Plastics Challenge: Remove and Manage Ghost Fishing Gear and Marine Debris

From Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

graphic representation of Haptic system

Seeking a viable and economically feasible solution to remove plastic ghost fishing gear and other marine litter from aquatic environments through a technological innovation that can be deployed on existing vessels and infrastructure.

Sponsoring Department: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Funding Mechanism: Grant

Opening date: October 18, 2018
Closing date: December 13, 2018, 14:00 Eastern Standard Time

Phase 1 award recipients

Log in to view your submissions

Challenge

Problem statement

Ghost fishing gear and other marine debris can cause entrapment and entanglement of wildlife.  Plastic litter in oceans and waterways can be ingested by wildlife and destroy aquatic habitat. Plastic litter and specifically ghost fishing gear also present a challenge for safe navigation. The fishing, aquaculture and seafood industries are also negatively impacted through decreased yields and need to increase fishing efforts.  Tourism and sport fishing may also be affected.

Canada lacks a national strategy for removing ghost fishing gear (e.g. nets, fish bins, traps) and other marine litter (e.g. buoys, bags, etc.). Current methods for removing ghost fishing gear and marine debris from the aquatic environment can be labor intensive and expensive.

This challenge is seeking solutions for removing marine debris and ghost fishing gear which can:

  • Be implemented opportunistically on existing marine vessels, to work during their everyday operations; and/or
  • Be deployed for targeted operations (i.e. vessels equipped with the technology can be deployed to areas that have particular marine debris concerns).

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential outcomes

The successful innovative technology must:

  • be able to be implemented on existing infrastructure (i.e. vessels and/or harbours) without having a large impact on regular operations;
  • have the potential to remove significant amounts of marine litter and ghost fishing gear from Canada's oceans and waterways if deployed at large-scale;
  • not significantly decrease fuel efficiency, maintenance fees or other operating costs of vessels it is deployed on; and,
  • not entangle wildlife or otherwise endanger aquatic ecosystems, and it must not present safety concerns for operators or bystanders.

Additional outcomes

The innovation could be suitable for deployment on various types of vessels, including but not limited to: vessels for commercial fishing, sport fishing, tourism, shipping and/or Coast Guard operations.

Background and context

This challenge relates to the G7 Oceans Plastics Charter as well as the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals that include #14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources, with a target to reduce marine debris by 2025.

The challenge would advance DFO's mandate objectives:

  • Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems
  • Economically Prosperous Maritime Sectors & Fisheries
  • Safe & Secure Waters

This also supports the International Maritimes Organization – Marine Environmental Protection Committee's action plan on plastics (led by Transport Canada (TC)).

Departments that would benefit from the solution include DFO-CCG (Canadian Coast Guard), Transport Canada (Navigation Safety implications) and Environment & Climate Change Canada (waste management, chemicals management and wildlife implications). The Fishing Industry and any vessels that frequent Small Craft Harbours would also benefit.

Plastic marine debris collection and recycling programs have been put in place in other countries as well as some smaller initiatives within Canada.

For example:

  • The "Fishing for Litter" program in the Netherlands has been very successful in removing litter from the sea. Fishing vessels are provided with durable reusable bags to bring ashore litter which is gathered in their nets during fishing activities. Participating harbours have dedicated skips or bins installed for disposal.
  • A successful net recycling program was also put in place in Steveston Harbour by the Harbour Authority, however, recycling involves long-distance shipping of recovered materials to Europe. The transportation costs are likely prohibitive of expanding this model to other Small Craft Harbours.
  • A short-lived marine litter collection and recycling program was also introduced in Great Lakes harbours.

Commercial/Market Potential of Solutions

  • Removal of plastic debris and ghost fishing gear from aquatic environments would have positive economic, environmental and transport safety benefits.

Maximum value and travel

Maximum grant value

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Funding of up to $150,000.00 CAD for up to 6 months could be available for any Phase 1 grant resulting from this Challenge.

Funding of up to $1,000,000.00 CAD for up to 2 years could be available for any Phase 2 grant resulting from this Challenge. Only eligible businesses that received Phase 1 funding could be considered for Phase 2.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total maximum funding value.

Travel

No travel is anticipated

Kick-off meeting

Teleconference/videoconference

Progress Review Meeting

Teleconference/videoconference

Final Review Meeting

Teleconference/videoconference

Eligibility

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

  • for profit
  • incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
  • 499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employeesFootnote *
  • research and development activities that take place in Canada
  • 50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in CanadaFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of workFootnote *
  • 50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residenceFootnote *

Application guide

Application guide

Evaluation Criteria

Part 1: Mandatory and Minimum Pass Mark Criteria

Proposals must meet all mandatory criteria (Questions 1a and 2) and achieve the minimum pass mark for Question 3 in order to be deemed responsive and proceed to Part 2.

Mandatory and Minimum Pass Mark Criteria (Applicant/Bidder's proposal must address)
Question Evaluation Schema

1 a. Scope

Describe your proposed solution and how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which your solution is proposed and clearly identify how your solution meets all of the EssentialOutcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes and Considerations section in the Challenge Notice.

Mandatory - Pass/Fail

Pass
The Applicant/Bidder's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential Outcomes (if identified) in the Challenge Notice.

Fail
There is little or no evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet the challenge.
OR
The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge.
OR
The proposed solution does not address all Essential Outcomes listed in the challenge.
OR
The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.

2.  Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

  1. Indicate the current TRL of your proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Application/Bid Submission Form)
  2. Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.

Mandatory - Pass/Fail

Pass: The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRLs 1 and 4 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.

Fail: The Applicant/Bidder has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 4 (inclusive) including:

  1. There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment.
  2. The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research.
  3. The solution is at TRL 5 or higher.
  4. Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL.
  5. The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.

3. Innovation

Describe the novelty of your solution and how it advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including competing solutions.

Point Rated with Minimum Pass Mark

The minimum pass mark for this criteria is 4 points.

0 points/Fail: The Applicant/Bidder has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; OR

The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence.

4 points:

  • The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches.

6 points:

  • The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR
  • The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches

8 points:

  • The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; OR
  • The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals that do not achieve the overall minimum score of at least 55 points out of a possible 110 points (50%) will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

The overall minimum score is determined by adding the Applicant/Bidder's scores from the following questions together (1b, 3, 4-13).

Point-Rated Criteria (Applicant/Bidder's proposal to address)
Question Evaluation Schema

1b. Scope

Describe how your proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes and Considerations section in the Challenge Notice.  

If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Bidders/Applicants will receive 10 points
  • Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points
  • Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 5 points
  • Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 8 points
  • Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points

4. Phase 1 Science and Technology Risks

Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the successful development of the proof of concept and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1?
  • Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant/Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  • Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  • Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

5. Benefits to Canada

Describe the benefits that could result from the successful development of your solution. Applicants/Bidders should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories:

  1. Innovation Benefits: Expected contribution towards the enhancement or development of new industrial or technological innovations. Assessment factors could include: potential spillover benefits, creation of intellectual property, impact on productivity of the new technology, etc.
  2. Economic Benefits: Forecasted impact on the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, as well as its expected benefits for Canada's workforce. Assessment factors could include: number of jobs created, number of high-paying jobs, project-related revenue growth, etc.
  3. Public Benefits: Expected contribution to the broader public, including inclusive business and hiring practices (e.g., gender balance), investment in skills and training and environmental best practices. Assessment would consider the degree to which the Applicant/Bidder demonstrates that the solution is expected to generate social, environmental, health, security or other benefits to Canada. Assessment factors could include: solution-related environmental benefits, investment in local communities and solution-related impact on Indigenous communities.
  1. Innovation Benefits
    • Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points
    • Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1.5 points
    • Benefit is significant and well justified. 3 points
  2. Economic Benefits
    • Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points
    • Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1.5 points
    • Benefit is significant and well justified. 3 points
  3. Public Benefits.
    • Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points
    • Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1.5 points
    • Benefit is significant and well justified. 3 points

6. Phase 1 Project Plan

Demonstrate a feasible Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

Include:

  • Project milestones;
  • project activities under each milestone;
  • time required to complete each milestone (e.g., days, weeks and/or months);
    • (Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently)
  • total time required to complete the project; and
  • key success criteria.

Note: Phase 1 cannot exceed 6 months and TRL 4.

  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points
  2. Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 10 points

7. Phase 1 Project Risks

Identify potential project risks (eg. Human resources, financial, project management, etc) to the successful development of the proof of concept and how they will be mitigated?

  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant/Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points
  2. Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points

8. Phase 1 Implementation Team

Demonstrate how your project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role.

Include the labour rates and level of effort for each member. A day is defined as 7.5 hours of work, exclusive of meal breaks. The labour rates and level of effort will be reviewed as part of the evaluation for Question 10.

  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  2. Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points

9. Inclusivity

If your business were to receive funding from Innovative Solutions Canada, describe what actions (e.g., recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, etc.) might be taken in Phase 1 to support the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities) in the research and development of the proposed solution.
  • No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points
  • A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 3 points

10. Phase 1 Financial Proposal

Demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.

  • Insufficient information provided and/or information provided significantly lack credibility.  Does not demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points
  • Information is provided but some costs appear to be either over or under estimated for the Phase 1 project plan. 5 points
  • Information provided contains credible elements to clearly demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points

11. Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight

Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the public funds throughout Phase 1.
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant/Bidder's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points
  2. Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant/Bidder has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points
  3. Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has strong financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage public funds in Phase 1. 10 points

12. Phase 2 Strategy

Describe a realistic strategy for the prototype development if selected to participate in Phase 2.

Responses should include:

  • anticipated barriers
  • key tasks
  • estimated cost
  • Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant/Bidder has contemplated a realistic strategy for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points
  • Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic strategy for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 5 points
  • Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has a clear and realistic strategy. 10 points

13. Commercialization Approach

Describe your overall commercialization approach for the proposed solution.

Responses should include:

  • Target markets (excluding Government of Canada)
  • Non-ISC funding sources
  • Transition to a commercially-ready product or service
  • Any other indicators of commercial potential and commercial feasibility
  1. Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points
  2. Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 5 points
  3. A realistic commercialization approach is provided that demonstrates that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 10 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding a specific challenge will be posted here with the corresponding response.

If you have a question about a challenge, please send it to ISED-ISDE@canada.ca.

You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.

A glossary is also available.

How rigid should we view the word choices in the application? For instance, how should these word choices be interpreted: the removal of marine debris vs. marine debris entering the water vs. marine equipment becoming debris/litter? All of these statements could be viewed as both the same or different. We significantly reduce the amount of gear that becomes debris, but is that the same as the removal of debris?

For the challenge "Remove and Manage Ghost Fishing Gear and Marine Debris", the goal is mitigation – to remove and manage debris and ghost fishing gear which is already in the water. For this challenge, the innovation must be a means to remove marine litter and ghost fishing gear which can be implemented on existing infrastructure.

 Report a problem
Date modified: