Agriculture, Food, Environment, and Sustainability

Read this article on ResearchGate 

Environmental Pollution Control by the Domestic Food Processing Sector in Sri Lanka: Sources, Challenges, Regulatory Framework, Identified Gaps, and Strategic Pathways

P. M. N. Mihirani1 and W. R. W. M. S. N. P. Weerakoon2

1Institute of Sustainable Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Sri Lanka.

2Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka.

Abstract

The food processing sector in Sri Lanka is an important contributor to the national economy, rural employment, and food security. However, this sector also contributes to multiple forms of environmental pollution, including effluent discharge, solid waste generation, air emissions, and nutrient loading of waterways. In a context of rapid urbanization, industrial growth, and limited waste management infrastructure, environmental impacts from food processing enterprises and agroindustries present significant challenges for sustainability. This review synthesizes available research, government reports, and policy analyses to examine the nature and sources of pollution associated with domestic food processing, the underlying factors that exacerbate pollution risks, the existing regulatory and institutional framework for pollution control, identified gaps in implementation and monitoring, and strategic recommendations for strengthening environmental performance in the sector. Evidence indicates that pollution control in Sri Lanka’s food processing industry suffers from limited technological capacity in small and medium enterprises, inconsistent enforcement of environmental standards, insufficient wastewater treatment infrastructure, and weak integration of environmental management practices in business planning. Effective pollution control requires integrated efforts encompassing regulatory reform, capacity building, technology adoption, market incentives for cleaner production, and strengthened multiagency coordination.

1. Introduction

The food processing sector in Sri Lanka encompasses the transformation of raw agricultural commodities into edible products including grains, fruits and vegetables, dairy, meat and poultry, fish and seafood, spices, beverages, and confectionery. This sector ranges from informal household operations to formal medium and large scale enterprises. While food processing contributes to value addition and employment, its environmental footprint has become a growing concern due to increasing production volumes, urban expansion, and intensified use of water, energy, and packaging materials.

Environmental impacts associated with food processing include discharge of nutrient rich and organic laden effluents into inland water bodies, emission of air pollutants from combustion processes and dryers, generation of solid organic and inorganic wastes, contribution to municipal waste streams through packaging materials, and noise and odor emissions. The country’s limited waste management infrastructure and regulatory enforcement capacity, particularly outside of major urban centers, compounds the challenge of pollution control. In addition, many small and medium enterprises in the food sector lack technical knowledge and financial resources to adopt pollution mitigation technologies or implement systematic waste reduction practices.

This review aims to provide a comprehensive and integrated analysis of environmental pollution control in Sri Lanka’s food processing sector. The paper examines the potential pollution sources arising from food processing operations, the main factors contributing to environmental degradation, gaps in regulatory and institutional systems, and evidence based recommendations for improving control systems and environmental performance.

2. Sources and Characteristics of Pollution in the Domestic Food Processing Sector

Pollution from food processing arises from multiple streams including liquid effluents, solid wastes, and air emissions. Liquid effluents from food processing are typically high in biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. These pollutants originate from washing, peeling, blanching, fermentation, dairy processing, meat processing, and fish processing operations. Studies of industrial estates and food clusters in Sri Lanka have consistently reported that effluent loads from processing units contain organic matter that, without adequate treatment, can deplete dissolved oxygen in receiving water bodies and harm aquatic ecosystems.

Solid waste streams include organic residues from processing operations, packaging waste such as plastic and paper, and hazardous wastes from cleaning agents and preservatives. Organic wastes have the potential to generate methane and other greenhouse gases if disposed in uncontrolled landfills or open dumps. Accumulation of solid waste in urban and peri urban areas also contributes to vector breeding and public health concerns.

Air emissions arise from combustion processes used in heat generation, drying, and steam production, particularly in larger food processing facilities. Emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and volatile organic compounds can result from the burning of fossil fuels or biomass in boilers, dryers, and ovens. Dust emissions from milling and grinding operations also contribute to localized air quality degradation.

Collectively, these streams of pollution pose ecological, health, and economic risks if not properly controlled. The scale and nature of pollution vary across subsectors, with higher effluent loads typically associated with dairy, meat and fish processing, and high moisture content product lines such as juices and canned foods.

3. Underlying Factors Influencing Environmental Pollution

Multiple factors determine the intensity and management of pollution from the food processing sector in Sri Lanka. One of the most significant drivers is the predominance of small and medium scale enterprises that operate with limited technological capacity. Many processors rely on basic cleaning and production methods without integrated wastewater treatment systems or solid waste segregation practices. The cost of investing in effluent treatment plants, composting facilities, or emission control systems is prohibitive for many small operators.

Another factor is the limited availability and accessibility of centralized waste management infrastructure, especially outside major industrial zones. While large industrial estates in proximity to Colombo, Kandy, and Galle may have access to shared effluent treatment or waste management facilities, processors in rural regions often lack such support, leading to direct discharge of waste streams into rivers, canals, and open spaces.

Water scarcity and high water demand in food processing further exacerbate pollution risks. High water use without recycling or reuse practices increases effluent volumes and the associated pollution load. The absence of water efficient technologies and the lack of incentives for water conservation contribute to this challenge.

Packaging waste is another significant source of environmental burden. The proliferation of plastic packaging in processed foods has increased the volume of municipal solid waste, with low rates of recycling and high incidences of open dumping and burning, which affect both terrestrial and aquatic environments.

The policy environment and enforcement capacity also shape pollution outcomes. Regulatory frameworks exist that set effluent discharge standards and emissions limits, but inconsistent enforcement, limited monitoring capacity of regulatory bodies, and lack of awareness among industry operators weaken compliance. Many food processors are unaware of their environmental obligations or do not have the technical expertise to meet required standards.

4. Regulatory and Institutional Framework for Pollution Control

Environmental regulation in Sri Lanka pertaining to industrial pollution, including from food processing, is governed by multiple legislative instruments and institutions. The Central Environmental Authority (CEA) is the primary regulatory agency responsible for setting and enforcing environmental quality standards, issuing environmental protection licenses, and conducting environmental impact assessments for industrial projects. The National Environmental Act provides the legal foundation for pollution control measures, including standards for effluent discharge, emissions, noise, and waste management.

The CEA has published industry specific guidelines and effluent standards that apply to food processing operations. These standards specify limits for parameters such as biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, and nutrient concentrations in wastewater. Facilities that exceed these limits are required to adopt appropriate treatment technologies to achieve compliance.

In addition to the CEA, other institutions including the Ministry of Industries, provincial councils, and local authorities play roles in licensing, monitoring, and enforcing environmental compliance. The National Water Supply and Drainage Board regulates aspects of water abstraction and wastewater connections, while the Ministry of Health oversees food safety and hygiene practices that relate indirectly to environmental sanitation.

Despite this multi institutional regulatory framework, implementation challenges persist. Overlapping mandates, limited resources for field inspection, and variable technical capacity among regulatory staff hinder consistent enforcement. Many small and medium scale food processors operate with outdated or no environmental permits, and the absence of routine monitoring data makes it difficult to assess compliance on a sector wide basis.

5. Identified Gaps in Pollution Control and Enforcement

One of the key gaps in environmental pollution control for the domestic food processing sector is the limited adoption of wastewater treatment technologies. Most small and medium scale processors lack integrated primary and secondary treatment systems, resulting in direct discharge of untreated or partially treated effluents into municipal drains or receiving water bodies. Studies conducted around industrial clusters have documented elevated levels of organic loading and nutrient concentrations downstream of food processing facilities, indicating inadequate treatment.

Another identified gap is the lack of solid waste segregation and valorization practices within food processing enterprises. Organic residues often end up mixed with general municipal waste rather than being diverted for composting, anaerobic digestion, or use as animal feed. Packaging waste, especially plastics, is frequently disposed in open dumps or burned, contributing to air pollution and littering of landscapes.

Air emission monitoring is also limited. The capacity to measure and enforce emissions standards for particulate matter and combustion related pollutants is concentrated in larger facilities, while smaller processors often operate without any emissions control systems. This gap undermines ambient air quality goals in surrounding communities.

Institutional gaps include insufficient coordination between agencies responsible for environmental regulation, industrial development, and food safety. Many enterprises are subject to multiple reporting requirements but lack clear guidance on how to integrate environmental management into overall business planning.

6. Challenges in Implementing Pollution Control Measures

Several challenges impede effective pollution control in the food processing sector in Sri Lanka. The first is financial constraint, particularly for small and medium scale enterprises. Investment in effluent treatment plants, composting units, or waste to energy systems requires capital that many businesses cannot afford without financial incentives or support mechanisms.

Technical knowledge gaps are also significant. Business owners and operational staff often lack understanding of environmental management principles, including waste characterization, treatment technologies, and pollution prevention strategies. This knowledge deficit limits the ability of processors to adopt cleaner production practices.

Infrastructure limitations further compound the problem. In many regions, centralized effluent treatment plants or engineered landfills are absent, leaving processors with few options for environmentally sound waste disposal. Even where facilities exist, access and affordability may be barriers.

Institutional challenges include limited enforcement capacity of regulatory agencies. Inspections are infrequent, monitoring equipment and laboratories are under resourced, and data management systems for tracking compliance are weak. The lack of public transparency around compliance status reduces accountability.

Finally, policy challenges include the absence of strong incentives for pollution prevention. Regulations primarily focus on post discharge standards rather than proactive measures such as permitting systems that require environmental management plans or environmental performance ratings that reward cleaner producers.

7. Case Studies of Pollution Issues in Food Processing Contexts

Empirical studies in Sri Lanka provide evidence of pollution challenges in specific food processing contexts. Research on dairy processing units in the Western Province revealed high biochemical oxygen demand and nutrient loads in raw effluents, pointing to the need for integrated treatment systems to prevent degradation of nearby watercourses. Similar observations were made in studies of small scale fish processing clusters along the southwestern and western coasts, where effluent discharge carrying organic matter and blood residues contributed to elevated oxygen demand in receiving canals.

Investigations into fruit and vegetable processing operations in agro processing zones highlighted issues with high volumes of wastewater from washing and blanching activities, with inadequate segregation of organic solids prior to discharge. Packaging waste accumulation was also noted in peri urban clusters where municipal collection services were irregular.

These case studies underscore that pollution concerns are not confined to large factories but are pervasive across the sector, including in rural and informal settings where regulatory oversight is weaker.

8. Environmental Pollution Control Approaches and Best Practices

Effective pollution control in the food processing sector hinges on multiple complementary approaches. Wastewater treatment remains central, with technologies ranging from simple equalization and sedimentation tanks to more advanced biological treatment systems tailored to organic rich waste streams. Decentralized wastewater treatment systems provide viable options for rural clusters and small scale processors where centralized infrastructure is absent.

Solid waste management practices such as organic waste composting and anaerobic digestion can convert residues into valuable by products such as soil amendments and biogas. Such circular approaches reduce pollution burden while generating economic returns.

Air emissions control for boilers and dryers can involve scrubbers, bag filters, or transitions to cleaner fuels. Dust collection systems in milling and grinding operations reduce particulate emissions and improve worker health conditions.

Cleaner production practices including water reuse and recycling, process optimization to reduce waste generation, and adoption of energy efficient technologies further support pollution prevention. Training of operators on environmental management and incorporation of environmental performance indicators into business planning foster long term compliance.

Regulatory instruments such as environmental permitting, pollution charges, and compliance reporting systems reinforce pollution control expectations. Integration of corporate environmental responsibility principles encourages enterprises to pursue sustainability beyond mere compliance.

9. Recommendations for Strengthening Pollution Control

Strengthening pollution control in Sri Lanka’s food processing sector requires integrated actions by government, industry, and development partners. First, expanding access to and affordability of wastewater treatment and waste management infrastructure is essential, particularly in rural and peri urban industrial clusters. Public investment, public private partnerships, and financial incentives such as soft loans or tax credits can catalyze adoption of treatment technologies.

Second, capacity building for industry stakeholders on environmental management practices is necessary. Training programs tailored to small and medium scale processors should cover waste characterization, treatment options, cleaner production techniques, and regulatory compliance requirements.

Third, regulatory enforcement must be strengthened. Enhancing inspection frequency, equipping regulatory bodies with monitoring technologies, and improving data systems for tracking compliance will support better oversight. Policy reforms that shift toward proactive pollution prevention, including mandatory environmental management plans for licensed operations, should be considered.

Fourth, promoting circular economy approaches such as organic waste valorization will reduce pollution while generating value. Demonstration projects and technical support can illustrate the feasibility and benefits of composting, anaerobic digestion, and other recovery based systems.

Finally, enhancing multiagency coordination across environment, industry, water, and health sectors will improve alignment of objectives and regulatory clarity. Stakeholder platforms that bring together government, processors, civil society, and research institutions can facilitate shared understanding and collaborative problem solving.

10. Conclusion

The domestic food processing sector in Sri Lanka faces significant environmental pollution control challenges due to effluent discharge, solid waste generation, air emissions, and related impacts. These challenges are amplified by limited infrastructure, technical capacity gaps, weak enforcement, and financial constraints, especially among small and medium scale enterprises. However, opportunities exist to strengthen pollution control through expanded treatment infrastructure, adoption of cleaner production approaches, capacity building, regulatory reform, and circular waste management solutions. Integrated strategies that combine technological, regulatory, economic, and institutional actions are essential to reduce the environmental footprint of food processing while supporting sustainable economic development. Addressing these issues will protect ecosystems, public health, and long term viability of Sri Lanka’s food processing industry.

Read this article on ResearchGate 

Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) and Fishing Gear Waste (FGW) in Sri Lanka:
Review on Knowledge Gaps, Contributing Factors, and Management Effectiveness

W. R. W. M. A. P. Weerakoon, H. B. U. G. M. Wimalasiri, P. M. N. Mihirani, S. M. A. B. Senanayake, J. P. U. Samaraweera, and D. P. R.  Thilakarathne2

1Institute of Sustainable Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Sri Lanka.

2Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka.

Abstract

Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) and end-of-life fishing gear waste (FGW) are increasingly recognized as serious threats to marine ecosystems and fisheries sustainability in Sri Lanka, as elsewhere. This review synthesizes current knowledge on ALDFG and FGW, drawing on recent Sri Lankan studies and regional/global analyses. Global estimates suggest roughly 2% of all fishing gear enters the ocean each year, totaling thousands of square kilometers of nets and millions of lost hooks and traps. In Sri Lanka, a recent fisher survey-based study estimated about 22,600 kg of gear lost per year (∼116 kg per vessel). Gear losses are driven by rough weather, gear entanglement, fishing conflicts, and aging equipment. The ecological impacts include entanglement and mortality of turtles, fish and marine mammals, “ghost” harvesting of fish stocks, and habitat damage (e.g. coral and seagrass smothering), as well as the generation of microplastics as gear degrades. Socioeconomically, lost gear inflicts direct costs on fishers (gear replacement, lost catch) and undermines coastal livelihoods and tourism. In Sri Lanka, regulatory measures already exist – notably the 2015 Fishing Gear Marking Regulations mandating gear tags and loss reporting – but enforcement is limited. Governance is fragmented across fisheries, environment, and local authorities. Current waste management is inadequate: fishers generally retain old nets or mix them with general trash onboard due to lack of specialized disposal facilities.

Various interventions have been trialed globally, from community “ghost net” retrieval dives (e.g. by Pearl Protectors) to gear recycling and buy-back incentives, but systematic evaluation is sparse. Lessons from regional case studies (e.g. Maldives, India) emphasize the value of fisher engagement, gear marking, and the Global Ghost Gear Initiative. Key knowledge gaps for Sri Lanka include spatial inventories of gear loss, quantitative cost assessments, and long-term impact studies. We recommend a coordinated research and policy agenda: this includes comprehensive surveys and tracking of gear loss, development of national gear waste infrastructure (collection and recycling), and pilot implementation of prevention and retrieval programs. A proposed research timeline spans baseline surveys through pilot interventions over five years, involving stakeholders from government, industry, and communities. A holistic management framework is outlined, linking legislation, education, gear marking, reporting systems, and retrieval/disposal operations. Implementing these actions with support from FAO, environmental NGOs, and international funding (e.g. GEF, EU) can help Sri Lanka curb ALDFG/FGW impacts and protect its marine environment while safeguarding fisheries livelihoods.

1. Introduction

Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) refers to nets, lines, traps and other gear that are unintentionally lost or deliberately left in the marine environment. Fishing gear waste (FGW) denotes end-of-life gear that is discarded on land or improperly disposed of onshore, rather than lost at sea. Both ALDFG and FGW generate plastic pollution and “ghost fishing” – the ongoing, unintended capture of marine life by lost gear – with severe ecological and economic effects. Globally, ALDFG has come to attention as a major ocean pollutant; a recent analysis estimates nearly 2% of all fishing gear is lost annually, equating to thousands of square kilometers of nets and millions of hooks and traps drifting in oceans. The FAO and other international bodies have highlighted ALDFG’s “numerous negative environmental and economic impacts”, prompting new guidelines (e.g. FAO gear-marking) and surveys to close knowledge gaps. In Sri Lanka, a tropical island with a large artisanal and industrial fishing fleet, marine plastic pollution – including ghost nets – is of growing concern. Government and NGO reports note turtle entanglements, coral reef debris and gear accumulating in fishing grounds. This review outlines ALDFG/FGW in a Sri Lankan context, drawing on the first nation-wide ALDFG survey and related regional studies, and synthesizes impacts, policy, and management. Aimed at researchers and policymakers, it identifies data gaps and proposes a research agenda to guide effective interventions in Sri Lanka.

2. Prevalence of ALDFG and FGW

2.1 Global and Regional Prevalence

Quantifying ALDFG is challenging due to data scarcity, but existing studies indicate it is pervasive globally. For example, Richardson et al. (2022) estimated 2% of fishing gear is lost at sea annually, including ~3,000 km² of gillnets and 25 million pots/traps. The Global Ghost Gear Initiative has reported ghost gear in all major oceans, with tens of thousands of nets collected by volunteer programs. In South Asia, a World Bank–UN study documented extensive ALDFG: mapping in Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka found concentrated hotspots where gear is lost or accumulates. Currents carry ALDFG regionally; for instance, gear from Bay of Bengal fleets drifts south and can wash up on Sri Lankan coasts. However, formal statistics are lacking: Global surveys find “extremely limited understanding” of ALDFG flows and emphasize the need for national fisher surveys.

2.2 ALDFG and FGW in Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka, baseline data have recently been collected. Gallagher et al. (2022) conducted a national fisher survey (∼600 fishers across coastal and offshore fleets) and estimated approximately 22,593 kg of gear lost or discarded per year from Sri Lankan boats. This equates to roughly 116 kg per vessel that reported losses, indicating a significant but previously undocumented waste stream. The composition of ALDFG was dominated by monofilament nets (particularly gillnets and smaller seines) and ropes. Regional surveys (e.g. on the northwestern coast) similarly identified mesh nets and traps as major debris. FGW has not been systematically measured in Sri Lanka, but is inferred to be high: many fishers replace nets annually, yet no formal disposal system exists. Onboard waste bins hold miscellaneous refuse including damaged gear, and gear is often stored or burned ashore if discarded.

Table 1 compares common Sri Lankan gear types with their typical ALDFG prevalence and management challenges. Gillnets and longlines dominate coastal fleets, often lost during storms or snagging; purse seines and trawls pose high habitat-impact if abandoned. Polystyrene floats, fiberglass boat remnants and ropes also contribute to FGW and ALDFG when not recycled.

(Table 1 near here)

Despite these emerging data, Sri Lanka lacks continuous monitoring of ALDFG/FGW. Catch and gear reports collected by fisheries authorities do not distinguish lost gear. Occasional beach cleans recover nets and buoys, but there is no centralized inventory. The World Bank review noted Sri Lanka’s data gap, excluding it from waste-management surveys due to insufficient information. In summary, ALDFG in Sri Lanka appears substantial but under-documented, and FGW flows are largely unknown. More systematic data (interviews, debris counts, gear audits) are required to quantify the scale and build a robust baseline.

3. Ecological Impacts

ALDFG and FGW threaten marine ecosystems in multiple ways. The most direct impact is entanglement. Abandoned nets and lines continue to catch fish, turtles, dugongs, dolphins and seabirds in a “ghost fishing” process. For example, turtle conservation groups report frequent net entanglements around Sri Lankan reefs. Globally, lost nets have caused large-scale mortalities: one study noted hundreds of turtles and fishes trapped in nets retrieved from Indian Ocean reefs. Bycatch from ghost gear further pressures fish stocks and endangered species.

ALDFG also damages habitat. Nets and ropes entangled in coral and mangroves abrade and break structures, degrading reefs and nurseries. Fishing lines cut through seagrass meadows when dragged, reducing nursery habitats. The regulation definitions of “fouled reefs” and “fouled spawning beds” in Sri Lanka’s gear-marking rules indicate awareness of this problem. Gear abrasion and weight can crush corals and disturb sediment, reducing biodiversity. FGW discarded nearshore contributes debris that smothers benthic fauna and introduces plastics into sediments.

As plastic and synthetic fibers degrade, they produce microplastics and release chemical additives. Recent research confirms that areas contaminated with ghost nets have elevated microplastic levels: sediments in ghost-net zones off Spain contained significantly more plastic particles than control sites. Sri Lanka has identified microplastics in fish and sand, and fishing gear is a likely source, though specific studies are lacking. Additionally, ALDFG plastics can leach persistent organic pollutants and metals used in gear coatings, causing sublethal toxic effects on marine life. Overall, ALDFG and FGW contribute to marine pollution in Sri Lanka, exacerbating coral reef stress, bioaccumulation risks, and navigational hazards.

4. Socioeconomic Impacts

Lost and discarded gear impose direct and indirect costs on Sri Lankan communities. Fishers bear immediate economic losses when gear is lost. Replacing nets and traps is costly, especially for expensive monofilament gear. A survey of northwestern fishers indicated that a significant share of fishers had incurred losses they could not afford. Ghost nets can entangle active gear, requiring extra fuel and labor to disentangle, further reducing catch. If nets drift with catch, they may damage vessels or safety equipment.

Communities also incur expenses in response efforts. Volunteer groups like Pearl Protectors routinely remove ghost nets at their own cost, evidencing a burden on civil society. Hotels and dive shops are concerned about tourist experience: scuba diving and snorkelling can be deterred by underwater debris, and coastal tourism suffers when beaches are fouled with net litter. Although formal studies of economic impact on tourism are lacking, international case studies show that beachfront marine litter can lower visitor satisfaction and harm local revenues.

Beyond finances, there are social and cultural impacts. Coastal communities in Sri Lanka often view a clean sea as part of their heritage; heavy littering and entangled wildlife can affect morale and sense of stewardship. Food security is also at stake: ghost fishing reduces local fish stocks, potentially making catches scarcer and more expensive for local markets. In summary, ALDFG and FGW erode the livelihoods of fishers and related communities. They threaten tourism and coastal economies, and increase costs of coastal management. These socioeconomic burdens, while not yet quantified in Sri Lanka, align with global assessments of ALDFG damages and underscore the need for mitigation.

5. Legal and Policy Framework in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has several laws relevant to ALDFG and FGW, though none address gear waste comprehensively. The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act of 1996 provides the basis for gear regulations. Notably, the 2015 “Fishing Gear Marking Regulations No. I” require all fishing gear to be permanently tagged with the owner’s boat registration and gear type. These rules also mandate that fishers immediately report to the authorities any loss or abandonment of gear. If lost gear poses navigation or environmental hazards (such as ghost fishing, reef damage or blocked spawning areas), fishers must attempt retrieval. These provisions align with FAO’s voluntary gear-marking guidelines and aim to make it possible to trace and recover lost gear.

Sri Lanka has ratified international conventions prohibiting marine pollution. Under MARPOL Annex V (prohibiting all plastic discharge) and regional agreements, dumping plastic fishing gear at sea is illegal. However, enforcement of these laws is uneven. Local regulations on solid waste and environmental protection cover general litter, but specific controls on fishing gear waste are minimal. No Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) or take-back program for nets exists, unlike in some European jurisdictions.

Institutionally, the Ministry of Fisheries (through the Department of Fisheries and provincial fisheries officers) is the lead agency for fisheries compliance. The Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) and local governments have some mandate over marine litter but lack coordination with fisheries. In practice, surveillance of gear marking and loss reporting is weak; fishers rarely report losses due to lack of awareness or fear of penalties. The World Bank review highlights the enforcement gap: despite the 2015 regulations, there is little monitoring or penalty for non-compliance. Inter-agency collaboration is limited; pollution hotspots identified by the Marine Environment Trust Fund are not specifically linked to fishing gear sources.

Overall, Sri Lanka’s legal framework includes key elements (gear marking, no-sea-disposal laws) but lacks a cohesive ALDFG policy. There is no national action plan specifically for fishing gear waste, though Sri Lanka is developing a broader marine litter action plan under SACEP and IMO/GESAMP initiatives. In the absence of a targeted strategy, ALDFG is treated as part of general marine pollution. The existing policies thus present opportunities (e.g. gear marking law) and challenges (fragmentation, low enforcement) for addressing ALDFG/FGW.

6. Fisheries Practices and Supply Chain Factors

A range of gears is used in Sri Lanka’s fisheries, influencing ALDFG patterns. Major gear types include:

• Gillnets (drift and stationary): Widely used nearshore for mullets, sharks and tuna. These are typically monofilament nets of large surface area. They are prone to being snagged on reefs or broken by storms.

• Longlines: Both surface and bottom longlines target tuna and demersal species. Line sections and floats may be lost due to drifting or gear failure.

• Purse seines (ring nets): Employed primarily for shoaling pelagics (scad, sardines) by motorized boats. Though not commonly operated at night (reducing incidental losses), abandonment of large seine frames has occurred when too damaged to repair.

• Prawn and fish trawls: Small trawlers (up to 30 m) operate on coastal banks. Trawl nets (braided) degrade with abrasion; broken trawl codends are often left on board or jettisoned.

• Traps and pots: Lobster traps (wood and string) and crab pots contribute wooden/rope waste. Derelict traps can continue to trap animals (e.g. crabs) and add marine debris.

These gear types have distinct risk profiles. Gillnets and seine nets generate high volumes of lightweight plastic debris, which can drift long distances. Heavy metal and lead in net weights and trawl bobbins can also enter the environment if nets break. Seasonal monsoons (May–June and October–December) bring rough seas that frequently damage gear, and many ALDFG incidents coincide with these periods. Spatially, loss is higher in turbid western waters (heavy fishing pressure) and along the rough Eastern coasts. Larger offshore fleets (tuna longliners) report gear loss from gear warfare and long-range drift.

The supply chain for gear also affects waste. Most nets and ropes are imported (e.g. from India, China), and local net workshops repair but seldom recycle old net material. Disposal options are limited: no formal collection points at harbors or fueling stations. A national survey found fishers rely on ad-hoc arrangements – e.g. burning old nets or dumping them with general trash ashore. Onboard, crews use plastic bins for all waste types, with no separation of FGW. As a result, FGW tends to accumulate on boats or in informal dumps, rather than being properly managed. This supply chain gap – a lack of end-of-life stewardship for gear – is a key driver of FGW.

(Table 2 near here)

Table 2 summarizes key studies and data sources on ALDFG/FGW in Sri Lanka and the region. Notable entries include the Sri Lankan fisher survey by Gallagher et al. (2022) which provides the first national estimate of gear loss, and a NARA (2021) assessment of fishers’ attitudes in the NW coast. Regional assessments (e.g. World Bank 2022) supply comparative context and highlight data gaps.

7. Management Interventions and Effectiveness

7.1 Prevention and Reduction

Preventing ALDFG centers on reducing gear loss and encouraging responsible disposal. Key measures include fisher education, gear marking, and safer fishing practices. Sri Lanka’s gear-marking regulation (2015) aims to reduce illegal discards by linking nets to owners. In practice, awareness of marking requirements is limited; outreach programs via fishing cooperatives and NGOs are needed to boost compliance. Training fishers in gear maintenance and loss-avoidance (e.g. appropriate net tension, seam repair) could reduce accidental breakage.

Regulating destructive practices also helps: for instance, the Ministry encourages selective gear (promoting mechanized longline over drifting gillnets) to lower net waste. Policies like “Operation Clean Sea” (MARPOL enforcement) discourage dumping gear, although enforcement remains low. Voluntary commitments by gear suppliers (e.g. to use more durable materials) could reduce premature gear failure.

Globally, such measures are being bolstered by fishing-gear innovations. Biodegradable netting (polymer nets that degrade in months) is under trial in some countries as a ghost-gear solution. In Sri Lanka, research could explore low-cost natural fibers (coir, hemp) for small nets. Adoption of GPS or RFID tags on expensive nets might aid retrieval, though cost and technology barriers exist for small-scale fishers.

7.2 Retrieval Programs

Retrieval of existing ghost gear is critical to mitigate ongoing impacts. In Sri Lanka, ad-hoc cleanups have been organized by NGOs and volunteers. For example, the conservation group Pearl Protectors and university students conduct periodic dive expeditions that have removed hundreds of kilograms of nets from reefs (unpublished reports). Internationally, community-driven “ghost net” dives (as in the Maldives and Thailand) have proven effective at reef sites, though they require sustained funding. The Maldives’ Olive Ridley Project, for instance, has retrieved over 1,200 nets and rescued 300 turtles.

For Sri Lanka, scaling such programs would involve partnering local dive shops, Coast Guard, and youth groups. Government dive safety guidelines would support broader participation. Retrieval efforts should prioritize sensitive habitats (turtle nesting beaches, spawning sites) identified through mapping exercises. However, ghost-net retrieval is labour-intensive; its cost-effectiveness depends on gear density. Where ghost gear is sparse, prevention may yield better returns.

7.3 Gear Waste Management and Recycling

A critical gap is FGW management on land. Currently, Sri Lanka lacks a formal recycling or collection program for old nets. In contrast, some countries subsidize gear buy-back or recycling. For example, the Pacific island nation of Palau collects old nets for conversion into carpets. In Sri Lanka, an EPR scheme could obligate net importers to finance net recycling or repurposing. Pilot recycling initiatives (e.g. converting nets into rope or textile) might engage small industries. Alternately, simple measures like designated net collection points at harbors, coupled with enforcement of fines for illegal dumping, could reduce FGW discharge.

International donors could assist: the World Bank (through its MARESSOL project) and the Global Environment Facility have funded marine debris projects in Sri Lanka. These could support establishing net collection and shredding facilities. Importantly, any recycling must be economically viable; partnerships with carpet or fishing-tackle industries could create markets for recycled nylon.

7.4 Community and Economic Incentives

Community involvement is essential for sustained ALDFG/FGW management. Fisher cooperatives and local councils can be mobilized to monitor gear loss and share best practices. Awareness campaigns (e.g. coastal clean-up days, school programs) help build social norms against discarding gear. Compensation or incentive schemes could encourage compliance. For instance, token rewards or subsidies for reporting lost gear and returning old nets (a “gear deposit” model) have been proposed internationally. While no Sri Lankan program yet uses direct incentives, creating a small grant fund for community retrieval projects or providing new nets at a discount when old ones are surrendered could align economic interests with conservation.

7.5 Technological and Monitoring Solutions

Technological tools can aid management. The FAO Global ALDFG Survey provides standardized questionnaires and an online portal for data. Sri Lanka should participate in this scheme to compile national data and compare with other countries. On-the-water monitoring (e.g. via aerial drones or community reporting apps) could identify ALDFG hotspots. Early-warning systems, like drifter buoys or crowd-sourced tracking of drifting nets, are potential innovations.

On the institutional side, establishing a reporting hotline or mobile app for fishers to log lost gear would improve accountability. The data collected would feed back into management (e.g. adjusting fishing zones or seasons to reduce gear conflicts). As a compliance measure, proof of gear marking and loss records could become part of license renewal criteria.

7.6 Effectiveness and Cost Considerations

No comprehensive cost–benefit analyses of ALDFG interventions exist for Sri Lanka. Internationally, retrieval is costly (fuel, labor, gear for divers) and often underfunded, whereas prevention (training, marking) is relatively low-cost. We expect that a mix of low-cost measures (awareness, simple infrastructure) and targeted retrieval (at ecologically sensitive sites) will be most cost-effective. Future research should quantify the economic returns of each intervention (e.g. cost per kilogram of net removed, or fishery recovery following net cleanup).

8. Case Studies and Lessons

Sri Lanka: The first national ALDFG study by Gallagher et al. (2022) provides critical insight. It revealed that 82% of lost gear mass was synthetic netting. Key local lessons include the importance of interviewer trust (fishers initially hesitant to admit losses) and the need for wide regional coverage (coastal and offshore). The Sri Lankan gear-marking regulations (2015) are ahead of many countries, suggesting potential to build on existing legal tools.

Maldives: Although a distinct context (no net fishing in reef areas), the Maldives faces ghost nets drifting from India and Sri Lanka. Their community-driven response (Olive Ridley Project) highlights two lessons: (1) Empowering local communities (fishers and youth) to remove nets can yield large collections, and (2) repurposing gear (e.g. into crafts) can provide alternative livelihoods for women. Sri Lanka could adapt this by engaging coastal artisans to use net fibers.

Bangladesh/India: In neighboring Bay of Bengal fisheries, similar drivers of gear loss (monsoons, lack of disposal) have been documented. The FAO-backed Regional ALDFG study found that many Bangladeshi trawlers discard plastic bags and gear at sea due to lack of port facilities. Efforts in Bangladesh to improve port reception facilities offer a model: installing dedicated waste bins on jetties and requiring boats to carry waste to shore. Sri Lanka’s own ports could follow suit.

Global: Countries with advanced ALDFG programs offer transferable tools. For instance, the North Pacific’s “Operation Clean Sweep” mandates proper handling of plastic pellets and gear on vessels, and the UN’s global treaty negotiations on plastics now include gear waste as a priority. The Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI) provides best-practice guidelines and funding. Sri Lanka could join these networks for capacity building. In essence, case studies affirm that multi-stakeholder approaches (governments, NGOs, fishers) and blending policy, technology and community action are key to success.

9. Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities

Significant uncertainties hinder ALDFG/FGW management in Sri Lanka. Major gaps include:

• Quantitative data on FGW flows: No studies quantify how much gear waste is generated annually or its disposal routes. Research should track gear turnover (e.g. how often nets are replaced) and survey onshore disposal practices.

• Spatial mapping of ALDFG: Little is known about geographical hotspots of ghost gear. Mapping efforts (through beach surveys, remote sensing, fisher logbooks) are needed to target interventions.

• Cost and economic impact: The financial burden of gear loss on fishers and the broader economy is unquantified. Socioeconomic studies (surveys, economic modelling) are needed to justify investments in mitigation.

• Ecological risk assessment: The long-term effects of gear entanglement on Sri Lankan marine life (e.g. population impacts on turtles or reef fish) have not been measured. Monitoring programs in key habitats are a priority.

• Policy and governance analysis: The effectiveness of existing regulations (gear marking, no-discharge) in practice is unknown. Governance research should evaluate institutional coordination, enforcement capacity, and fisher compliance.

• Intervention trials: Pilot projects (e.g. a gear buy-back or a community retrieval campaign) should be rigorously evaluated for ecological and cost outcomes. Such applied research will inform best practices.

Addressing these gaps will require interdisciplinary studies, combining marine science, social science, and economics. Given the lacuna, a national ALDFG research program is recommended. This should include regular repetition of fisher surveys (integrated into the FAO global survey framework), debris monitoring at sea and on beaches, and adoption of emerging technologies (like drones) for detection.

10. Recommendations and Research Agenda

Based on the above synthesis, the following practical recommendations and research plan are proposed:

1. Enhance data collection: Initiate systematic fisher surveys using FAO’s ALDFG questionnaires. Expand the scope to include inland (estuarine) and small-scale fisheries. Establish a national ALDFG database to track losses over time.

2. Strengthen policy enforcement: Conduct awareness campaigns among fishers about the 2015 gear marking and reporting regulations. Assign fisheries officers and harbor masters to monitor compliance (e.g. checking gear tags during routine inspections).

3. Improve waste management infrastructure: Pilot installation of net-collection containers at major fishing harbors, linked to recycling or safe disposal programs. Incorporate net recycling (e.g. into construction materials or artisanal products) and seek public-private partnerships to fund these.

4. Support community retrieval: Provide small grants or equipment (e.g. snorkeling gear) to local groups (e.g. Pearl Protectors, dive clubs) to conduct regular ghost net clean-ups. Build a volunteer network for reporting and physical removal of ALDFG.

5. Investigate biodegradable gear: Collaborate with research institutes on trials of biodegradable net materials for certain fisheries. If viable, develop standards and incentives for their use.

6. Implement monitoring systems: Establish a national reporting hotline/app for lost gear. Use GPS drifters or satellite tracking buoys on test nets to model drift patterns and predict accumulation zones.

7. Promote Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Convene a multi-stakeholder working group (fisheries, environment, fishing industry) to design an EPR scheme for nets and ropes, modeled on best-practice examples. Consider a small eco-fee on gear sales to fund collection.

8. Integrate ALDFG in tourism and education: Work with the tourism sector to raise awareness (e.g. “blue-green” certification for resorts that remove nets from reefs). Include ALDFG modules in marine biology and fisheries curricula at universities.

Figure 1 below illustrates a suggested research agenda timeline over five years (2026–2030), combining baseline studies, pilot projects, and policy implementation stages. Key activities include stakeholder consultations, expanded surveys, gear waste audits, and intervention rollouts. Figure 2 presents a conceptual management framework linking government policies, fisher actions, and community initiatives in an integrated effort to reduce ALDFG/FGW.

References

• FAO (2026). Abandoned, Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG). Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. [Online Resource] (FAO responsible fishing page).

• Gallagher, A. N., Randall, P., Sivyer, D., Binetti, U., Lokuge, G., & Munas, M. (2022). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) in Sri Lanka – A pilot study collecting baseline data. Marine Policy, 148, 105386.

• Richardson, K. L., Hardesty, B. D., Vince, J., & Wilcox, C. (2022). Global estimates of fishing gear lost to the ocean each year. Science Advances, 8(29), eabq0135.

• Romeo, L., Perdichizzi, A., Profeta, A., Vitale, D., Castañer Franc, V., Casu, M., Spinelli, A., & others. (2025). Microplastics in Sediments Originating from Abandoned, Lost or Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) in Coastal Areas of the Valencian Community. SSRN. Posted 7 August 2025.

• Senanayake, S. M. A. B., Samaraweera, J. P. U., Thilakarathne, D. P. R., Weerakoon, W. R. W. M. A. P., & Mihirani, P. M. N. (2021). Assessment of fishers’ experience on ALDFG in the northwestern coast: Findings from the first comprehensive scientific assessment in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of NARA Scientific Sessions, Colombo (Jan 2021).

• Sri Lanka Government (2015). Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act (No. 2 of 1996): Fishing Gear Marking Regulations No. I of 2015. Gazette Extraordinary No. 1904/10, 28 February 2015.

• World Bank (2022). Managing Abandoned, Lost or Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) in South Asia: Case Study of Sri Lanka. World Bank, Washington DC (with Evolved Research & Consulting). [Government/World Bank report].

• World Bank (2022). Baseline Assessments of ALDFG in South Asia: Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. World Bank, Washington DC.