The relationship between commercial fishing operators and regulators is too often defined by friction, marked by suspicion, box-ticking compliance and a persistent sense that decisions are made far from the quayside, writes Phil Haslam, managing director, North Atlantic Fishing Company.
The EFRA Committee’s latest report confirms this, pointing to a lack of trust between fishing communities and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). This has been sharpened by the perceived shortcomings of the UK’s 12-year reciprocal access deal with the EU.

This tension plays out in communities where fishing isn’t just an industry, but an identity. Concentrated in a handful of coastal towns, these fleets underpin local economies and cultures.
Yet while most fishermen still take pride in their work, the strain is growing. According to a Defra-commissioned survey conducted by the Countryside and Community Research Institute, more than 85% report frequent stress driven by complex rules, red tape, and rising competition for space at sea.
With regulatory pressure only set to intensify, the industry faces a stark choice: push back and risk impractical rules being imposed or engage proactively to help design practical frameworks that benefit all.
A decision to do things differently
NAFCO’s response to this strained status quo was to make a deliberate commitment to openness rather than push back. By voluntarily deploying Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) technology in partnership with Defra, it turned a compliance burden into a practical demonstration of trust and transparency.
Fishermen often feel that their first-hand experience and insights at sea are overlooked in policy decisions and scientific recommendations. REM helps address this gap by reliably capturing real-world fishing activity.
Installed onboard vessels, it collects detailed data on operations and catches, ensuring that what happens at sea is accurately recorded and reflected. Using onboard cameras, sensors and time-stamped location tracking, the system records everything from gear deployment to catch handling, creating shared evidence that both fishermen and regulators can rely on.
Early rollout on the Frank Bonefaas, our UK fleet’s largest pelagic trawler, showed REM in action. Installed over two phases, the system generated high-quality data that fed directly into scientific understanding and stock management.
Crucially, for REM to be credible, it must be implemented in a way that guarantees a level playing field. By stepping forward and sharing data voluntarily, NAFCO proved that when industry leads with openness, it helps shape regulatory expectations, speeds up processes, reduces disputes, and delivers better outcomes.
The tangible benefits
As a responsible and sustainable fishing business, we have full confidence in our operating procedures and having cameras onboard did not alter our working practices at all. Billed by Government as primarily a scientific tool to help gather better data from fishing activities, the cameras also demonstrate compliance with regulations and reverse the burden of proof.
The result is more than just improved monitoring. Compliance processes become smoother, administrative friction drops, and the same data strengthens scientific research. Crucially, the benefits run both ways. NAFCO gains a more efficient, transparent operating model, while Government agencies gain access to richer, real-time evidence. It’s a reminder that collaboration here isn’t a courtesy but a practical advantage for everyone involved.
A blueprint for others
The message for other fishing operators is to engage early, share openly and treat regulation as something to shape, not just follow. Those who do, won’t just manage tighter oversight, they’ll help design it. Regulators, for their part, need to meet that openness with flexibility and a willingness to act on real-world insight.
Treating technologies like REM as standard alongside traditional methods opens the door to a more accurate picture of our fisheries. And with that comes something the sector has long struggled with: decisions grounded in shared evidence rather than competing claims.