Sophie Thorbek I

The Management of UK Fisheries

Post Brexit:

a fisherman’s perspective

Sophie Thorbek

Sophie Thorbek II

Abstract

Brexit was a divisive issue across the country, however it provides an opportunity for great

change within sectors bound by European law, one of these being the fishing industry.

Fisheries management has been centralized in Brussels and its main instrument of governance

has been the Common Fisheries Policy(CFP). Both the top-down approach to management

and the CFP have both been widely criticized, therefore Brexit presents the UK government

with a unique opportunity to change fisheries management. A lack of social objectives in the

construction of polices has led to the shrinkage of the industry together with widespread

unemployment. Brexit provided a platform for fishermen’s opinions to be heard, and this

dissertation aims at understanding the fishermen’s perspective on current issues and future

management leading to a regenerated and buoyant industry. There are two aims to this

dissertation, the first was to investigate the opinions of UK fishermen on current fisheries

management. The second was to identify how the fishermen want the management of UK

fisheries to change upon leaving the European Union (EU).

To achieve these aims there was a desktop study undertaken to provide a background to the

thesis followed by primary research that was carried out using two survey techniques. The

first was an online questionnaire which was distributed amongst UK fishermen and the

second form of research was in the form of interviews conducted with different stakeholders

within the industry.

The study highlighted an industry in steep decline with significant divide both between the

different stakeholders and significant internal divide between fishing sectors. It concluded

with future management recommendations for the industry, these included more focus placed

on social aspects to encourage a younger generation of fishermen and an improved

relationship between fishermen, scientists and the government alongside an improvement in

relations between the different sectors of the industry.

Sophie Thorbek III

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... II

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. IV

Research Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 1

Aims and objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4 Primary Research - Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 4 Semi-Structured Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 4

Results ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Fishermen Questionnaires ....................................................................................................................... 5 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Opinions on the Industry at Present ...................................................................................................... 10 Opinions on the future of the industry .................................................................................................. 13 Relationship with Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 17 Summary of additional comments ......................................................................................................... 20

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 21 Analysis of the industry at present ........................................................................................................ 21

Demographics and Decline ............................................................................................................... 21 Management Structure ..................................................................................................................... 23 EU Relationship ................................................................................................................................. 23 Quota System .................................................................................................................................... 24 Discard Ban ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Analysis of Stakeholder Relationships .................................................................................................. 26 Government ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Scientists ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Media and the Public ........................................................................................................................ 30 Interrelationship of Stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 31 Internal Divide ................................................................................................................................... 32

Analysis of Future Management of UK fisheries .................................................................................. 33 Future of CFP ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Management structure ..................................................................................................................... 34 The fishermen were keen to distance themselves from the European Union and almost 62% believed that the EU fleet should be excluded from the UK’s EEZ (Figure 16). ................................. 34

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 35 Concluding Comments .......................................................................................................................... 35

Sophie Thorbek IV

Abbreviations

CFP – Common Fisheries Policy

FFL – Fishing for Leave

ICES – International Council for the Exploration of the Seas

IFCA – Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

PO – Producer Organisation

LIFE – Low Impact Fishers of Europe

NUFTA – New Under Tens Fishermens Association

CEFAS – Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

MSY – Maximum Sustainable Yield

EC – European Commission

EU – European Union

RAC – Regional Advisory Council

Sophie Thorbek 1

Research Rationale In the EU referendum, the fishing industry was used as the poster child of the “Vote Leave”

campaign. As an industry, it had very little voting power; with there being less than 12,000

employed fishermen (Bate, 2016) yet it quickly became a very public figurehead for the

Brexit movement. Prior to the referendum the fishing industry had had very limited news

coverage, with their opinions and woes rarely heard. Yet in the months leading up to the

referendum there was a surge in public interest and coverage, in part generated by the

“Fishing for Leave” (FFL) campaign which was formed to address the plight of UK fishermen

and the benefits of an EU withdrawal. The group organised the flotilla of fishing vessels that

sailed up the Thames calling for the UK to leave the EU (Figure 1), which generated a rival

“Vote Remain” flotilla, both sides involved several celebrities and politicians; resulting in the

Figure 1. Small fishing vessels involved with the “Vote Leave” flotilla organized by the Fishing for Leave campaign. (Source: Kemp, 2016)

Sophie Thorbek 2

clash being highly publicised. The FFL campaign, and Brexit as a whole, offered fishermen

from around the UK a means for their voice to be heard on a national level.

Several papers such as Symes and Phillipson (2009) criticize the scarcity of social objectives

in the CFP, however these studies display a significant lack of first-hand evidence. The

idiosyncrasies that are an integral part of the UK’s fishing communities are often overlooked,

an atypical study that involved fishermen being interviewed (Urquhart and Acott, 2013)

provided a valuable insight into the fishing industry on a local level.

Geertz, (1974) noted that to fully understand a social group you should be able to see their

point of view, this approach to the fishing industry has been missing. Therefore, this study

seeks to understand issues from a fisherman’s perspective and put the vocal nature of the

fishing industry during the referendum into context. Looking for the reasoning behind their

grievances and with Brexit now a reality, how they wish to see change in the management of

their industry.

Sophie Thorbek 3

Aims and objectives The first aim was to investigate the issues UK fisherman have with the current system of

fisheries management.

To achieve this, the objectives are as follows:

➢ Understand the demographics of the UK fishermen.

➢ Investigate their opinions on the present socio-economic status of the fishing industry.

➢ Identify the areas of the Common Fisheries Policy that the fishermen were most

focused on.

➢ Investigate the relationships of fishermen with other stakeholders

The second aim was to investigate how UK fishermen want fisheries management to change

as a result of Brexit.

To achieve this end, the objectives are as follows:

➢ Identify how the fishermen want the UK’s relationship with the EU to change.

➢ Identify the key areas of management the fishermen want to change.

➢ Investigate the flexibility of the industry towards change.

Sophie Thorbek 4

Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to understand how I achieved my aims of understanding

opinions on the current system of fisheries management and how the fishermen wanted the

system to change. To achieve the aims of the investigation two forms of primary research

were carried out. A questionnaire to identify the demographics of the UK’s fishermen and

their opinions on the economic, social and political situation of the fishing industry and how

Brexit could change it. Whilst the interviews were created so that they developed on the

opinions voiced in the questionnaire and assisted in putting these views into context.

Primary Research - Questionnaire

To achieve the aims of the investigation two forms of primary research were carried out. The

first was a questionnaire which was sent out to fishermen within the UK which provided both

qualitative and quantitative data. An online format for the questionnaire was chosen due to the

ease of distribution and quick response time The collected data provided the foundation for

the semi-structured interviews as the opinions of the fishermen could then be compared with

those of other stakeholders.

Semi-Structured Interviews

In total four interviews were conducted with stakeholders within the fishing industry, half

were via telephone and half were face to face. Each interview was chosen to cover a different

area of the industry thus providing a wider understanding.

Sophie Thorbek 5

Results

The collection of data was successful, the number of responses and the detail provided in

additional comments exceeded expectation. Whilst the interviews were insightful providing

many valuable quotes.

Fishermen Questionnaires

There were 250 responses to the questionnaire, with an assumed sample size of 620 the

response rate was 40%. These responses came from fishermen throughout the UK from a

range of ages and fishing sectors. Within the three main themes of the questionnaire; the

present opinions of the industry; the relationships with stakeholder; and the opinions on the

future of the industry for the respondents clearly favoured and agreed on the same answers for

the majority of questions, however there were certain questions where the answers were more

divisive. The demographic data allowed for trends to be identified within certain questions,

whilst open questions provided a wide range of qualitative data.

Demographics The respondents were located throughout the UK, (Figure 5) primarily in coastal locations

although there were a few exceptions located in more central regions. There were 4 fishermen

from Northern Ireland and 8 from Wales, combined they accounted for 5% of the total

response. There were 87 responses from Scotland and 147 from England accounting for the

remaining 95% of the total response. There was a relatively even distribution of responses

along the coastlines of Scotland, to the West responses extended North from the Glasgow area

through the Inner and Outer Hebrides. To the East responses extended North from Edinburgh

through to the Orkney and Shetland Islands. In England, there were three main areas of

response; the South-West from Lands’ End to Exmouth; the South-East from Brighton to

Sophie Thorbek 6

Felixstowe and the North

East from Grimsby to

Newcastle. However,

there was a lack of

responses from Wales, N.

Ireland and Norfolk.

There were responses

from all six of the age

categories, however there

was an uneven distribution

between them (Figure 6);

40% of the respondents

were aged 50 or under

whereas 60% were aged

51 upwards. There was a

positive correlation

between age and the

number of respondents, as

the age of the respondent increased so did their number. The under 20 group accounted for

less than 1% of the responses, this figure rose as the age increased until the 51 to 60 age

group, which was the largest and accounted for 33% of respondents and there was a slight

decline to 27% in the over 60 category.

Figure 2. The spatial distribution of the respondents

Sophie Thorbek 7

The 0<9 and 10<19 categories accounted for a similar number of respondents of 12% and

13%, this increased to 28% in the 30<39 group which was the largest category (Figure 7).

There was then a decline in percentage of respondents in the subsequent categories, with the

1%

8%

10%

21%

33%

27% > 20

20 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

60 <

Figure 3. Age distribution of respondents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 < 9 10 < 19 20 < 29 30 < 39 40 < 49 50 <

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

(%

)

Periods of Time (Years)

Figure 4. The length of time the respondents has been engaged in the fishing industry

Sophie Thorbek 8

lowest recorded response of 6% from fishermen who had over 50 years’ experience. These

results loosely correlate with the gradual increase and decline of age distribution (Figure 6).

Over half of the fishermen were engaged in more than one type of fishing (Figure 8), with one

fisherman involved in eight different types of fishing. The least common type was pair seine

accounting for 4% with beam trawl and offshore creels also less common. The most prevalent

form of fishing was gill netting with 30% of respondents engaging in it, with creels inshore

and single trawls for fish also popular.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Other

Creels Inshore

Creels Offshore

Hooks and Lines

Gill Net

Scallop/Queenie Dredging

Beam trawl

Twin Rig - Prawns

Single Rig - Prawns

Twin Rig - Fish

Single Trawl -Fish

Seine Net

Pair Seine

Pelagic < 24m

Pelagic >24m

Percentage Response (%)

Figure 5. The type of fishing the respondents were engaged in

Sophie Thorbek 9

By identifying the predominant form of fishing each respondent was engaged in it was

possible to split the types into three main sectors (Figure 9) The largest sector was demersal

with 59% of respondents, the second largest was the shellfish sector involving 28% of

fishermen with the lowest sector being pelagic at 13%.

59%

28%

13%

Demersal

Shellfish

Pelagic

Figure 6. The divide of the respondents between the three main fishing sectors

Sophie Thorbek 10

Opinions on the Industry at Present

Overall the questions of this section revealed a dissatisfaction with the current management

policies and a relatively low opinion of the industry. In response to “Would you encourage

family members to become involved in the industry” of the total response 46% said yes they

would encourage family to join the industry. A quarter of the respondents voted “maybe”,

whilst 28% would not encourage family to join the industry (Figure 10).

Only 2% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “The UK

fishing industry has declined throughout your career” (Figure 11), with 6% staying neutral on

the topic. Whereas in agreement with the statement were 90% of the fishermen, 76% of them

strongly agreed that there had been a decline in the industry throughout their career.

Similarities within the 4% of fishermen who did disagree to some level were that the majority

were within the shellfish sector or that they had only been a part of the industry for less than 8

years.

46%

28%

25%

1%

Yes

No

Maybe

Don't Know

Figure 7. Opinion on encouraging family members to join the fishing industry

Sophie Thorbek 11

A high proportion, 96% of respondents believed that current distributions between the EU and

the UK were not fair (Figure 12), with 3% who either didn’t know or were unsure, only 1%

thought the distribution of quota between EU and UK was fair.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

(%

)

1 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Strongly Agree

Figure 8. Opinion on the statement that the UK fishing industry had declined throughout their career

1%

96%

1% 2%

Yes

No

Maybe

Don't Know

Figure 9. Opinion on whether current quota allocation between the EU and UK is fair

Sophie Thorbek 12

Regarding the equality of the distribution of quota within the UK fleet (Figure 13) there were

similar results with 84% of respondents believing the distribution to be unfair. The percentage

who either didn’t know or were unsure increased from the last question to 11%, whilst the

those who thought allocations within the UK was fair totalled 5%.

As Question 9 was open, there were a range of

responses to “What is the main cause of

discards?” When the answers were analysed,

and irrelevant responses discarded it was

possible to establish four main groups. These

have been ranked from 1 – the most common

to 4 – the least common (Table 2)

5%

84%

6%

5%

Yes

No

Maybe

Don't Know

Figure 10. Opinion on whether quota allocation across the UK fleet is fair

1.Lack of Quota

2.Quota doesn't match stocks

3. Mixed Fisheries

4. Incorrect mesh size

Table 2. The cause of discards (Qu.9)

Sophie Thorbek 13

Opinions on the future of the industry

To questions based upon potential policy change and the future of the industry there was a

more divided overall response when compared to the questions on the present state of the

industry. In response to “Do you believe a discard ban would work?” there were 8% who

were unsure, 15% who said yes, but a majority of 75% who believed a discard ban would not

work (Figure 14).

The Common Fisheries Policy was viewed negatively with 63% believing that no part of the

policy should be replicated post brexit, with 21% who were either unsure or didn’t know

(Figure 15) whilst only 13% thought that “yes” parts of the CFP should be replicated.

15%

75%

8%

2%

Yes

No

Maybe

Don't Know

Figure 11. Opinion on whether the discard ban works

Sophie Thorbek 14

Following the popular view that no part of the CFP should be replicated 62% of respondents

believed that all EU members should be excluded from the UK’s exclusive economic zone

post brexit. There were 15% who were unsure with a further 2% who were undecided,

62%

21%

15%

2%

Yes

No

Maybe

Don't Know

13%

63%

19%

5%

Yes

No

Maybe

Don't Know

Figure 12. Opinion on whether any part of the Common Fisheries Policy should be replicated post Brexit.

Figure 13. Opinion on whether EU members should be excluded from the UK's EEZ post Brexit

Sophie Thorbek 15

however, 20% believed that there should not be total exclusion of EU Member States (Figure

16).

The preferred method of management for UK fisheries caused more divide among the

respondents with 29% in favour of catch composition and 15% for the current quota system.

However, over half the respondents, 56% voted for the “days at sea” method (Figure 17).

The statement “In place of the EU the UK government will need to provide subsidies to assist

the fishing industry” widely divided opinion (Figure 18). There were 26% of the respondents

who chose to stay neutral on the topic, with 34% who either strongly agreed and 19% who

strongly disagreed with the statement. The more moderate options on either side of the scale

had far less support.

15%

56%

29%

Current Quota System

Days at Sea

Catch Composition

Figure 14. The preferred method of management

Sophie Thorbek 16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

ents

(%

)

1 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Strongly Agree

Figure 15. Response to the statement that the UK government will need to provide subsidies for the fishing industry

Sophie Thorbek 17

Relationship with Stakeholders

The perceived relationship between the fishing industry and both the government and

scientists was compared (Figure 19). Of the 250 respondents, none of them believed the

industries relationship with either the government or relevant scientists was “very good”, only

a few fishermen thought there was a “good” relationship. More of the fishermen stayed

neutral on the topic of scientists 20% than on the relationship of the government 7%, whereas

37% gave for both stakeholders “poor”. The view that the industries relationship with

scientists is “very poor” was held by 38% of respondents whereas it was held by 55% for the

government.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very Good Good Neutral Poor Very poor

Government Scientists

Figure 16. Opinion on relationship between the fishing industry and the government/scientists (Qu.15&16)

Sophie Thorbek 18

There was a strong response against the benefit of media campaign such as “Hugh’s Fish

Fight” (Figure 20). There were 8% who were in favour of the campaign and 11% who thought

there may have been a benefit, however 81% believed the campaign did not benefit the UK

fishing industry

Further analysis of Question 15, showed a divide in of response dependent on location, 58%

of respondents from England thought the industries relationship with the government was

poor, whereas only 51% of those from Scotland agreed with this (Figure 21).

8%

81%

11%

Yes

No

Maybe

Figure 17. Opinion on whether the media campaigns are beneficial for the fishing industry (Qu.17)

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

Scotland England

Vo

ted

(%

)

Location of Fishermen

Figure 21. Respondents who believed government relations to be "very poor"

Sophie Thorbek 19

Table 3. Country breakdown of opinion on the industry at present

Table 4. Country breakdown of opinions on the future of the industry

Question

Answer

Scotland

(%)

England

(%)

Wales

(%)

N.Ireland

(%)

Would you

encourage family

members to join?

Yes 62 40 38 0

No 18 34 12 50

Maybe 20 24 50 50

Don’t Know 0 2 0 0

The industry has

declined

throughout your

career

Strongly Agree 73 80 38 100

Agree 14 14 50 0

Neutral 7 4 12 0

Disagree 3 1 0 0

Strongly Disagree 3 1 0 0

Distribution of

quota between the

UK and Eu is

fair?

Yes 0 1 0 0

No 97 96 100 100

Maybe 1 1 0 0

Don’t Know 2 2 0 0

Distribution of

quota between the

UK fleet is fair?

Yes 5 3 0 50

No 79 88 88 50

Maybe 1 4 0 0

Don’t Know 2 5 12 0

Question

Answer

Scotland

(%)

England

( %)

Wales

(%)

N.Ireland

(%)

Do you believe a

discard ban would

work?

Yes 7 20 13 25

No 84 71 62 75

Maybe 7 8 12 0

Don’t Know 2 1 13 0

Should the UK

replicate any part of

the CFP post Brexit?

Yes 10 14 25 0

No 67 65 37 75

Maybe 20 17 25 25

Don’t Know 3 4 13 0

Exclude all EU

members from EEZ?

Yes 57 67 100 50

No 28 16 0 25

Maybe 14 15 0 25

Don’t Know 1 2 0 0

Preferred method of

management?

Quota system 16 12 37 25

Days at Sea 52 67 50 75

Catch Composition 32 21 13 0

The UK government

will need to provide

subsidies in place of

the EU

Strongly Agree 21 16 12 25

Agree 12 7 0 0

Neutral 30 24 25 0

Disagree 13 14 13 25

Strongly Disagree 24 39 50 50

Sophie Thorbek 20

Summary of additional comments Answering Qu.18 was not compulsory, however of the 250 respondents, 112 provided

additional comments surrounding the topic of the questionnaire. The responses covered a

range of areas within the industry, comments that were repeated several times have been the

identified and listed below under relevant headings (Table 5)

Table 5. Themes of the additional comments

Political Social Environmental

Reclaim 200nm EEZ TV chefs should not

comment on the fishing

industry

The MMO and IFCA’s are

understaffed

Clean slate post Brexit

Imbalance between the

under 10m and over 10m

sectors

They want more

involvement with scientists

A total ban on EU vessels

in UK waters

The EU’s quotas

redistributed within the UK

fleet

Keen to improve

conservation

UK government not just

EU is to blame

Slipper skippers

Want smaller mesh nets

imposed

The UK should never have

been in Europe

Lack of economic link

More open and closed

seasons

A ban on imports of species

which are below the

minimum catching size

Fishermens opinions not

valued enough

Stocks fished out of sync

with actual biomass

Should look to Nordic

countries for management

strategies

PO’s are not a true representative of the industry

Industry led conservation

initiatives are not

recognised

Flag ships, that are not UK

owned are an issue

Impossible for the young to

start due to expense of

quotas

Politicians need to become

more involved in the

industry

Sophie Thorbek 21

Discussion

The discussion addresses the original aims of the thesis and the extent to which the objectives

were achieved. The order of the discussion follows the same as both the methods and results

however the section on stakeholder relationships is placed between the sections on current

and future management as it links both sections together.

Analysis of the industry at present

Demographics and Decline

The age distribution of the respondents (Figure 6) correlates with the common opinion that

the fishing industry has an ageing population. Yet an ageing population is a trend seen

throughout the UK, due to increasing life spans and decreasing fertility rates, with the “over

65’s” the largest growing sector due to the baby boom (Kurek and Rachwał, 2011).

Subsequently the employment rate for those aged 50-64 has seen a 14% increase in the last 30

years, with a 5% increase for those aged 65 and over (DWP, 2015). However, this ageing

trend is exaggerated in the fishing industry with 60% of the respondents over the age of 50

and a distinct lack of younger fishermen, only 9% of the respondents were under the age of

30. FFL (pers.comm. 2016) highlighted that the industry will face significant issues in the

future as the older generation retire with no one to replace them.

There are several reasons explaining why the younger generation may be put off, fishing is

considered a highly strenuous and dangerous occupation due to the operation of heavy

machinery and adverse weather conditions (Matheson, 2001). This perception is correct, as

between 2005 and 2015; 200 fishing vessels were lost; 597 fishermen suffered serious injury

and 92 fishermen were killed, a mortality rate 50 times higher than workers in other

Sophie Thorbek 22

professions (MAIB, 2016). However, despite these harsh statistics FFL (pers. comm. 2016)

pointed out that historically this has never been an issue in the fishing community and that

“you’re not going into it for the lifestyle because there are many easier ways to make a

pound.” With such an ancient industry steeped in tradition the urge to become a fisherman is

almost intangible, emphasized by Urquhart and Acott (2013) describing “fishing as not just an

occupation or a means of earning a living, but a way of life”.

A low influx of young fishermen may be part of the reason why 75% of the respondents

agreed that the industry had declined throughout their career (Figure 11). Despite fishermen

being very proud of their industry with many viewing it as a “second form of patriotism”

(FFL, pers. comm. 2016), they are very aware of the extent and only 46% of the fishermen

would encourage family members to join the industry (Figure 10), with 28% who would

discourage family from joining given their pride in the industry these results were

unexpected.

During the desktop study two other reasons for the decline in the fishing industry were

highlighted. The first linked to climate change and how rising sea temperatures were reducing

the oxygen content of the water and subsequently causing a decline in fish stocks (Rosessig et

al., 2004 ). The second surrounded fuel prices, a study conducted by Abernethy et al., (2010)

in Newlyn, Cornwall fund that fuel prices increased by 359% between 1998 and 2008 yet fish

prices and stayed relatively similar. However, throughout all the fishermens additional

comments and stakeholder interviews neither of these issues were mentioned suggesting they

are considered of little importance.

Sophie Thorbek 23

Parallels can be drawn between the decline in the UK’s coal industry and the current decline

in the fishing industry. However, whilst contributed more to employment it was

geographically limited to four main areas; South Wales; the Midlands; the North East and

South Scotland (Gore and Hollywood, 2009). Whereas it is perhaps a more critical issue for

the government that fishing industry survives, with the geographical distribution of the

respondents (Figure 5) showing that the decline of the industry is not focused in one area, it is

a national problem.

Management Structure

Phillipson and Crean (1997) discussed how there was a need for institutional reform within

the fishing industry, however at the time such a reform was considered a low priority. Twenty

years on, the fishermen are overwhelmingly in favour of radical reform. The data collected

during this study reveals great opposition to the current management system and evidence to

suggest the industry is suffering due to mismanagement. There has been poor integration of

scientific principles into the management structure (Daw and Gray, 2005).

EU Relationship

Whilst there was known animosity between the UK fleet and other EU countries, the extent of

the fishermens discontent had never been formally assessed. This study aimed to quantify this

and the question asking whether current quota allocations between the EU and UK are fair

elicited the strongest response from the fishermen, with 96% believing the distribution of

quota to be unfair (Figure 12). Only 1% of the respondents believed the allocation to be fair,

despite further analysis there was no trend identifying why these respondents disagreed with

the majority. Equal access to a common resource is a key principle of the CFP, however these

Sophie Thorbek 24

results clearly show the UK fleet do not agree, one fisherman would only encourage his son

into the industry if there was a total ban on EU vessels inside the UK’s EEZ.

Quota System

The quota system is a fundamental part of the CFP however it is the element that was the

most criticized by the fishermen. It is clear that quotas are a key grievance of the fishermen

with it being the most mentioned word throughout the additional comments (figure 22).

The fishermen were highly critical of the current quota system with only 15% of the

respondents believing it to be the best form of management (Figure 17). Again, both a lack of

quota or a miscalculated allocation of quota in relation to stocks were cited by the fishermen

as the main cause of discards (Table 2). The mismatch between quota and stocks was a

common theme one respondent stating that “too many times stocks are being fished out of

sync with actual biomass”. The preferred method of management was the days at sea system,

with 56% of the fishermen in favour (figure 17), it is a system with limited regulations and

allows fishermen to catch whatever they want within a given number of days. FFL

(pers.com.2016) was a strong advocate of the system believing it would lead to less wastage

of fish and a simplification of the current management system. IFCA (pers. comm. 2016)

agreed with the fishermen to an extent, as she believed that quotas are not applicable in every

fishery however she believed that if days at sea was a universally applied system some stocks

would be decimated. This opinion was also agreed upon by one fisherman from the beam

trawl fleet who believed that the days at sea method would decimate the Dover sole stock, due

to it being an expensive fish it would be singled out and heavily targeted.

Sophie Thorbek 25

Discard Ban

The discard ban introduced in the 2013 reform is not popular amongst the fishermen with

75% of them believing it won’t work (figure 14). This opinion was reiterated by Salomon,

Markus, and Dross (2014) who questioned whether it would be possible to monitor the

discard ban effectively. It also appears that whilst the practice of discards will end the reasons

behind it have not been solved (NUFTA, pers.comm.2016) In reference to the discard

problem one fishermen said “If you could land what you catch there would not be discard” By

creating the ban it doesn’t remove the problem of discards which is quota allocation is not

specific to the time of year or even the particular fishery. This was an issue highlighted by

NUFTA (pers.comm.2016) where he had been allocated quota for sole in the winter despite

there being a very limited abundance of sole in his region at that time of year the result was

that “you have a smaller mesh to catch sole but end up catching a range of juvenile cod

instead, so you’re actually killing your own stocks by being forced to fish for the wrong fish”

Despite the fishermen being highly critical of the discard ban it has been a policy widely

lauded by politicians, George Eustice the Fisheries minister said “it is one of the most

important changes to fisheries management since the creation of the CFP and is crucial to

making our fishing more sustainable.” Which perhaps shows him to be out of touch with the

very industry he is working for.

Sophie Thorbek 26

Analysis of Stakeholder Relationships

It is known that a wide variety of disputes can occur between different users of the marine

environment, however this study highlighted that there is significant discord between the

fishing industry and other stakeholders. However the evidence of divide within the industry

was unexpected.

Government

Due to Brexit, the fishing industries relationship with the government has come under

scrutiny and there is evidence suggesting it is a tenuous bond, demonstrated by 92% of the

respondents regarding the industries relationship with the government as “poor” or “very

poor” (Figure 19). Anger and distrust towards the government was a common theme

throughout the additional comments offered by the respondents.

However, the use of a sematic differential scale highlighted the strength of the respondent’s

opinions, it found that 58% of English respondents regarded their relationship with the

government which was higher than the 51% of Scottish fishermen (Figure 21). This supports

the belief that the Scottish government were influential in “The transformation of Scottish

fisheries” (Carter, 2014) thus improving government-fishermen relations.

A large element of the distrust stems from how the fishermen were treated by Edward Heaths’

government when the UK joined the EU, where despite great changes to the industry there

Sophie Thorbek 27

was little consultation with one respondent concerned this could be repeated and the industry

would be “sold down the river again like Ted Heath did, using the fishing industry as a

bargaining tool.” The government’s disinterest in the fishing industry was a common theme

with the industry’s lack of voting power often cited as the reason. Several fishermen were

keen for a more “hands-on” approach from the government as they believed “nothing will

change until the politicians get out and about among the fishermen across the country and

open their ears and eyes to see what is going on”. NUFTA (pers. comm. 2016) found this lack

of involvement leads to politicians not grasping all the complexities of fisheries so “the

government don’t know what to do and puts its head in the sand”. A consequence of this

situation is the creation of policies with little industry input resulting in the fishermen not

supporting new policies as can be seen with the discard ban (Figure 14). Overall the

respondents seemed keen to end the current downward-spiral and wished to improve relations

with the government.

Whilst the fishermen felt undervalued, Seafish (pers. comm. 2017) believed a greater value

had been placed on fishermen as “politically the catching sector has been punching far above

its weight”. Evidence of the fishermen exerting political influence is the creation of Low

Impact Fishers of Europe (LIFE) an organization dedicated to making the voice of small scale

fishermen heard on the EU platform, which has influenced EU legislation such as the creation

Article 17 of the 2013 reform to the CFP (NUFTA, pers. comm. 2016).

A study conducted by Philipson and Crean (1997) showed that when fishermen were

presented with the option for the industry to become autonomous, the preferred management

scheme was for responsibilities to be shared between the government and the fishing industry.

This demonstrates that the fishermen acknowledged the need for government resources, a

Sophie Thorbek 28

primary reason being the necessity for an overseeing body to mediate between the conflicting

fishing sectors.

Scientists

There was a slight improvement in the relationship between the fishing industry and scientists

(Figure 19) however 74% of respondents still believed relations to be “poor” or “very poor”.

Fisheries science was a dominant topic in the respondent’s additional comments which

showed they had a high regard for the subject. Their responses could be grouped into three

main areas, the first of these was suggestions to improve scientist-fisherman relations. They

wanted more importance placed on their knowledge of the industry with one respondent

stating “I have over 35 years’ experience, 25 as a skipper and I think my views and opinions

should be listened to more than they have in the past.” This level of experience in the industry

is not uncommon as over 50% of the respondents have been a fisherman for upwards of 30

years’ (Figure 7). Couper and Smith (1997) agreed that whilst there was a level of co-

operation between the two stakeholders there was no formalized system which brought the

two together to produce formal outcomes. It was also suggested that fishermen should be

given greater responsibility in gathering data over scientists. Twenty years on there is still no

binding agreement between the two groups.

There is the belief that some fishermen do not understand fisheries science enough to be able

to assist (Seafish pers. comm. 2017), this lack of understanding is supported by 21% of

respondents staying neutral on their relationship with scientists in comparison to only 7%

voting neutral for their relationship with the government (Figure 19). A higher proportion of

respondents remaining neutral suggests some fishermen do not have enough interaction with

fisheries science to be able to comment on whether it is good or bad.

Sophie Thorbek 29

However, a criticism of the scientific community is that in the past they have not engaged

with the industry or attempted to explain their data which causes the lack of understanding

(IFCA pers. comm. 2016). In the case of the Severn and Devon IFCA, it was found that the

organizations relationship with fishermen would vary depending on the fishing sector in

question and the impact of the policies they were trying to introduce (IFCA pers. comm.

2016). The assumption that the pelagic sector would have a stronger relationship with

scientists (Corten, 1999) was disproved as 0% regarded their relationship as “good” or “very

good” whereas it was 5% and 6% for the demersal and shellfish sectors.

NUFTA (pers. comm. 2016) had had a good working relationship with CEFAS for 40 years,

but found there were issues with the quantity and quality of the collected data, this was the

second area discussed regarding fisheries science. The flawed nature of fisheries science was

commonly referred to by the respondents with several criticisms such as “stock assessment

programs are lacking in accurate data” and “there is no good scientific evidence backing up

the data on stocks” but also of the bodies collecting the data, “the IFCA’s and MMO are

understaffed and have insufficient boats”. These criticisms are not unfounded, in reference to

predicting fish stocks, Mackinson (2001) states that there is an “…incomplete understanding

of biological and ecological mechanisms underpinning behavioral responses of fish. Large

gaps still exist in our basic scientific knowledge." This uncertainty in fisheries science was

also acknowledged by both IFCA(pers.comm. 2016) and Seafish (perss.comm.2017).

Seafish (pers. comm. 2017) highlighted another issue in fisheries science which was a time

lag, as by the time the scientific data is collected, analyzed and the stock size is estimated,

several years can have gone by. The fishermen blame the scientists for the resulting “lag

Sophie Thorbek 30

between the scientific advice and the quota that they have to fish against” which is

particularly an issue for fast reproducing species. Daw and Gray (2005) noted that regardless

of the chosen method, reducing the quantity fishermen could catch would have an economic

consequence and cause discontent. Similarly, IFCA (pers.comm.2016) found that the

fundamental role of being a regulatory body meant there would always be conflict as “if

you’re a manager and restricting someone you are never going to be popular all of the time if

you’re doing your job properly.”

The final area that the respondents emphasized was conservation. It can be assumed that

fishermen are only interested in exploiting fisheries with little regard for the consequences

(Thurstan, 2010). However, several the respondents highlighted their concern about the future

of fisheries noting that longevity of fish stocks needed to be a priority and several respondents

displayed awareness of the environmental impacts of fishing with one Scottish fisherman’s

belief that “technology has beaten off nature and we now have the ability to wipe out the

North Sea very easily, in a short space of time.”

Media and the Public

The most accessible platform for the public to understand the fishing industry is through the

media, therefore it has a great influence over the publics opinion. Prior to Brexit the most

publicity the industry had seen was during Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s “Fish Fight”

campaign, it was widely publicized as a great success story due to the EU banning the

practice of discards in the 2013 CFP reform.

Theoretically this campaign should have benefitted the UK’s fishermen, who are strongly

opposed to the practice of discarding, with one respondent stating that “throwing back good

Sophie Thorbek 31

fish is criminal”. However, it is evident the campaign was highly unpopular as 81% of the

fishermen believed the campaign had not benefitted the industry (Figure 20). This

dissatisfaction with the celebrity chefs and the media was reiterated in the respondent’s

additional comments, as they believed that “TV chefs should not comment on the industry”

and that “Hugh’s Fish Fight and others have severely damaged the UK fishing industry.”

Their issue with these multimedia campaigns is due to them being created with minimal input

from the fishing industry. However, NUFTA (pers.comm.2016) was contacted by the “Fish

Fight” campaign and featured in the supporting Channel 4 program. Whilst he found it to be a

good opportunity to highlight the wasteful practice of discarding fish, overall he believed the

campaign “missed the point.” The practice of discards was sensationalized by the media

whilst the real causes were not addressed due to them being both complex and too mundane

for public consumption.

A clear lack of understanding between stakeholders can be seen with IFCA (pers. comm.

2016) believing the fishing industry had a positive attitude towards “Hugh’s Fish Fight”

despite the survey showing that this was not the case as only 8% of respondents thought the

campaign was beneficial. However, the high response rate to the online questionnaire

conducted in this study is a prime example of the industries increasing grasp and willingness

to engage with social media. This is evident in the formation and promotion of the “Fishing

for Leave” campaign where social media was a powerful tool, enabling the fishermens

opinion to be heard across the UK.

Interrelationship of Stakeholders

Aside from the fishing industries opinions, the relationships between the other stakeholders

are not always harmonious and this can have a detrimental impact on the management of

Sophie Thorbek 32

fisheries. Ross (pers. comm. 2016) had found there was “a tendency for politicians to not give

scientists the respect they deserve”, which undermines their authority at a time when they are

already being questioned by the industry. Kaplan (2004) noted how poor communication had

resulted in tension and poor relations between various stakeholders, which was hindering

management. The fishermen were aware of the disagreements between the different parties

and despite evident dissatisfaction with all of them (figures 15-16/17) the need to resolve

these conflicts was a common theme with several respondents noting that “better relationships

between fishermen, scientists and the government are crucially needed.”

Internal Divide

Aside from conflicts with other stakeholders the data from both the interviews and

questionnaires portrayed an industry with considerable internal divide. The questionnaire

revealed that 84% of respondents (Figure 13) regarded quota allocation within the fleet as

unfair. This result showed a high level of division within the industry and was significantly

different from what was expected. The additional comments supplied by the fishermen

alongside the interview highlighted three main reasons behind this divide. Firstly

The Under-10m are highly dissatisfied with their allocation of the quota and by how little they

are valued despite being one of the most ecologically sound sectors of the industry (Green

Peace, 2016). Berkes (1985) also found that the men working in small scale fisheries were

more likely to limit their catch for the benefit of the community whereas there was a higher

self-interest of fishermen in large scale fisheries. This is evident with some of the respondents

finding Producer Organisations (PO’s) to be dictatorial within the industry, and were unhappy

that due to their large purchasing power they could buy large portions of the UK’s quota. An

example of their domineering attitude can be seen in 2013 when the government reallocated a

portion of quota from large producer organisations to the under 10m fleet to maximize the use

Sophie Thorbek 33

of available quota. The UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations (UKAFPO) fought

this decision in court as they believed they had been “deprived of valuable entitlement

without compensation” despite already owning 90% of the England and Wales’ total fishing

quota, however, the decision was upheld. Another divide within the industry was between

active fishermen and those that were not, “slipper skipper” was a commonly coined term

relating to inactive or retired fishermen who continue to own quota, active fishermen felt very

strongly with one respondent stating that “quotas should not be in the hands of slipper

skippers, they should be in the hands of the government”

Analysis of Future Management of UK fisheries

It is inevitable that Brexit is going to change the management of UK fisheries to some extent.

Whilst the universal opinion of the fishermen is that change is necessary and will be

beneficial, how radically the management system is reformed does vary between different

sectors and other stakeholders. The main focus for the future of fisheries management is

focus on how the UK interacts with the list of regulations within the CFP, and the relationship

with Europe combined with how the UK reworks its own management structure.

Future of CFP

There is a large concern that the government will adopt the status quo and the CFP will be

adopted in its entirety into UK law (FFL, pers.comm.2016). The universal opinion of the

fishing industry is that they do not want a total replication of the CFP, one respondent stating

that “we require a clean break from a discredited system”. However, there are elements of the

current CFP particularly those relating to the recent 2013 reform that certain sectors would

want to see outside the EU. The small-scale fleet would be keen to keep Article 17 and links

with LIFE due to it having “grown in stature and its ability to influence legislation” (NUFTA,

Sophie Thorbek 34

pers.comm.2016) Other stakeholder had also believed the reform to have had great potential if

there had been a greater length of time to implement the policies (IFCA, pers.comm.2016)

Management structure

The fishermen were keen to distance themselves from the European Union and almost 62%

believed that the EU fleet should be excluded from the UK’s EEZ (Figure 16).

The fishermen view Brexit as an opportunity to decentralize the management of fisheries

from Brussels and bring it back to the UK, where extensive regionalization can occur. From

there all the stakeholders within the industry need to work together on fisheries management.

This is an opinion supported by Kaplan (2004) “Not only do stakeholders need to be part of

the research and management process, there also needs to be a better understanding of the

impact that management decisions have on the people being managed”

An improvement in how fishermen assist scientists was a key issue, an issue also highlighted

by Mackinson (2001) that “the

knowledge of fishers and fishery

managers is not incorporated into

our scientific analyses, even though

such information is rich in

observation since knowledge of fish

behavior and distribution is a

prerequisite for their profession.

Combining such observations with

more conventional scientific studies

and theoretical interpretations

Figure 23. Improved structure of fisheries science

Sophie Thorbek 35

provides a means by which we may bridge some gaps in our knowledge”, this is displayed in

figure 23.

Conclusions

Concluding Comments

The first aim of this thesis was to investigate the concerns the fishermen have with the current

system of fisheries management. The results showed an industry in steep decline and despite

the current fishermen cherishing their jobs, this degeneration has permeated their opinions on

the industry and a once highly prized industry appears to have lost some of its charm. The

lack of a younger generation is prominent issue which will only grow as the older generation

retire, however this is not helped by a lack of government incentives to join and the current

fishermen being ambivalent about whether family members become involved. The issues with

the Common Fisheries Policy are centered around the current quota system, whilst it was the

source of the practice of discarding, the discard ban was treated as a separate issue resulting in

it being a poorly constructed piece of legislation.

The relationship between the fishermen and the main stakeholders is tenuous, there is distrust

of the government combined with a lack of politician involvement in the industry. Fisheries

science was highlighted as complex and by its very nature imperfect, a fact not always

understood by the fishermen however they were very willing to improve relations with the

scientists through a genuine urge to protect the fisheries, viewing themselves as stewards of

the seas. In some instances, the media had misrepresented the fishermen which has

consequently led to a poor public perception of the industry, however the use of social media

Sophie Thorbek 36

had several benefits which were recognized and showed a growing interest to engaging with

it.

An unexpected but key finding was the level of divide within the industry, the clearest of

these being between the under-10m and over-10m fleet due to an uneven allocation of quota.

The fact quota has monetary value is a key issue as large proportions of it can bought up large

producer organisations but also rented by fishermen who have retire “slipper skippers” both

groups are highly unpopular in the general fishing community. As quota is a government

resource the fact that private bodies own it needs to be addressed.

The second aim was to investigate how UK fishermen wanted fisheries management to

change because of Brexit. From the fishermens perspective the overriding view was for a

clean slate when Article 50 is invoked. Whereby a completely new fisheries policy is created

with an increased focus on regional and seasonal variations in fish stocks, and the fishermen

were keen to work closely with both the government and scientists to ensure the success of

the UK’s fisheries. The fishermen have numerous issues with the quota system suggest and

from their perspective the preferred method of management would be a “days at sea” system

and whilst there are several benefits it should not necessarily be a blanket measure as it is not

suitable for all fisheries.

The ageing population is an issue and the fisherman are keen to rejuvenate the industry, by

not including small vessels in the quota system and offering incentives for entering the

industry it could encourage a younger generation to engage in the industry. However, a lack

of interest in the industry may need more than an improvement in management, as it may be a

sign of the times, in this modern era people are less inclined towards physically demanding

jobs. There is now also a missing generation of fishermen, even if the industry is rejuvenated

that generational gap and loss of family ties will still be there and it is the familial links that

Sophie Thorbek 37

are key in the fishing industry “it’s not something you just fall out the sky and drop into, it’s a

family thing,” (FFL, pers. comm. 2016). However, through the numerous additional

comments supplied by the fishermen it was clear that they are very open to change and are

willing to assist wherever possible to ensure the long-term prosperity of the industry.