Fishers' Behaviour and Attitudes Towards Compliance and Enforcement: Research Report

9. Encouraging compliant operation

This chapter presents suggestions by research participants that could encourage fishers to operate compliantly, and improve monitoring and enforcement operations. Sections 9.1. – 9.5. present ideas put forward by fishers, and section 9.6 covers suggestions from staff and stakeholders.

9.1. Stricter penalties

Feedback from fishers during interviews suggests they perceive most in the Scottish fishing fleet to be doing their best to operate compliantly, with only a small proportion who actively, deliberately and frequently break regulations.

“I don't think there's many fishermen now that really go out their way to break the law, because I don't think, it's far more technical in the fishing now. It's, you know, costs are harder for boats you know. To keep a boat in the water is, it's a hard job. So, people don't want to, in general, they don't want to be breaking rules and getting fined” (Fisher)

However, in interviews fishers put forward a variety of suggestions that they felt could help to encourage greater compliance and/or improve enforcement of the regulations. The most common theme related to stricter or harsher penalties, particularly for serious offences or repeat offences. Higher levels of FPNs, greater use of FPNs rather than “lighter” enforcement actions, and suspension or removal of fishing licences were suggested. Aligned to the suspension or removal of licence was the introduction of a points system akin to a driving licence, where points were allocated for breaches of compliance and a certain number of points leading to a suspension.

“If you land anything undersized then to me it should be a fine straight away. Even a small one and the second one should be a decent enough fine after that, because if you do it twice there's no need for it.” (Fisher)

“If a boat's a repeat offender, rather than fining sometimes, maybe if they were stopped from going to sea for a certain time. That could be an option, because a fine for some of the boats, some of the bigger boats that are making big money, a fine isn't really a (deterrent)… but if they were stopped from going to sea for so many days that might hit them a bit harder.” (Fisher)

“A totting up procedure whereby they could actually find themselves without a licence because maybe there are licensed fishers who operate non-compliantly who are serial offenders and think that ‘well, I can continue to do this and I can continue to get X in a financial fine which doesn’t matter because I'm actually doing better than that out of my criminality’ so to speak….the financial penalty route is just something that they laugh at and actually they're actually benefiting much more than what it's costing them.” (Fisher)

Fishers also mentioned better monitoring and penalties for those who cause conflict and damage and steal other vessels' gear (static gear).

9.2. Closer working between Marine Directorate and industry

Several fishers wanted to see improved working and communication between Marine Directorate staff and fishers, particularly when changing or introducing regulations and legislation. Fishers feel that they have a wealth of experience and knowledge that is not currently being drawn on. A couple of fishers also suggested that the science and data used to form some regulations was lacking or flawed and had resulted in unnecessary regulation. A collaboration of surveyor and self-assessment for vessel compliance was also mentioned.

“Asking the fishermen, they're out there every single day, they can see what's happened. So, for example, closing off an area for fishing forever, that's not protection. My main motto and my three favourite words are management is key. You've got to manage areas correctly.” (Fisher)

“Listen to the men working the job, they need to listen to what fishermen are saying rather than telling them what to do. There would be more respect for the regulations if they made sense.” (Fisher)

“They put this precautionary TAC which is not based on science because they don't have any science to base a TAC on it, but they put a precautionary TAC on it, and that to me is crazy.” (Fisher)

9.3. Presence and visibility of compliance and enforcement staff

A few fishers called for a greater presence and visibility among compliance and enforcement staff. Fishers suggested that a lack of compliance staff presence was perceived as decreasing the likelihood of getting caught if operating non-compliantly.

“If they're able to have more officers or more available hours to them or have them more visibly at sea, doing boardings, where they're inspecting. I think if that was more of a common thing, people might think a bit differently. I think those of us that are quite happily living and doing it legally, we've got nothing to hide.” (Fisher)

“You never see a fishery officer going around the port. Because he's working in an office… I do think that Marine Directorate needs to get their guys out, and girls, going around the ports and screening.” (Fisher)

In addition to this, fishers suggested that there is a need for adequate staffing and that more support is needed to help them comply with regulations, including easy-to-understand explanations of why staff think there has been a breach of regulations.

9.4. Changes to specific regulations

A few fishers focused on particular areas of regulation or rules. One suggested introducing an import rule similar to other countries whereby imports of lobster need to meet the minimum landing size that fishers in Scotland are expected to adhere to. Two fishers wanted to see a limit on creel numbers to prevent practices that negatively affect the sustainability of fishing in the area.

“A stance similar to what the Americans are proposing i.e. no imports of less than the UK Minimum Landing Size for lobster could help prices and could also encourage more adherence to regulations in Scotland.” (Fisher)

“Creel numbers have to come in at some point to a realistic amount. It’s the amount of gear that's on the ground constantly. It's just not giving anything a chance. Same with prawn creels, same with crab creelers now, and lobster creelers.” (Fisher)

A few stakeholders also expressed concern that some specific regulations are inappropriate, “ridiculous”, frustrating, illogical or not justified by the scientific evidence. Sea closures with little notice, rules around catch of skate and dogfish length, quotas, and the landing obligation and discarding were all raised. Some of these were described as particularly challenging for fishers in terms of either compliance or financial impact.

9.5. Stricter control of non-UK and unlicensed vessels

A recurring theme across interviews with fishers was the perception that non-UK vessels were not subject to the same level of monitoring, compliance and enforcement as UK vessels. This was raised by a few fishers when discussing the changes they felt were needed to encourage compliant operating. However, no evidence of differences in treatment between UK and non-UK vessels was presented.

“It's all well and good me saying that, but it has to be across the board, not just for the local vessels. And that's what's been happening recently. It's just the local vessels are getting the clout and not the non-UK-owned vessels.” (Fisher)

A few fishers felt that better monitoring of unlicensed fishers was required, as it is a bigger issue in some areas than licensed fishers operating non-compliantly.

“For unlicensed fishers which I believe, and in this part of the world here that's a bigger issue than I think than rogue operators….I'm not talking about you know Bob and Susan and their two kids here on holiday here who want a couple of lobsters for the pot. I'm not talking about that, that should be surely a right of every man to have one for the pots and the sea right. But, I'm talking about people who are running establishments on unlicensed landings you know. They should be hung out to dry like, because they know they’re doing it.” (Fisher)

9.6. Staff suggestions for reducing non-compliance

Across the survey and interviews, staff suggested changes that could help reduce instances of deliberate and accidental non-compliance. Some suggestions mentioned by staff did not specify whether they relate to deliberate or accidental non-compliance.

To reduce deliberate non-compliance staff suggested:

• More education about the potential damage of operating non-compliantly.
• Greater use of Marine Protected Areas, such as strengthening the restrictions on operations within the areas (e.g. banning fishing entirely rather than restricting the type of gear allowed) and designating more or larger areas as MPAs.
• Greater power to penalise non-compliant fishers with restrictions on their licence, e.g. in terms of where or when they can fish.
• Higher level of financial penalty/increasing FPN levels.
• Unlicensed/Hobby fishers using creels should require a permit.
• Restrictions on unlicensed/hobby fishers using keep creels to disguise how much they have caught in a single day.
• All action taken against vessel owners instead of individual masters.
• Landing obligation and discarding needs reviewed.
• Better information and communication about legislative changes.
• Increased resources in some areas are needed to have a greater presence.
• Protection Vessel patrols, presence on the quayside, and/or aircraft cover.
• Increased resources to provide corroboration of evidence of non-compliance.
• Consistent marine resources to areas which are inshore dominated and have no white fish/ pelagic vessels.
• Anonymised publication of action (cases) taken/clearer publication of potential outcomes for non-compliance.
• Ensuring Marine Directorate have contact details for all vessels.
• Access to better/more modern IT technology and systems for Marine Directorate staff.
• Remote electronic monitoring (REM for all <10m boats, a program like Compass to see them all).
• Vessels under 12m should be subject to the same VMS requirements as those over 12m.
• More training for staff when new or updated regulations are published.

To reduce accidental non-compliance staff suggested:

• Better education and communicating legislation and regulations in a way that is accessible and easy to understand.
• Less contradictory legislation, such as landing obligation and discarding versus catch composition and technical measures.
• When an E-log message fails to send /or be received, a clear warning should pop up telling the master to call Fisheries Monitoring Centre to manually report.
• More checks prior to fishing commencing. Gear "approved" by Marine Directorate.
• Consistent standards across fishery offices through accountability.
• More contact with stakeholders.
• More proactive and targeted comms by Marine Directorate comms team.
• Increased levels of FPN.
• Posting the full licence conditions on the weekly variation pages.

Other suggestions included:

• Harsher penalties (e.g. higher level of FPN, licence conditions, greater use of single area licences, quota restrictions or ban). Furthermore, make it easier to issue lower-value FPNs (e.g. up to £200, like an on-the-spot fine).
• Greater focus on supporting fishers to work compliantly e.g. local events when changes are being made to legislation, and greater engagement to demonstrate an interest in their profession. A greater focus on prevention and education.
• Ensuring legislation is enforceable and addressing contradictory legislation.
• Lowering the burden of evidence/removing the requirement of corroboration.
• Targeting of specific issues with resource allocation to do it/better targeting (e.g. vessel profiling tool making sure officers spend their time on the most offensive people and vessels). More resources overall.
• Only allow one size of net to be aboard a boat per trip/ seizure of illegal equipment.
• Staffing and resource: Increase the number of marine protection vessels. Additional resources/ time are needed to focus on operational duties/bringing back the fishery assistant role.
• Utilising the expertise of colleagues much more often and improving communication between all offices/areas.
• Tighten e-log reporting to haul by haul/ e-logs for all mobile gear vessels regardless of size; automate e-log offences; tightening up of rules on compulsory returns (all electronic).
• Produce a weekly/fortnightly bulletin on current issues, replacing the multiple sources/emails currently used.
• Better IT systems/greater use of automation/ Have an interactive map that shows the gear requirements when you hover over a specific area (or a web page that details requirements for each area).
• Publish the full licence variation at least once a month.
• Roll out of REM to all offices/business areas.
• More consultation with frontline staff on new or updated regulations.

Industry stakeholders also made a number of suggestions to help ensure more compliant practices. One noted that monitoring activity seems to focus on certain companies/actors who are heavily audited, while others are less scrutinised. They wanted monitoring and enforcement activity to have greater coverage.

Another stakeholder highlighted the differences between Scotland (who they felt take a “top-down approach” to compliance management) and other parts of the world where industry and the government work more closely together and where industry regulates itself while being overseen by the government. They advocated for greater discussion and collaboration with industry within compliance management. Further suggestions from stakeholders included:

• Reconsider the landing obligation and discarding policy given that this requires fishers to be self-compliant, is viewed by some as not being monitored or enforced effectively, and there are perceived to be no real penalties for non-compliance currently.
• Revisiting regulations- such as those related to dogfish and skate- where the stock is now healthy.
• Continued engagement from Marine Directorate with fishers to explore why they may have breached regulations and their views about these.
• The importance of positive relationships between fishers and fishery officers based on understanding, flexibility and openness rather than mistrust. One called for everyone to work together to strive to protect the sustainability of the industry.
• One expressed concern about the polarisation between eNGOs and the fishing industry, preventing them from working together to promote sustainability. They called for eNGOs to adopt a more realistic position and more opportunities for the voice of fishers to be heard within policy development.

9.7. Chapter summary

This chapter discussed suggestions from fishers, Marine Directorate staff and industry stakeholders to improve compliance. Several themes were raised, such as reviewing landing obligations and discarding policy; deeper engagement between industry and government; and improved communication related to compliance.

Fishers called for more attention to non-UK vessels and stressed that most of the Scottish fishing fleet is striving to operate compliantly, with only a small proportion of the fleet deliberately flouting regulations.

Marine Directorate compliance staff presented detailed suggestions on how to improve compliance, including education for fishers on the consequences of operating non-compliance, better resourcing and IT systems for staff, and lowering the burden of evidence.

In addition to the points mentioned above, industry stakeholders called for a more productive dialogue between the industry and eNGOs.