At our “Rebuilding Trust: Fisheries, Science, Management” event on 15 December 2025 we heard from a range of panellists who together explored the topic of trust between the fishing industry, scientists, managers, and policymakers. Hard to build but easy to break, trust is key to sustainable fisheries management. However, research indicates that across many UK fisheries there is low trust in institutions, with trust in national level institutions especially low.
During the event, panellists offered insights into the bidirectional nature of trust and emphasised the importance of connecting to the ground when working at the science-policy interface. Speakers also highlighted the role of communication and technology in fostering more open, real-time science for advice suited to fast-changing sea realities, and shared examples demonstrating how dialogue and collaboration can lead to shared understanding and practical, evidence-based knowledge to address complex challenges and support sustainable fisheries.
Attendees heard from:
Bryce Stewart, Senior Research Fellow, Marine Biological Association
Sarah Coulthard, Senior Lecturer, Newcastle University
Mark Dickey-Collas, Consulting Marine Scientist & Former Chair of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Advisory Committee
Hans Polet, Scientific Director, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO)
David Stevens, Skipper & Chairman, Crystal Sea & Fishing Into the Future (FITF)
Dale Rodmell, Chief Executive, Eastern England Fish Producers’ Organisation (EEFPO)
Emily Roebuck, Marine Scientist, Cefas
A full recording of the online event can be found here:
Following the presentations, Parliamentarians and attendees put their questions to the panel. Questions were also collated ahead of the meeting. Written summaries of all comments, questions and answers are provided below.
Please note that these reflect the view of the panellists and speakers, rather than the APPG Secretariat or its Members.
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM MPs
Following on from today’s presentation on Fishing into the Future’s Fisheries Resource Education Programme (F-REP), I take it as an action to promote something of this nature in my own area, the North East of Scotland. The topic of trust is really vital. When I think of some of the skippers where I live, who I personally know, they don’t always have a lot of time for scientists, even though they take them out on their boats from time to time. Even when they do agree with Government, NGOs step in and take them to court and that undermines a lot of what we can do. Lastly, in relation to what Hans Polet presented regarding the Belgian experience, I would like to get a sense of what's in it for the fishermen? (Seamus Logan MP)
In response, Hans Polet highlighted the importance of supporting the type of fisher-led innovation within decentralised fisheries management exemplified by the Belgian trial, emphasising that management should not prescribe use of any one specific gear type. Instead, he said, fishermen should be allowed to decide when, how and where to fish. This greater sense of control over their livelihoods, he emphasised, was the key motivator behind fishermen's choice to take part in the Belgian trial. Polet added that the knowledge generated was an additional motivating factor – as this could feed back into fishermen’s decision making, allowing them again more control over, and greater understanding of, their fishing grounds.
Tomorrow the EFRA Committee will question the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, Angela Eagle MP, and I will take some of the questions here forward. Trust has been a big issue for a number of years now. Relatedly, the EFRA Committee has an inquiry open on fisheries and the marine environment, and we recently travelled to Brixham as part of this. Of course, there have been fisheries negotiations ongoing recently also. (Jayne Kirkham MP)
In response, APPG Co-Chair Melanie Onn MP expressed a hope that the meeting’s discussions would feed into the ongoing work ongoing of the EFRA Committee. She noted in particular that a question to be taken forward could be: How much further, and how much faster, can we roll out the F-REP programme?
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM ONLINE ATTENDEES
Commenting on the meeting’s discussion, Elena Balestri, Senior Fisheries Policy and Science Manager at the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, reflected that in her work at the interface between policy, conservation, science and fishing problems relating to a lack of trust were felt keenly. Noting the present moment as a challenging one, with a lot happening and a lot at stake, she highlighted that it was at moments like this that trust begins to wobble.
Balestri further made the case that the present moment was characterised by oversimplified messages and overcomplex solutions, particularly in relation to targets. She stated that to address this there was a need to steer clear of fast and easy solutions and instead embrace complexity, explain it and use this to frame well thought through solutions.
What responsibility do scientists have to counter misinformation shared as part of NGO campaigns? Much of the mistrust in the fishing industry is generated by corporate conservation NGOs promoting scientifically unsubstantiated propaganda to raise revenues and donations from a public that are unaware of the true nature of fishing and its current management measures. What can the panel, the government or anyone else do to control this misinformation?
Agreeing with the question’s underlying statement, David Stevens suggested a need to define stakeholdership and narrow down who is considered a legitimate stakeholder. He reflected that currently many voices are included in fisheries questions that aren’t directly invested in or impacted by changes – yet within consultations they are heavily involved and afforded the same weighting as the fishing industry. This had implications in terms of taking up government time and resources, and stalling the rate of progress towards finding solutions, he said.
Reflecting on his engagement in the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters, Dale Rodmell highlighted that the influence of multinational NGOs lobbying for a bottom trawling ban had eroded the trust that had been built through the original MPA co-design process. He highlighted the work of Clean Catch as an example of things being done differently, with processes representing a broad range of stakeholders unified around a shared ambition. The question now was how to scale up for societal impact the work pioneered by projects like Clean Catch.
Emphasising that everyone has a right to have a voice and contribute their perspective on objectives, Mark Dickey-Collas stated that it wasn’t the role of scientists to clear up misinformation, per se – rather the role of scientists is to provide evidence, which the public can then engage with and challenge. It was for the government to bring scientists to the table to counter misinformation, if necessary – though it was observed that there was a tendency by government to run with the science when it served them, and at other times ignore evidence. That said, Dickey-Collas acknowledged there may be specific issues that scientists feel they need to address, and cited his engagement in misinformation regarding CO2 emissions released by bottom-trawling, as an example.
Sarah Coulthard emphasised the importance of platforms for debate. Drawing on her own work, she highlighted the significance of platforms at the regional or local level, where there are pre-established conditions of trust, and time to dive into the issues at hand. Coulthard also highlighted, for example, the broad engagement on this question on the Seafood Matters podcast, reflecting on the arguments put forward by the Ocean documentary, and their impact.
Agreeing with the points raised, Bryce Stewart stated that scientists have a role in voicing an opinion when and where it matters, highlighting also, for instance, the Seafood Matters podcast as a good outlet for this. More broadly, Stewart reflected on the importance of determining ‘where we are trying to get to?’. Citing the APPG’s Action Plan as a positive example, he emphasised the need for societal reflection, including by the fishing industry, on what we want our marine environment and fisheries sector to look like, and for what purpose we want our management systems to succeed i.e. is for the intrinsic value of the environment or so we can sustainably use the ocean?
While everyone has a right to engage in some way, the need to decide where we're trying to get to as a society was noted, with detail cited as important here due to the reality that this endeavour entailed a balancing of different priorities. Stewart concluded by highlighting that the role of scientists was to provide evidence, and that it was within the government’s remit to use this evidence as it relates to what society wants and needs.
Emily Roebuck highlighted the importance of projects like Clean Catch which are fishermen-led but also bring in broader perspectives at different levels where appropriate. She also emphasised the importance of transparency within these processes.
Many fishermen fear that if they provide information on the bycatch of sensitive species that it will eventually be used to their disadvantage. How can this be overcome? In the presentation on Clean Catch there was lots of information on how they went about building that trust with stakeholders, but a lot of fishermen won't get that far. How can this trust be built across the wider industry?
Emily Roebuck recognised that bycatch was indeed a sensitive issue and emphasised that this sensitivity was something they were aware of going into conversations. Having spoken to fishermen, she reflected that, of course, bycatch was also an unwanted problem. She acknowledged there was a risk that data contributed by fishermen could be misconstrued, and emphasised the importance of data protection, providing reassurances to fishermen, and setting out a dedicated communications approach. Through this, Clean Catch had managed to maintain the trust needed for data sharing.
Hans Polet acknowledged that there was always an inherent risk in information or data sharing by fishermen, as there was always a risk that with bycatch there may be consequences – as was rightfully the case. He made the case that while observing catches should be central in fisheries management, there should not necessarily be a prescribed approach on how to go about avoiding bycatch. Instead management should allow innovation from fishermen on mitigation initiatives, he said.
Highlighting the significance of open data and its relevance to ongoing issues of spatial squeeze, Mark Dickey-Collas noted that fishermen had been reluctant to reveal where they're fishing, and as a result were being pushed out by other industries in the marine space. Dickey-Collas urged attendees to pay attention to Target 9 and 10 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, which refers to use of marine space and biodiversity for the benefit of people. He emphasised that to achieve this, fishermen needed to convey where they are fishing and how this is benefitting livelihoods – with this being crucial to meeting these targets.
How do you build trust when policy goals are at odds with scientific evidence?
Stressing that policy goals are societally derived and take precedence, Mark Dickey-Collas emphasised that while goals and objectives can be informed by science, they cannot be determined by science.
Hans Polet spotlighted the need to openly acknowledge errors and inconsistencies in advice, and to work towards solutions in an open and cooperative manner with industry. As with Dickey-Collas he noted that policy goals are an outcome of political decision making, but here emphasised a need for policy to be open to the fact that scientific advice may be challenged, and adapted to realities at sea. This should be a cooperative effort between industry and science, he said, indicating that communication and dialogue were essential to this relationship and to ensuring sector buy-in. Acknowledgement of the challenges faced by industry was also needed, he added, highlighting that the social aspect of fisheries still required more policy and management attention.
How can anecdotal information from fishermen and anglers be incorporated into annual assessments? For instance, there is a three pollack limit on angling vessels area 6 and 7 at a time when we are seeing more 0-4 class pollack than we have seen for decades in the northern Irish Sea. Decisions like this stand in contrast to what is seen on the ground and have potential to cripple businesses for no reason.
Mark Dickey-Collas relayed that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) had worked on this issue and continues to explore it. He highlighted four reports in particular demonstrating that scientists are listening and working to find solutions:
ICES (2021). Workshop on Standards and Guidelines for fisheries dependent data (WKDSG; outputs form 2020 meeting). ICES Scientific Reports. Report. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.8038
ICES (2024). ICES Roadmap for Marine Recreational Fisheries (MRF). ICES Convention, policies, and strategy. Report. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.27930003.v1
ICES (2023). Workshop on developing guidance for ensuring the integrity of scientific information submitted to ICES by data providers (WKEnsure). ICES Scientific Reports. Report. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.22692058.v1
ICES (2023). ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. ICES Convention, policies, and strategy. Report. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.21815106.v1
Involving fishermen in collecting research is a positive way of building trust – but are the policies in place to support this e.g. can government bodies pay fishermen for their time and does the data collected pass the requirements to be acceptable? If not, how do we address this?
Drawing on his experience with European fisheries, Hans Polet indicated that there were not. A fundamental reform of policy, management, control & enforcement and science was needed to achieve the goal of a more mature way of managing fisheries, he said, signposting ILVO’s already existing concept of such an approach.
Mark Dickey-Collas pointed to the previously mentioned ICES reports as a point of reference here, but cautioned that payment of fishermen for information could potentially be classed as a further form of subsidy, which governments have agreed to reduce.
How can we use technology to bridge the trust gap, particularly in terms of understanding catch data?
Outlining the importance of the integrity, trust and traceability of information, Mark Dickey-Collas pointed to the ICES reports highlighted previously as relevant further reading. He also noted that the use of technology to address these dimensions could help lead to a transparent system which could help move the discussions forward.
David Stevens signposted Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) as an extremely good tool to provide transparency to management, in particular through its use for data collection purposes. However, he noted, REM was a very powerful tool which should be used to develop policy around what it can achieve – rather than being used as a blunt enforcement tool.
Spotlighting that both managers and scientists need good data, Hans Polet outlined that this was currently lacking and was reflected in deteriorating advice. This required improvement, and ideally should include clarity on catch composition, he stated. This was something that could be achieved with onboard cameras, but to make this work a separation of data for science and from other needs was needed. This would reduce hesitancy across the industry to share their data, he said. On this basis, cameras were posited as a potential answer. That advancements in AI technology would soon be able to analyse unsorted catches onboard was noted. This data could form the basis by which to bridge the trust gap.
Many are feeling 'fatigue' from multiple academic studies and other surveys seeking the engagement of fishermen – would all in industry, science, management and policy making agree that a coordinated approach could be more beneficial, appear more 'open' and help answer the questions that the fishermen themselves may have?
In agreement, David Stevens suggested that government needed to manage output and ensure that only one department undertakes surveys on behalf of Defra. The Fishing Industry Social Survey, he noted, conducted by Defra, alongside the University of Gloucestershire, was a good example, measuring performance and interface with industry. More broadly, however, repetitive surveys should be avoided.
Sarah Coulthard agreed that there was a problem with duplication in research, with inadequate work done by funders to identify synergies between the projects they fund and existing work. She added that the responsibility to address this, and ensure funding was spent effectively, lay with funding organisations. However, academics also needed to be more accountable – though it was noted that with researchers under pressure to bring in funding this was sometimes difficult. As signposted by the question, current failures here were resulting in understandable fatigue among fishermen.
Coulthard added that more was needed to ensure a joined up approach that spoke to the needs of fishermen and other proposed research beneficiaries. A good practice example of this happening, she said, could be found in the co-design based funding approach in the Netherlands, where funding was available to co-design a research proposal with proposed beneficiaries, following which stage 2 funding could be applied for. Defra’s new Fishing Industry Social Survey, which featured workshops allowing fishermen to have a say on which questions were asked, was another, as was her recent work with the NIFCA on the Cab and Lobster FMP response.
Going forward, the idea of fishermen setting the question was a really good one, perhaps utilising the F-REPS as a way to facilitate this. She stated that this was something that would be explored further as part of the Inshore and Small-Scale Fisheries Symposium in February, which would take place in Newcastle. While co-design takes time, it was something we needed more of – fishermen have great ideas, she said, which need to find their way into decision-making.
Dale Rodmell and Emily Roebuck emphasised that a coordinated approach to engagement with fishermen was better for reducing repetition and providing consistency in the quality of the data collected, however noted that this is challenging to achieve in practice. Those in industry, science, management, and policymaking are oftentimes asking questions stemming from different angles, which can elicit different answers from fishermen based on the context from which the questions are being asked, they highlighted. Understanding who was best to pose such questions and gather the right information within the right context, and not to ask the same question to the same people was cited as meaningful, as was consideration of additional practical implications such as the issue of managing privacy requirements if data were to be shared among different parties.
We have heard that the promises made to argue for Brexit haven't materialised. How can we move forward, given the constraints from the EU in terms of quotas and general sustainability and revive fisheries?
Recognising that the question was a difficult one to answer, Sarah Coulthard suggested looking beyond our borders to see how other countries were doing this, and ensure that where fishing by foreign vessels was permitted, it was properly monitored and managed. Secondly, she noted that over the last decade England’s IFCAs had implemented a suite of management measures that had been effective in delivering sustainability and being accepted by industry. With these restricted to the 6nm limit a discussion on whether parts of the IFCA jurisdiction extended out to 12nm was probably overdue, she suggested.
In addition, Coulthard stated that more investment was needed in diversification to catch non-quota species and develop new markets for fish we don’t eat, such as octopus. This would also require more nimble and responsible management at regional levels to enable effective management of emerging fisheries.
David Stevens emphasised that good management through the Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) process could be achieved if the UK fully embraced and trusted a co-management approach. However, he felt the government’s ambition was held back by a fear that pursuing a different approach, such as co-management, would affect the UK’s relationship with the EU.
We frequently hear the term 'Just Transition' being used in a fisheries context. What do panellists feel a Just Transition for fisheries includes to create or maintain trust between fishers, management bodies, and other stakeholders?
Sarah Coulthard indicated that the concept of a ‘just transition’ was useful to fisheries, but added that sometimes it was misused, with too much focus on the ‘transition’ and not enough on the ‘justice’ components. There needs to be equal consideration of both to work, she said. Fisheries are inherently transitional and dynamic, she added, as fishermen are constantly innovating and adapting to the challenges and opportunities that arise, and there’s strength in this resilience that could be better recognised and built on
Coulthard continued by adding that sometimes more substantial transition is necessary to achieve a particular goal, such as transitioning to reduce the environmental impact of fishing. A ‘just transition’, in this context, brings attention to how the costs and risks of transitioning are borne across industry, understanding who can and cannot transition, and why. Currently, we don’t understand enough about the factors that make fishing businesses vulnerable and how much change can be realistically accommodated, she said. A just transition would take all of this into account and put it front and foremost, prior to asking anyone to make a transition.
Concluding, Coutlard added that procedural justice (i.e. decision-making and whose voice is included) as part of a just transition was also really important, where people could have a meaningful say in the decisions that affect their lives.
How can openness and verification of catches, which will build trust and improve scientific stock assessments, be incentivised?
Viewing fisheries management from a needs point of view, David Stevens noted that when three main needs are filled you have a well managed fishery: 1) science needs good quality data with excellent coverage, 2) management needs transparency with real time data to enhance decision making, and 3) industry needs flexibility to manage catches, in what is an ever changing environment.
Making the case for deregulation, Hans Polet outlined that when catches are well documented, the need for technical measures diminishes, which means that fishermen can then decide their own strategies. The improved data could also be used to build software tools for fishermen to optimise their fishery e.g. catch prediction tools. ILVO already has such a prototype running. Polet noted in addition that the technology used to analyse catches, which runs with a minimum of human intervention, could eliminate the need for complex administration and registration.
Drawing on their experience with sensitive species bycatch in the Clean Catch EEFPO North Sea seabird bycatch trial, Dale Rodmell and Emily Roebuck relayed that an emphasis on partnership working with industry to find practical solutions to bycatch issues had been important in building trust and open collaborative relationships.
When designing the trial, clearly communicating on what data was needed from a scientific perspective, and how it would be used, which in turn incentivises participants to submit data, was key. In terms of reporting data on bycatches within the Clean Catch trial, this was for scientific research to help understand where and when bycatches occur, and where they do not. Data is shared back with fishermen along with how this can be used to inform bycatch mitigation. Additionally, providing fishermen with an easy way to record this information, such as through an app or paper records, and involving fishermen in this process so they know what data is being used in the project, and how, further encourages fishermen to report bycatches, they said.
Separately to Clean Catch, EEFPO vessels previously participated on a voluntary basis in the Fully Documented Fisheries scheme that awarded extra quota as part of the trial and demonstrated very low levels of discards. The trial ended in 2021, but signposted another way in which an incentivised approach to catch verification can work.