Regions are often treated as spatial units where environmental policies are implemented and evaluated. In practice, they also function as implementation systems, in which responsibility is carried forward through sequenced handling processes once equipment is no longer in use. End-of-life aquaculture nets make this dynamic visible.
Norwegian aquaculture provides a clear case. Fish farming nets are central to production and concentrated along the coast. Engineered for durability in exposed marine environments, nets typically remain in service for many years. When decommissioned, durability complicates governance. Industry documentation shows that end-of-life nets do not move directly from decommissioning to recycling or disposal. Instead, they pass through a routine sequence of post-use stages: interim storage, cleaning, technical assessment, transport coordination, and classification before a final treatment route is determined (NCE Seafood Innovation, 2023). These stages are standard features of extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for fishing and aquaculture gear currently being implemented. OECD guidance emphasizes that responsibility under EPR is realized through operational systems unfolding through handling sequences, rather than instantaneous handovers at decommissioning (OECD, 2016; OECD, 2023). For aquaculture nets, this is evident during the current phase-in, where legal responsibility is established while operational pathways are consolidated.
Regional differentiation arises from how unevenly these stages are distributed across space. Under a single regulatory framework, regions experience distinct post-use trajectories for end-of-life nets. According to NCE Seafood Innovation (2023), access to net-servicing facilities, washing capacity, and recycling or export logistics varies along the Norwegian coast. Where infrastructure is proximate, nets move more quickly into recovery pathways. Where it is limited or distant, nets remain in holding phases while volumes are batched and logistics arranged.
These differences do not reflect divergent interpretations of rules or variable compliance. They stem from regional conditions: distance to processing facilities, availability of storage space, seasonal replacement cycles that concentrate net flows, and capacity to coordinate transport. Identical EPR obligations are therefore realized through distinct regional pathways. While legal responsibility is allocated uniformly, operational responsibility is enacted through sequences of decisions distributed across places (European Parliament and Council, 2019). There is also a clear economic dimension. Each interim stage—storage, transport coordination, cleaning, assessment, and reclassification—introduces costs. Where infrastructure is proximate, costs remain contained, and recovery is more economically viable. Where infrastructure is fragmented or distant, extended holding phases raise storage, transport, and transaction costs. Under these conditions, actors make rational cost–benefit decisions within EPR, sometimes favouring energy recovery or landfill when recycling becomes economically marginal.
Accordingly, landfill and energy recovery remain present in end-of-life net management. Industry documentation does not present landfill as a preferred outcome; rather, it shows that existing recovery capacity does not absorb all decommissioned nets. NCE Seafood Innovation (2023) reports that only a share of nets is materially recovered, with residual volumes directed to energy recovery or landfill when recovery routes are not technically or economically feasible. OECD analysis similarly notes reliance on residual disposal where recovery infrastructure or markets are insufficient (OECD, 2023). The presence of landfill thus reflects uneven implementation conditions and cost structures, not regulatory failure.
Regions function less as uniform units of implementation and more as transition systems for end-of-life nets (Figure 1). They absorb the work required to translate legal responsibility into material outcomes. Storage yards, transport hubs, and servicing facilities become sites where responsibility is practically carried between regulatory obligation and final treatment—roles largely absent from policy texts and endpoint-focused indicators.
From a multi-scalar perspective, the implications are straightforward. Supranational frameworks establish formal responsibility for fishing and aquaculture gear; national instruments translate these rules. It is at the regional and micro-regional levels that responsibility for end-of-life nets is operationalized through concrete handling practices. Regional differentiation emerges not because rules differ, but because economic and infrastructural conditions for managing the sequence from end of use to final treatment differ.
In conclusion, governance of end-of-life aquaculture nets cannot be understood solely through institutional design or aggregate outcomes. It requires attention to sequencing, capacity, coordination, and cost structures during implementation. Following the afterlives of decommissioned nets makes these processes visible, offering a grounded lens on how responsibility is organized across regions during EPR implementation.
Connect with the Author
Rasa Zuzeviciute is a Phd fellow at the Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). She researches environmental governance and regional development, whose work examines the practical implementation of circular economy frameworks. Focusing on extended producer responsibility and material management in resource-intensive sectors, she analyses how regional infrastructure, capacity, and economic conditions shape policy outcomes across scales. Her research bridges regional studies, governance analysis, and material flow perspectives.
:Rasa Zuzeviciute 
:@rasazuzeviciute.bsky.social 
:0009-0001-4954-723X