Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

ROLES, PERCEPTIONS & RESPONSIBILITIES (COMMERCIAL (Negative view of…

- - - - Local management difficult as people will always cross boundaries
      - Local management difficult when it splits up an MPA
      - Local management means differences that will disadvantage some fishermen
    - - Concern at declining fish stocks
      - Pressure for space
      - Fishing being pushed out by other uses of the sea
      - Climate change/longer term global change a challenge for IFCA
    - - Funding/resources are a big challenge for IFCA
      - Funding/resources across DEFRA
      - MPAs as big challenge for IFCA
      - Brexit a challenge for IFCA
      - Current layers of management are confusing
      - Uncertainty over IFCA model & its permanency
      - Too many links in management structures leads to failures
      - Single species management??
      - Imbalance in resources/ability to partake in management
      - Lack of institutional join up a problem for IFCA & inshore fleet
  - - - Management is for benefit of legal fishermen
      - Role of IFCA
      - Role of IFCA Committee
      - IFCA focussed on local fisheries
      - Councillors focus on costs
      - IFCA acting as voice of fish
    - - Best management is common sense
      - Management must be led by evidence
      - Frustration at need for evidence before can restrict fishing activity
      - Cannot always have full evidence - need to manage anyway
      - Regulation without enforcement is pointless
      - Management doesn't only go one way - areas/species can be opened back up
      - Need to communicate benefits of change
      - Licence gives fishermen a stake
      - IFCA good at involving public in decision making
      - Issues re what evidence is
  - - - Favours more national management
      - Favours local management
      - Management needs to devolve to local institutions more
      - Support for IFCA model
      - Dissatisfaction with IFCA Committee
    - - Foreign boats should contribute to UK for use of UK waters
      - UK control of UK waters
      - Overarching view needed as base of management
      - Need more enforcement
      - Wider evidence base needed
      - Inshore waters kept for smaller boats
      - Need for flexibility in management
      - UK waters should be for UK boats (or neighbours)
    - - Desire for change in management practices
      - Acceptance of change
        
        Fishermen are adaptable
        
        Regulation inhibits adaptation
        
        Adaptation is not simple
        
        Resistance to change in fishing/management practices
- - - - Management not inclusive of fishermen
      - Lack of IFCA engagement with fishermen
      - Management with fishermen would be better
      - IFCA do not consult/involve fishermen/fishing communities enough
    - - Livelihood a motivator for opposition to management
      - Profit is main driver of commercial fishermen
      - Concern for future of fishing
      - Concern inshore fishery will die out
  - - - Government advocating for fishing industry
      - Government pressure to favour commercial fishermen
      - Government not strong enough to take decisions unpopular with commercial fishermen
    - - Commercial fishing is to blame for declining fish stocks
      - Blame for commercial fishermen
      - Greed of commercial fishermen is partly behind quota mess
      - Public perception of commercial fishermen as greedy
      - Commercial fishermen short-sighted re stock health
      - Commercial fishermen exploiting rules to make more money
      - Industrialisation of fishing is impacting stock health
    - - Frustration at lack of adequate control of fishing activity
      - Commercial fishing needs further regulation/management
      - Commercial fishermen need to engage with management
      - IFCA consultation not effective as commercial fishermen do not engage
      - Commercial fishermen should be obliged to contribute to costs of management