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

10. Conclusions

The qualitative study has produced rich insights into fishers’ perspectives on and experiences of compliance and enforcement, as well as the Marine Directorate staff’s and industry stakeholders’ views. While the research achieved participation from a broad range of staff and fishers, it is important to note that the study had a small sample. Due to this, the evidence cannot be interpreted as fully representative of the entire fishing industry. The conclusions relate to the group of participants who took part in the research. As noted, caution is advised when reading and using the fisher survey. That said, the research obtained a range of views and, therefore, it provides a useful insight into this issue.

Most fishers are aware of and understand the regulations which apply to their activities. However, many fishers and the Marine Directorate staff identified a need for greater support from the Marine Directorate to raise awareness and understanding of regulations. They saw the potential to reduce the complexity and simplify regulations and wanted information to be easier to find and more accessible. Many identified a need for the Marine Directorate staff to more effectively support the fishers.

Fishers recognised the need for regulations, and believed that regulations protect the health of the seas and ensure the fishing industry is sustainable. However, some felt that regulations do not always achieve this purpose or are ineffective. These views contribute to the perceptions among some fishers that regulations are unfair, too complicated, change too frequently or are based on unreliable science and data. A perceived lack of meaningful consultation with the industry on new and proposed changes to regulation exacerbated these negative perceptions. Some fishers believed that eNGOs hold too much influence.

Issues with regulations on fishing gear, landing obligation and discarding were commonly identified by fishers and the Marine Directorate staff. There was some overlap between regulations that fishers find challenging to comply with and staff find difficult to monitor and enforce (e.g. landing obligation and discarding). These common challenges strongly indicate scope for a review of these regulations to ensure effectiveness.

The majority of fishers wanted to avoid enforcement action. While financial penalties are the biggest compliance motivation for some fishers, they are only one factor among others. For example, moral, legal and reputational considerations were also mentioned by fishers.

Among fishers that strive to operate compliantly, instances of non-compliance are attributed to a lack of awareness and understanding, or unintentional and accidental mistakes. Deliberate non-compliance appears to be less common among fishers than accidental non-compliance. However, for those deliberately acting in a non-compliant way, financial drivers and a belief that they will not get caught are the perceived primary reasons. This aligns with perceptions of inadequate compliance and enforcement resourcing from staff, and a lack of presence and visibility of staff reported by some fishers. Areas of regulations that are perceived to be unfair, impractical, or complicated are also viewed as a contributing factor in non-compliant activity. Furthermore, a recurring frustration expressed by fishers was the perception that UK vessels are more closely and actively monitored than non-UK vessels operating in Scottish waters, creating an uneven playing field. It is, however, unclear if this perception is based on evidence.

For fishers who strive to work compliantly, the potential for enforcement action is a deterrent alongside other drivers. However, some fishers choose to deliberately breach regulations, which indicates that potential enforcement actions may not act as an effective deterrent for all. While there were calls for stricter penalties for deliberate or repeat offenders, the perceived risk of detection is important. Harsher penalties could enhance the deterrent, but if the risk of detection is perceived as low, it may be unrealistic to expect more compliant behaviour.

There was a wide variation in the frequency of fishers’ contact with the Marine Directorate staff, particularly in relation to inspections at sea or in harbour. Some of those who are rarely inspected perceive a lack of visibility and presence. Conversely, amongst those fishers who have been inspected frequently, some felt a sense of unfairness and being targeted.

Overall, both staff and fishers identified an appetite for closer working, open dialogue and collaboration. Relationships at a local level between fishers and fishery office staff are generally good and provide a solid foundation which can be further improved.