Clyde Seasonal Closure 2026: consultation analysis and SG response

1. Executive Summary

Purpose:

This consultation sought views on the future of the Clyde cod seasonal closure from 2026. A total of 44 responses were received, comprising 19 individuals and 25 organisations, reflecting broad engagement from fishers, industry representatives, conservation groups, community bodies, and scientific or neutral respondents. Responses were interpreted in balance, recognising that organisational submissions often reflect the views of multiple members or sectors and therefore carry broader representational weight, while individual responses provided lived experience, local knowledge, and direct socioeconomic perspectives. Quantitative analysis of closed questions was therefore enriched with thematic coding of qualitative context.

Headline Findings:

• Analysis combined quantitative summaries (Q1–Q6) and thematic coding of qualitative comments (Q1–Q8).
• Respondents were highly engaged and demonstrated strong awareness of conservation objectives.
• While there was clear support for protecting cod stocks, opinions differed over whether the current closure model is the most effective or fair mechanism.
• No single dominant position emerged on retaining the closure as it stands.
• Extending the SSI through to 2028 (Q4) was strongly opposed, as was continuation of the Clyde Closure (2026–28) (Q1).
• Collaborative evidence collection during the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) (Q5) was strongly supported.
• Other questions showed more evenly distributed views, with notable neutrality on timing and location (Q2) and divided opinions on the TSP (Q3) and reverting to 2002–2022 measures (Q6).
• Qualitative analysis highlighted reluctance or caveats to some multiple-choice questions, e.g. agreement to TSP conditional on reinstating exemptions.

Themes Identified:

Six overarching themes were identified across responses:

• Management measures
• Socio‑economic impacts
• Evidence and science
• Process and engagement
• Environmental outcomes
• Balancing environmental and socio‑economic priorities

Nuance from Open‑Text Responses:

• Calls for greater transparency, better alignment with spawning activity, and genuine collaboration between government, fishers, and scientists.
• Polarisation around conservation: some respondents emphasised balance and minimising socio‑economic impacts, while others sought the highest level of protection.

Overall Interpretation:

Responses demonstrate strong engagement and high awareness of the Clyde cod recovery challenge. While there was widespread support for protecting spawning cod, respondents differed on whether the current closure design, timing, and duration represent the most effective or proportionate approach. Taken together, the findings suggest that respondents are not anti-conservation — rather, they are pro-evidence, pro-fairness, and proadaptive management. They want management that evolves with science, includes those affected in decision making, and balances environmental with socioeconomic outcomes.

Top Priorities Identified

• Strengthen evidence base through targeted research.
• Address bycatch and seabed disturbance in Nephrops trawl fisheries.
• Balance environmental protection with socio-economic impacts.
• Improve transparency and co-design with stakeholders.