label factor, all groups considered this factor to be of low importance. The interviews illustrated that the R5 factor did not substantially influence current fishery consumption habits in Taiwan. Fishermen expressed that the demand for fresh catches in the market exceeds supply, and when the fishers employing artisanal gillnets return to the fishing port in the morning after one night of work, buyers are already waiting by the port. Hence, these fishers are not afraid that no one will buy their catches. Therefore, the certification by environmental labels on the catches is not within the scope of artisanal fisheries. While this factor is well-intentioned and consistent in expanding the high-end international consumer market, it is not practical for artisanal gillnet fisheries.

3.2.4. Behavior-Changing Dimension

In the behavior-changing dimension, as shown in Figure 4D and Table 2, all stakeholder groups considered the B2, Informing, and counseling factor to help mitigate ALDFG problems through educational activities such as fishery counseling and training. During the interviews, fishermen and fisher cooperatives thought that ALDFG problems were unintentional since fishermen did not want to lose their nets. In contrast, fishermen must be informed and counseled in advance when gear marking is regulated and enforced. Fishery operators in the fishermen group and the fishers’ perspectives and cooperation are more important than compared to other groups. They expect other groups to assist in the process. The cooperation of fishermen will be higher when posters, and other promotional materials, are located in various places in fishing ports and fishing gear marking devices, such as oil-based signature pens, are provided. Chen [55] suggests that fisher cooperatives increase subject norms and attitudes of fishermen through propaganda, facilitate recycling behaviors by increasing collection facilities, and raise fishermen’s awareness of the marine environment by encouraging them to enroll in marine environmental education programs. Giskes [20] mentioned that one of the key success factors from previous workshops is that stakeholders were able to interact and learn from each other throughout. These recommendations are consistent with this study’s findings.

4. Discussion

Consensus factors can make the implementation of policies easier or can simply augment the management of existing policies. From the overall ranking in factors Table 2), the factors with consensus and importance were B2, Informing and counseling: 1, 1, 1, 1, and 2 for fishermen, fisher cooperatives, fishery managers, researchers, and NGOs, respectively; P2, Fishing gear marking: 4, 4, 2, 3, and 3, respectively; and P1, Regulation: 5, 5, 5, 2, and 1, respectively. The B2 factor was the most critical. Each stakeholder group agreed that when taking action to prevent ALDFG, it is necessary to inform and communicate the concept to fishery-related personnel in advance and to widely advocate and assist and counsel fishers to cooperate with management measures. Highlights include having educational activities to form common sense habits in the future. Modern technology can also promote awareness, such as smartphone communication software. Stakeholders can create a joint smartphone group to share information among fishermen, fisher cooperatives, and fishery managers. This can be the most direct way to communicate with fishermen when taking action. During training activities, fishermen communicate to increase knowledge regarding ALDFG prevention, share gear entanglement resolution cases, and directly dispel fishers’ doubts [36]. Researchers still suggest that several measures can be taken to alleviate the problem of ALDFG, including fishermen experimenting with marine debris recycling, installing appropriate PRF equipment, encouraging environmental education, promoting the recovery of lost fishing gear, encouraging the use of environmentally friendly fishing gear, and promoting fishery ground management to reduce conflict and improve gear marking [2,56,57,58,59]. For both factors, P2 and P1, mandatory and regulatory fishing gear marking is a welcome measure that the government will lead. Fishers and the net-making industry will gradually collaborate with each other. Regulating fishing gear marking makes the rules of fishing operation clearer and allows all stakeholders to have laws to follow. Fishermen can operate rationally and effectively to prevent violations. From the psychology of peer comparison and the attribution of responsibility after gear marking, fishermen will be more likely to accept the mandatory and regulatory implementation of gear marking in the future. Fisher cooperatives will gradually launch publicity campaigns to make fishing gear marking common knowledge. Fishery managers can provide timely guidance and correct problems in the implementation process. Researchers and NGOs can propose and supervise the development of practical solutions. Stakeholders can obtain the best answer from each other’s standpoint regarding the main issue.

The unimportant factors with consensus were the P3, Reporting mechanism factor: 11, 11, 10, 12, and 13, respectively; the R1, Equipment for boat recovery factor: 13, 14, 11, 14, and 15, respectively; and the R5, Environmental label factor: 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, and 16, respectively, with the R5 factor being the least important. Giskes et al. [20] mentioned that a key component in the successful management of ALDFG involves heeding the lessons learned from existing projects around the world while acknowledging that management strategies vary significantly across geographies. Due to geographical variability, the R5 factor was not influential according to Taiwanese fish consumption habits for artisanal gillnet fisheries. In addition, the P3 and R1 factors were not considered necessary by the stakeholder groups. During the interviews, responses to P3 included that lost fishing gear would drift away or sink into the sea and be lost; even if the location was announced, it would be meaningless. The responses to R1 included that only some fishing boats are aware of boat recovery. In the case of entanglement or loss, the fastest and most effective way is to retrieve it immediately. However, since fishing vessels are profit-oriented, this factor costs more in terms of equipment cost, space on board, and training of operators, which is not consistent with the business practices of the fishing industry. Similar results were mentioned by Drinkwin [26] regarding the barriers for fishers to encounter and retrieve ALDFG at sea. The most common barrier was the lack of deck space on the fishing vessel, followed by economic barriers such as the cost of equipment to recover ALDFG.

Conflict factors with different positions among stakeholder groups were M3, Biodegradable materials; R3, Reporting mechanism; and R4, Incentives and subsidies. The M3 factor was considered unimportant by the fishermen but essential by the other four groups. The previous interview indicated that fishermen deemed decomposable materials as non-durable, and non-durable tools undoubtedly increase operating costs. Artisanal fisheries had small scales of operation and were concerned about high operating costs. As such, these fishers would prefer nets with durable materials that provide labor savings for their operations. Although other groups believe that using biodegradable materials would mitigate the ALDFG problem ideally, there are no degradable materials that fishers have approved. He and Suuronen [54] mentioned that study using coded wired tags for marking the origin of fishing rope in Massachusetts (USA), but prohibitive costs to mark the gear that would result in a satisfactory degree of identification in the fishery and imbedding RFID tags to ropes still face great challenges in terms of the durability of the tags and the ropes they embedded. These results are consistent with this study’s findings; Fishermen prefer fishing composed of durable materials and pay attention to the cost of fishing gear. The R4 and R3 factors were considered necessary by fishermen but not by the other four groups. Respondents identified the problems of ghost fishing, habitat destruction, navigation safety, and gear entanglement caused by ALDFG as being too costly in terms of time and workforce to deal with. Hence, it is better to prevent or reduce the possibility of problem occurrences beforehand. Related studies also highlighted that the recovery and cleanup of ALDFG are costly, complex, and time-consuming [60,61]. Giskes et al. [20] found that fishers do not want to create ALDFG problems because gear replacement is expensive, can result in lost time, and may affect future catch efficiency. In the interviews, fishermen emphasized that small-scale artisanal gillnet fisheries, where the fishermen themselves perform gear preparation before the actual fishing operation, would never want to intentionally cause ALDFG or risk damaging gear. The previous interviews indicate that fishermen would be happy to cooperate with providing subsidies and incentives because fishermen easily understand direct and fast-approved subsidies and incentives. However, recycling discarded fishing nets is labor- and material-intensive. Drinkwin [26] mentioned that reporting accurate locations of where gear is lost also helps with its efficient retrieval [29,62]. Fishermen simply believe that they are exempt from fines if gillnets are accidentally lost and report the date, time, position, and length of gillnets lost to the Fishery Radio Station or fisher cooperatives. This is a simple way to reduce reporting pressure. For other groups, although the R3 factor is very important, but when compared with other factors, they feel powerless and will take more time to remedy the situation after ALDFG has occurred. The conflict regarding these three factors among stakeholder groups is evident.

According to [36], in 2019, FAO and GGGI collaborated to organize seminars in the Southwest Pacific (Port Vila, Vanuatu), Southeast Asia (Bali, Indonesia), West Africa (Dakar, Senegal), and South America (Panama City, Panama) to discuss the best approaches and management strategies from the perspectives of different stakeholders. Their results compared with the results of this study: In the Southwest Pacific, the most frequently scored best practices are FC1, Fishing licensing processes should explicitly include requirement to mark and identify fishing gear as a condition to fish; FM11, Ensure there is an effective system in place to report lost or abandoned fishing gear; FM4, Provide education to build awareness of the harm caused by lost fishing gear and the practices available to avoid losing fishing gear. The results are consistent with this study’s factors with consensus and importance of B2, Informing and counseling, and P2, Fishing gear marking findings, but slightly different from the R3, Reporting mechanism. The reason for the difference is the stakeholder category, the seminars’ participants, many of whom were national fisheries department personnel. In Southeast Asia, lack of education on the consequences of ALDFG was mentioned as an associated contributing factor. Regarding potential solutions, one common theme was the potential to develop economic incentives for fishers to encourage their retrieval and recycling of lost fishing gear. The need for fisher education and raising awareness about ALDFG impacts also was widely discussed, as legislation/regulation and associated enforcement. The results are consistent with this study’s factors with consensus and importance of R4, Incentives and subsidies; B2, Informing and counseling; and P1, Regulation. In West Africa, regarding potential solutions to ALDFG, they are more concerned with developing methods to reduce gear conflict, such as marine spatial use of zoning plans and developing infrastructure and processes for collecting and recycling end-of-life gear and retrieving lost gear. However, there is no consensus about P4, Fishing gear restrictions, and P5, Fishery zoning, in this study; the reason for the difference may be due to the different geographical environments. In South America and the Caribbean, the most frequently ranked best practices are F20, Report all lost fishing gear, including FADs, to appropriate authorities, including date, time, and location of and reason for loss; F6, Share information about local conditions and underwater obstructions with others to prevent snagging and gear loss. The results are different from the P3. Announcing the location of this study, the reason for the difference may be due to the different geographical environments.

5. Conclusions

Implementing GGGI’s best practice framework for the management of fishing gear could lead to a reduction of the ALDFG problem and will contribute to reducing the economic losses of fishers from ghost fishing and fishery degradation, ensuring ecological and economic benefits. However, it is essential to acknowledge the significant geographical differences in management strategies among countries. With the different positions of the stakeholders, misunderstandings or lack of consensus and conflict is possible. Starting with the preferred attitude of stakeholders can reduce the conflict of interest and help reduce the problems managers face. In order to explore the best practices for gillnet fisheries in Taiwan, this study used in-depth interviews, a ranking method, and the analytic hierarchy process to obtain the opinions of different groups regarding the choices and preferences of stakeholders in the assessed factors of the locally appropriate and consensus best practice recommendations. This study proposes a simple and practical survey and analysis method by allowing stakeholders to speak about their opinions concerning how to prevent ALDFG and provide an understanding of the differences among stakeholders. This avoids confrontations in meetings among interest-relevant groups involved in negotiations, discussions, and decision making and reduces unnecessary misunderstanding via prior knowledge of the key considerations of different groups. The results provide insight into the varying perspectives held by individual groups and speed up the integration of different opinions in order to facilitate appropriate solutions and smooth negotiations. The results also present an opportunity to re-think and discuss the core values of target issues and can help the groups involved reach sensible decisions.