Clyde Seasonal Closure 2026: consultation analysis and SG response

4. Respondent Profile

4.1 Type of Respondent

Of the 44 valid submissions received, 25 (56.8%) were from organisations and 19 (43.2%) from individuals (see table 2). Organisational responses therefore formed the majority, reflecting strong engagement from representative bodies including fisheries associations, community groups, and environmental organisations.

This distribution is important for policy interpretation because the weighting of the quantitative analysis depends not only on the number of organisational responses but also on how many individuals or vessels each organisation represents. Fishing and conservation organisations accounted for most submissions. Within the fishing sector, some bodies spoke on behalf of the wider commercial fishing industry while others represented specific gear types or recreational interests. Their responses therefore carry differing levels of representational weight, though this is not represented in analysis.

Organisational responses often reflected collective or institutional perspectives, whereas individual responses typically conveyed lived experience, personal observation, local knowledge, direct socio-economic effects, or specific sectoral concerns. Several individual respondents, however, also provided highly structured, evidence-based arguments more typical of organisational submissions. This overlap underscores the depth of stakeholder engagement in the Clyde cod consultations, where both individuals and organisations drew upon scientific data, long-term observations, and legal reasoning to support their positions.

In this analysis, no formal numerical weighting was applied between respondent types; all responses were treated equally within the quantitative analysis. However, organisational responses were interpreted contextually as representing wider constituencies and collective viewpoints. Differences between respondent categories were therefore considered qualitatively given the small number of responses – examining representativeness, thematic emphasis, and framing – rather than through statistical comparison.

Among the 25 organisational responses received, 10 were submitted by conservation organisations, 11 by fishing organisations, 2 by public sector bodies, 1 by academia/higher education, and 1 by a seafood processor as per Table 3 below. This distribution indicates that the consultation was shaped primarily by fishing and conservation interests, with comparatively fewer contributions from public sector, academic, or industry processing perspectives. Recognising that other sectors were less represented helps contextualise the findings and cautions against generalising across all stakeholder groups. Within the fishing sector, organisational respondents were split between those offering wider representation of all fishers and those representing specific gear types, such as creel fishers or angling interests.

4.2 Comparative Perspectives

Individual respondents represented a diverse spectrum of views, ranging from concerns about practical and socio-economic pressures to calls for precautionary or existing science-based protection.

A few emphasised the financial hardship imposed by the closure and questioned its effectiveness:

• “The current closure has had no effect on cod stock but has brought financial hardship to local crab and lobster fishermen displaced by it.”
• “There are no cod to save, all cod are looking for colder waters. African trigger fish , sea bass, mullet, red mullet favour the warmer waters. Waste of time, after Clyde re opens every year it gets absolutely hammered by northern Irish boats , now they have destroyed prawn ground for at least 8 months.”

Others advocated for much stronger conservation measures:

• “ The whole of the Clyde should be an all year 'no take zone'.”
• “Current timing, location, and proposed measures are inadequate and inappropriate for protecting spawning cod. Existing peer-reviewed science (including a PhD co-supervised by the Marine Directorate) shows that far stronger management interventions are essential.”

These examples demonstrate that individual perspectives were not uniform. While a few expressed frustrations with economic displacement or scepticism about the environmental benefits, others urged for the strongest possible environmental protection. Collectively, individual views reflected a nuanced understanding of the tension between socio-economic impacts and conservation outcomes.

By contrast, organisational responses adopted a more strategic, structured and evidence-based reasoning, emphasising the need for stability, collaborative science, and complementary/alternative measures:

• “... members agree that complementary measures alongside a retained closure for spawning cod in the Clyde are essential and should be implemented in combination with, not instead of, the closure.” - Scottish LINK

Together, these comments illustrate the breadth of engagement across respondent types. Individuals contributed experiential insights of local conditions, impacts on fishers’ livelihoods and ecological observations, while organisations tended to provide strategic arguments focussed on scientific evidence, process design and policy and legal coherence. This diversity of evidence strengthens the overall credibility and richness of the consultation findings, providing a nuanced understanding of stakeholder sentiment and a well-rounded evidence base for decision-making on the Clyde cod seasonal closure.