Clyde Seasonal Closure 2026: consultation analysis and SG response

6. Detailed Analysis by Question (Q1–Q6)

Across the six closed questions (Likert-scale), three clear patterns emerge. First, there was broad support for cod conservation in principle, but strong reservations about how the current closure is designed and implemented. Second, respondents showed the highest opposition to fixed or extended measures without review, and the strongest agreement on the importance of collaboration between government and fishers. Third, a significant proportion of respondents expressed uncertainty about the adequacy of the scientific evidence underpinning the closure.

These trends indicate that while several respondents share the same long-term goal of cod recovery, they differ on how best to achieve it—balancing ecological objectives, socio-economic realities, and the need for transparent, evidence-based policy. The following analysis interprets each question in turn, drawing on the proportional ranges in Table 4 and the internal-consistency framework outlined in Section 3.1.

6.1 Q1 - Continuation of the Clyde Closure (2026–28)

Quantitative Summary

Table 6 shows a majority (55%) of respondents opposed continuation of the Clyde closure in its current configuration, with 43% strongly disagreeing, indicating deeply held opposition. 14% strongly agreed, representing a small minority of firm supporters, while around one-third (32%) were neutral, signalling uncertainty about whether the closure achieves its intended conservation outcomes or conditional acceptance depending on future evidence or management review. This pattern highlights polarised perspectives where dissatisfaction with existing policy outweighed outright support.

Table 6. Summary of Q1 Responses

Sentiment	Percentage (%)	Interpretation (per internal consistency framework)
Positive (Strongly Agree + Agree)	14 (14 + 0)	A few/minority respondents supported continuation.
Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree + Don’t Know)	32 (32 + 0)	Several respondents were neutral, indicating uncertainty or conditional views.
Negative (Disagree + Strongly Disagree)	55 (12 + 43)	A majority opposed continuation, with 43.2% strongly disagreeing, showing deeply held opposition.
Total responses	44	—

(Detailed response distribution provided in Table 5, p. 15)

Sentiment Breakdown

Table 7 provides a structured overview of respondent positions, themes, and illustrative quotes. Overall, most respondents viewed the current closure as ineffective or poorly targeted, while a small minority defended it as precautionary until stronger evidence emerges. Neutral responses underscored ongoing uncertainty about effectiveness and the need for refinement.

Interpretation

• Positive (14%) – Support was precautionary, emphasising the importance of maintaining protection while stock uncertainty persists. Respondents saw continuity as stabilising for monitoring, enforcement, and research, and some called for stronger protection to avoid reversing precautionary gains. Support was often conditional on continued evidence gathering and adaptive management.
• Neutral (32%) – Neutrality reflected analytical uncertainty rather than disengagement. Respondents acknowledged limited spawning protection but felt that recovery requires tackling root causes of cod mortality, with some citing Nephrops trawl bycatch. Their responses reinforced that cod recovery cannot rely on a single measure and must evolve with science through complementary, evidence‑led management.
• Negative (55%) – Opposition was rooted in concerns that the closure has not achieved conservation objectives, fails to address direct causes of cod mortality, and imposes disproportionate socio‑economic costs on small‑scale fishers and communities. Criticism focused on poor targeting of boundaries and timing, and frustration with rigid governance. These views combined ecological scepticism, economic hardship, and governance fatigue, but reflected a desire for reform rather than rejection of conservation, with calls for co‑designed, evidence‑responsive management.

Synthesis

The Q1 findings reveal a majority opposition to continuing the closure unchanged, with criticism focused on its limited effectiveness, economic burden, and inflexible governance structure. However, many respondents — including those who were neutral – demonstrated a shared underlying goal of cod recovery. Their concern was not the principle of protection but its execution and evidence base. Neutral participants felt that the closure offers at best partial protection, and that cod mortality will not reduce until wider matters including Nephrops trawl bycatch and broader ecosystem pressures are addressed. Supportive respondents, conversely, argued that maintaining the closure is a necessary safeguard while knowledge gaps remain.

Taken together, the data indicate that stakeholders generally agree on the goal of restoring cod stocks but disagree on whether the existing closure achieves that goal fairly and effectively. The responses highlight three key challenges for policy:

1. Evidence and targeting – ensuring closure boundaries and timing reflect current spawning behaviour and scientific data.

2. Socio-economic proportionality – mitigating economic impact and maintaining community trust.

3. Governance flexibility – embedding review mechanisms so that closures evolve with evidence rather than remain static.

Table 7. Distribution of question 1 responses by sentiment, themes and illustrative quotes.

Sentiment

Positive

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

Context

• Support was precautionary, emphasising the importance of maintaining protection while stock uncertainty persists.
• Respondents viewed continuity as stabilising for monitoring, enforcement, and research.
• Conservation aims were broadly endorsed, with calls for adaptive management rather than static policy.
• Some respondents advocated for stronger protection, not weaker, to avoid reversing precautionary gains.
• Some support was conditional on continued evidence gathering and scientific refinement.

Quotes

• “Parts of the Clyde are showing encouraging signs of recovery, any setbacks will affect all marine life and biodiversity.”
• “Withdrawing protection while the evidence base remains weak risks further loss of spawning biomass and habitat disturbance. Maintaining the closure not only protects spawning habitat while additional targeted monitoring is undertaken, it avoids a precautionary policy reversal that could worsen stock status.”

Sentiment

Neutral

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

Context

• Neutrality reflected analytical uncertainty or conditional acceptance.
• Respondents acknowledged limited closures spawning protection but stressed that recovery requires tackling root causes of cod mortality, particularly Nephrops trawl bycatch.
• Neutrality reflected a desire for evidence-led refinement and complementary measures, not disengagement.
• These respondents were not opposed to conservation but questioned the effectiveness of the current design.
• Their responses reinforced that cod recovery requires more than a single measure and must evolve with science.

Quotes

• “The existing measures have not worked. Whilst these measures have no doubt provided a small level of protection for spawning cod, unless the causes of cod mortality are directly addressed they are likely to remain ineffectual”
• “While the existing closure will provide a small level of protection for spawning cod, as a single measure on its own it is insufficient to enable the recovery of Clyde cod. The closure fails to directly address the causes of cod mortality and therefore cannot, as an isolated measure, create the necessary conditions for recovery.”

Sentiment

Negative

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio-economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

Context

• Opposition was rooted in concerns that the closure has not achieved conservation objectives, fails to address direct causes of cod mortality, and - especially Nephrops trawls – and disproportionate socio-economic costs for small-scale fishers and local communities.
• Criticism focused on poor targeting — questioning whether boundaries and timing match spawning grounds and expressed frustration with rigid governance and ineffective policy.
• These views combined ecological scepticism, economic hardship, and governance fatigue.
• Opposition reflected a desire for reform, not rejection of conservation, through protection through co-designed, evidence-responsive management.

Quotes

• “Closed area should be extended to include Girvan bay and inshore north to Turnberry a traditional spawning ground overlooked by current closure”
• “… no evidence that this variant on the closure is any more capable of achieving the desired objective than the previous closures which allowed trawling and dredging in the closed area during the spawning season.”
• “There is insufficient evidence that this restriction is having any impact on cod stocks within the area closed. It is, however, having a detrimental effect on the commercial inshore fishing industry in the Clyde… there has been a measureable reduction in the volume and viability of the Clyde inshore fishing industry.”

6.2 Q2 - Appropriateness of the Current Timing and Location of the Clyde Seasonal Closure

Quantitative Summary

Table 8 shows that a plurality (48%) of respondents selected ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘Don’t know’, representing the single largest sentiment group. This neutrality reflected analytical caution rather than disengagement, with respondents highlighting uncertainty regarding scientific validity of the current closure’s boundaries and timing. Roughly one-third (32%) of respondents disagreed, expressing doubt over scientific accuracy, scope, and adequacy of measures. Just over one‑fifth (21%) agreed, suggesting a smaller but notable group who viewed the closure’s current arrangement as reasonable or suitably precautionary pending further evidence.

This distribution reveals less polarisation than Q1 but greater analytical hesitation. While few respondents were fully supportive, most demonstrated conditional reasoning, highlighting both scientific uncertainty and frustration over the lack of measurable stock recovery. This highlights a desire for adaptive management rather than simple endorsement or rejection of existing measures.

Table 8. Summary of Q2 Responses

Sentiment	Percentage (%)	Interpretation (internal consistency framework)
Positive (Strongly Agree + Agree)	21 (12 + 9)	Some respondents supported the current timing and location, reflecting precautionary or continuity-based reasoning.
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree + Don’t Know)	48 (39 + 9)	A plurality were neutral or uncertain, indicating analytical caution and conditional support.
Negative (Disagree + Strongly Disagree)	32 (7 + 25)	Several respondents disagreed, reflecting concerns over scientific accuracy, scope, and adequacy of measures.
Total responses	44	—

(Detailed response distribution provided in Table 5, p. 15.)

Sentiment Breakdown

Table 9 provides a structured overview of respondent positions, themes, and illustrative quotes. Overall, most respondents adopted neutral or conditional positions, reflecting analytical caution and frustration with limited evidence, while a smaller group defended the closure as precautionary until stronger data emerge. Negative responses underscored doubts about scientific validity and broader governance concerns. Across all sentiments, however, respondents signalled that the closure should not remain static, with calls for adaptive review, refinement, or broader reform.

Interpretation

• Positive (21%) – Supportive respondents emphasised precautionary continuity, arguing that the closure should remain until stronger evidence emerges. They highlighted the historical rationale, noting that the original boundaries and timing were informed by the practical experience of fishermen who actively targeted cod in the Clyde. This local ecological knowledge was seen as valuable in shaping the closure, reflecting an understanding of spawning behaviour and seasonal patterns that complemented limited scientific data at the time. Respondents also pointed out that the timing of the seasonal closure aligns with long‑standing protection measures used elsewhere, such as in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, reinforcing its credibility as a precautionary safeguard. While stressing that limited survey detections mean the spatial footprint should be reviewed once new data from the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) are available, they concluded that until such evidence emerges, the timing and location should be retained to avoid regression.
• Neutral (48%) – Neutrality reflected analytical uncertainty rather than disengagement. Respondents acknowledged limited protection but stressed that recovery requires tackling root causes of mortality, particularly Nephrops trawl bycatch and habitat disturbance. Many cited insufficient scientific evidence and poor understanding of spawning distribution, while others described the closure as symbolic or outdated after two decades of limited recovery. Neutrality encompassed both cautious pragmatism (awaiting stronger evidence) and scepticism of a static measure (policy fatigue). In both cases, respondents stressed that cod recovery requires more than a single closure and must evolve with science through complementary, evidence‑led management.
• Negative (32%) – Opposition reflected doubts about scientific validity and ecological effectiveness Respondents argued that the timing and spatial scope are not aligned with active spawning grounds, and many stressed that mortality sources remain unaddressed, including Nephrops trawling, undermining the closure’s relevance. Some bluntly claimed that cod are now too scarce to protect, citing acoustic evidence and survey data showing minimal spawning activity. Others expressed frustration with the continued lack of tangible improvement, describing the closure as “inappropriate” and “insufficient” to regenerate Clyde cod. Beyond ecological scepticism, opposition reflected broader governance concerns. Respondents criticised the closure as symbolic rather than strategic — a continuation of outdated policy that neither reflects current biological realities nor addresses the structural causes of decline. Several called for a wider package of measures, including trawl limits and broader ecosystem‑based management, to achieve genuine recovery. Collectively, these perspectives framed the closure as poorly targeted, biologically redundant, and procedurally unconvincing, reinforcing the view that reform, not simple continuation, is required.

Synthesis

Taken together, these perspectives show both continuity and reform pressures, which are summarised below.

Question 2 revealed a complex and qualified pattern of opinion, with neutrality dominating but reflecting engagement rather than indifference. Supportive respondents advocated continuity to avoid ecological regression, while opponents and many neutrals called for reform through adaptive management, improved monitoring, and broader ecosystem-based measures. Importantly, most respondents — whether supportive, neutral, or opposed — signalled that the closure should not remain static. Their responses pointed to a shared expectation that measures and governance must evolve, whether through adaptive review, refinement of boundaries, or broader reform to address structural causes of decline.

The results highlight widespread acknowledgement of the need for protection but division over whether the current closure’s configuration achieves it effectively. The debate appears to have shifted from whether to protect spawning cod to how protection should be targeted, evidenced, and integrated with wider fishery management reforms. Three key challenges emerge for policy design:

1. Evidence adequacy – strengthening the scientific basis for closure boundaries and timing.

2. Targeting and scope – ensuring measures address root causes of mortality.

3. Adaptive management – embedding review mechanisms so closures evolve with new evidence rather than remain static.

Table 9. Distribution of question 2 responses by sentiment, themes and illustrative quotes.

Sentiment

Positive

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

4.Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio-economics

7. Other comments

Context

• Support was precautionary, emphasising continuity until stronger evidence emerges, with respondents wary of weakening protection prematurely.
• Historical rationale was highlighted, noting that fishermen’s knowledge originally shaped the closure boundaries and timing.
• The 2022 refinement to focus on harder seabed preferred by cod was seen as sensible and targeted, though respondents stressed the need for ongoing review.
• Support was conditional, with calls for adaptive management once new survey data and the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) results are available.
• Some warned that reducing or removing the closure could risk ecological regression and undermine fragile recovery signals.

Quotes

• “The 2022 refinement to focus on harder seabed preferred by cod is a sensible, targeted approach. However, given limited survey detections both inside and outside the closure, we recommend the timing and spatial footprint be reviewed in light of results from the proposed Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) and any additional seasonal survey data. Until that evidence is available, the timing and location should be retained.”
• “Any decrease would be detrimental…”

Sentiment

Neutral

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

7. Other comments

Context

• Neutrality reflected analytical uncertainty and conditional acceptance, not disengagement, with respondents cautious about judging effectiveness without stronger evidence.
• Many acknowledged limited protection but stressed that recovery requires tackling root causes of mortality, particularly Nephrops trawl bycatch and habitat disturbance.
• Several cited insufficient scientific evidence and poor understanding of spawning distribution, noting that data gaps undermine confidence in closure design.
• Some described the closure as symbolic or outdated after two decades of limited recovery, expressing frustration with static policy and lack of measurable improvement.
• Neutrality encompassed both cautious pragmatism (awaiting stronger evidence before changing policy) and scepticism (policy fatigue with a measure seen as insufficient or misaligned).

Quotes

• “Whilst the existing closure probably provides a small degree of protection for spawning cod, unless the causes of cod mortality are addressed this measure is likely to be ineffective.”
• “The data on the location of cod spawning grounds is limited and the closure area is probably too small.”
• “There is insufficient scientific evidence to answer this question.”
• “It is certainly the case that current knowledge of the distribution of cod spawning biomass and egg production in the Clyde is lacking, so we have a poor understanding of whether the spawning closure is appropriately located.”
• “Am sure the timing is right for spawning . If there was an abundance of cod there to spawn!”
• “While the timing aligns with cod spawning activity (although this needs reviewed), cod interactions with the fisheries present in the Clyde are limited. Bycatch data support these claims with limited cod caught, particularly by Nephrops vessels as they generally avoid the harder substrate where cod prefer to spawn.”

Sentiment

Negative

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

7. Other comments

Context

• Opposition reflected doubts about scientific validity and ecological effectiveness, with respondents arguing the closure does not align with current spawning grounds.
• Many stressed that Nephrops trawling and other mortality sources remain unaddressed, undermining the closure’s relevance.
• Some claimed cod are now too scarce to protect, citing acoustic evidence and survey data showing minimal spawning activity.
• Criticism extended to broader management failings, with respondents describing the closure as symbolic, outdated, and procedurally unconvincing.
• Calls were made for a wider package of measures, including trawl limits and broader ecosystem‑based management, to achieve genuine recovery.

Quotes

• “The current timing and location of the 'closure' are clearly inappropriate for protecting spawning cod (based on the recent science on this subject for the Clyde)… it is patently obvious that the scale of this area and the management of it were and are still not appropriate or sufficient to protect or facilitate the recovery of the Clyde's spawning cod.”
• “Given that the Clyde's cod population collapse is clearly documented as a factor associated with the introduction and management of Nephrops trawling in the Clyde… the timing and location, and most importantly the proposed management measures, are clearly inappropriate and insufficient to protect the Clyde's spawning cod.”
• “There is no need for any closure as according to the science carried out there is no spawning cod.”
• “No science to back this up Trying to save cod that are not there to save Acoustic evidence shows no cod in or out the box”
• “The CSC is ineffective at protecting spawning cod and the consultation paper provides no evidence that it does.”
• “The key issue here is not whether the current closure conditions are appropriate but whether they are sufficient in themselves to regenerate Clyde cod. The evidence strongly suggests they are not and therefore a broader package of measures needs to be considered.”

6.3 Q3 - Three-Year Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP)

Quantitative Summary

Table 10 shows that opinion on the proposed three-year Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) was split, with half (50%) of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing and just over two-fifths (41%) agreeing or strongly agreeing. 9% of participants selected Neither agree nor disagree or Don’t know, indicating relatively few ambivalent views and a high degree of certainty among respondents.

This pattern contrasts with the more neutral distribution observed in Question 2. Here, respondents tended to adopt definitive positions reflecting deeper underlying tensions over evidence, trust, and timing. Supporters interpreted the TSP as a necessary investment in credibility and collaboration, while opponents regarded it as a delay tactic given what they saw as sufficient existing data. The small neutral group largely represented conditional or procedural caution rather than disengagement, often stressing the need for clarity on purpose, duration, and how results would inform management.

Overall, the distribution indicates a community divided not by values but by confidence in the adequacy of current evidence and by expectations of how science should relate to management. While levels of agreement and disagreement are closely balanced, the near absence of neutrality demonstrates that respondents viewed the question as directly consequential for the future direction of Clyde fisheries policy.

Table 10. Summary of responses to question 3.

Sentiment	Percentage (%)	Interpretation (internal consistency framework)
Positive (Strongly Agree + Agree)	41 (20.5 + 20.5)	Support for improved data collection and evidence-led management through collaborative research.
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree + Don’t Know)	9 (7 + 2)	Conditional or uncertain views — supporting science in principle but questioning timing, purpose or linkages with closures.
Negative (Disagree + Strongly Disagree)	50 (14 + 36)	Opposition based on the perception that sufficient evidence already exists and that the TSP would delay necessary action.
Total responses	44	—

Sentiment Breakdown

Table 11 summarises how respondents responded to the proposed Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP). Responses were notably polarised, with similar proportions supporting and opposing the proposal and few neutral views. Supporters emphasised transparency, collaboration, and the need to rebuild trust through co-produced evidence, while opponents argued that sufficient science already exists and that further study would delay necessary management action. Neutral respondents adopted a conditional stance, endorsing evidence improvement in principle but expressing uncertainty about the programme’s scope, duration, and data governance. Across all sentiments, there was broad agreement that scientific evidence should inform decision-making, but deep division over whether that evidence should precede or accompany immediate management reform.

Interpretation

• Positive (41%) – Supportive respondents framed the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) as a necessary investment in the credibility and transparency of fisheries management. They saw the proposal as a practical means of strengthening the evidence base, resolving longstanding disputes about Clyde cod distribution, and rebuilding trust between fishers, scientists, and policymakers. Collaboration was a central theme: respondents argued that involving local vessels in data collection would improve accuracy and ensure that management decisions reflect real conditions at sea. Many also emphasised that existing datasets held by the Marine Directorate should be fully utilised to accelerate progress, while clear objectives and independent oversight would be essential for legitimacy. In essence, positive respondents interpreted the TSP as a forward-looking mechanism for co-produced science capable of underpinning future management, provided that its outcomes are timely, accessible, and demonstrably linked to decision-making.
• Neutral (9%) – Neutral responses reflected conditional support or procedural uncertainty rather than indifference. Respondents broadly welcomed stronger evidence but questioned aspects of the TSP’s design, including its three-year duration, the scope of research questions, and how findings would interact with existing management measures such as seasonal closures. Some expressed concern that linking the TSP too closely to ongoing restrictions could discourage participation or skew interpretation of results. Others highlighted the importance of confidentiality, urging that data collected from participating vessels be handled securely and agreed by all parties before publication. Several respondents also noted that substantial research has already been conducted on Clyde cod and that the programme should focus on synthesising, rather than replicating, this information. Neutral views therefore combined procedural caution with pragmatic endorsement: the TSP was supported in principle, but respondents sought clearer governance, transparent milestones, and assurance that the work would produce practical outcomes rather than extend uncertainty.
• Negative (50%) – Opposition to the TSP stemmed from frustration with what many perceived as continued delay rather than new direction. Respondents in this group argued that the causes of Clyde cod decline—particularly bycatch from Nephrops trawling—are already well understood and that further study would divert resources from urgent management action. Several characterised the proposal as “paralysis by analysis,” describing repeated calls for new data as a way to avoid politically difficult reforms. Others referenced statutory obligations under the Fisheries Act 2020, suggesting that deferring action could contravene the precautionary and scientific objectives required by law and asserting that management action should proceed even in the face of incomplete data. While opponents did not reject science itself, they questioned its timing and use, emphasising that credible governance now depends on implementation rather than investigation. Collectively, these perspectives framed the TSP as unnecessary repetition, likely to erode trust and delay recovery unless accompanied by immediate, visible progress on known mortality drivers.

Synthesis

Taken together, the findings from Table 11 and the preceding interpretation illustrate a debate not over the value of science, but over its timing, purpose, and relationship to management. Question 3 responses reveal a strongly divided but analytically engaged set of views regarding the role of science in guiding Clyde fisheries management. Question 3 exposed a near-even split between those who viewed the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) as a necessary foundation for rebuilding credibility and those who regarded it as an unnecessary delay to already well-established reforms.

Supporters emphasised transparency, participation, and the value of collaborative, evidence-based legitimacy. They saw the TSP as a means to rebuild trust between fishers, scientists, and policymakers, and to ensure that future management decisions are underpinned by robust and locally informed data. Opponents, by contrast, stressed urgency, precaution, and immediate action based on existing knowledge. They argued that sufficient science already exists to act on bycatch mortality and habitat degradation, warning that further research risks “paralysis by analysis.” Neutral respondents sought a pragmatic balance, endorsing the principle of improved evidence but calling for clearer objectives, defined timelines, transparent governance, and assurance that the findings would directly shape policy rather than simply extend the discussion.

Despite these divisions, there was broad consensus that future management must be informed by credible science, transparent processes, and inclusive collaboration. The debate has therefore shifted from whether more data are needed to how evidence and action can progress in tandem to deliver tangible recovery.

Three key challenges emerge for policy design:

1. Purpose and integration – The TSP should have clearly defined objectives, avoid duplication, and be explicitly connected to management outcomes.

2. Credibility and participation – Research credibility will depend on integrating local participation and independent oversight to ensure legitimacy and trust in both evidence and decisions.

3. Timeliness and application – Scientific programmes should inform, not postpone, adaptive management actions; evidence gathering should align with immediate bycatch-reduction and recovery measures.

In summary, question 3 encapsulates a wider governance challenge: stakeholders agree on the necessity of science but diverge on whether it should precede or accompany decisive management action.

Table 11. Summary of respondent sentiment, themes and illustrative verbatim quotations for question 3.

Sentiment

Positive

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

Context

• Respondents welcomed the TSP as a constructive, evidence-based step to strengthen understanding of Clyde cod distribution and stock dynamics.
• Support was linked to the value of collaborative, locally led science using inshore vessels and fishermen’s experience to ensure data realism.
• Many saw it as an opportunity to rebuild trust between government, scientists, and fishers through transparency and co-design.
• Several emphasised that the TSP should not focus solely on cod but consider wider ecosystem interactions and bycatch reduction.
• Support was conditional on adequate resourcing, scientific independence, and adaptive use of results to guide management reform.

Quotes

• “the programme would need to be carried out by local boats who know and understand the area.”
• “...fishing industry welcomes the re-statement of the fact that the government is committed to evidence-based management of the fishery.”
• “Great idea but must look at wider fisheries not just cod populations.”
• “‘Facts are friendly’ and in order to make sound decisions, you need facts, this can only help.”

Sentiment

Neutral

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

Context

• Neutrality often reflected uncertainty about the sufficiency or focus of the proposed TSP rather than indifference.
• Several respondents felt additional science could be useful if designed correctly but warned that delays may risk further decline.
• Others questioned whether a three-year duration was adequate or whether results would translate into policy change.
• Concerns were raised about balancing ongoing fishing access with research objectives and data confidentiality.
• This group generally supported evidence gathering but sought clear assurances that existing knowledge would not be ignored.

Quotes

• “… believes this should be part of long-term ecological monitoring for all inshore species. However … urgent action is required to reduce bycatch of cod in nephrops fishery...”

Sentiment

Negative

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

Context

• Negative respondents argued that scientific evidence is already sufficient and further study would only delay urgent action.
• They highlighted Nephrops trawl bycatch and habitat damage as well-documented drivers of collapse requiring immediate control.
• Many criticised the proposal as “paralysis by analysis,” framing it as politically motivated procrastination.
• Several invoked the UK Fisheries Act’s precautionary and scientific-evidence objectives, asserting that failure to act now breaches legal duties.
• Across responses, the dominant demand was for enforceable measures — gear restrictions, spatial limits, and trawl reduction — not more research.

Quotes

• “No matter how good science is waters are too warm.”
• “I disagree because there is already sufficient science. If Clyde cod are to be saved urgent action is required.”
• “There is already enough science, and a majority consensus … Not three more years of wasted time and people pleasing.”
• “This is paralysis by analysis, we have enough science to take action now.”
• “We see this as just a further delay … action to address that needs to be taken without delay.”

6.4 Q4 – SSI Continuation until 2028

Quantitative Summary

Table 12 shows that a majority (56%) of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with laying an SSI that would continue until the end of the TSP in 2028. This represents the dominant sentiment across all responses. Around one-third (30%) agreed or strongly agreed, reflecting a smaller but substantial minority who viewed continued protection as a prudent or precautionary measure. The remaining 14% were neutral expressing either limited familiarity with the policy mechanism or analytical hesitation pending clearer detail on the TSP’s scope.

This distribution indicates a rejection of a prolonged SSI, contrasting with the more balanced or conditional positions evident in previous questions. Opposition was often rooted in frustration with perceived policy inertia, a belief that sufficient evidence already exists to justify immediate management action, and concern that an extended SSI would perpetuate ineffective management rather than enable recovery. Conversely, supporters tended to frame continuity as a necessary safeguard to maintain stability and protection during the TSP, while neutral respondents expressed procedural uncertainty rather than strong sentiment.

Taken together, the results reflect a structured division between those prioritising immediate implementation of perceived solutions by respondents and those favouring policy continuity as a platform for improved scientific legitimacy.

Table 12. Summary of question 4 responses.

Sentiment	Percentage (%)	Interpretation (internal consistency framework)
Positive (Strongly Agree + Agree)	30 (16 + 14)	Some respondents supported laying an SSI through 2028, viewing it as a precautionary or stabilising measure to maintain protection and allow the TSP to proceed.
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree + Don’t Know)	14 (14 + 0)	A few / small minority expressed uncertainty or analytical caution, often recognising the value of evidence-gathering but questioning whether a blanket SSI is the most proportionate tool.
Negative (Disagree + Strongly Disagree)	56 (0 + 56)	Majority / most opposed continuing the SSI to 2028, arguing that sufficient evidence already exists and that prolonging restrictions would delay urgent management reform.
Total responses	43	—

Sentiment Breakdown

Table 13 provides a structured overview of respondent positions, core reasoning, and illustrative verbatim quotes. Overall, most respondents disagreed with an SSI that continues until the end of the TSP (2028), reflecting frustration with perceived policy stagnation and a belief that sufficient scientific evidence already exists to justify immediate action. A substantial minority expressed conditional or precautionary support, viewing a continued SSI as a stabilising framework during the TSP to safeguard spawning areas while research progresses. A small minority were neutral, demonstrating analytical caution and requesting clearer guidance on how the SSI would interact with emerging evidence and adaptive management.

Across all sentiments, respondents converged on one theme: any management framework should be transparent, adaptive, and grounded in credible evidence. Respondents also highlighted the need for science and policy to advance in tandem, with several stressing that prolonged research without responsive management risks further loss of credibility and ecological deterioration.

Interpretation

• Positive (30%) - Supportive respondents emphasised the precautionary and stabilising role of maintaining an SSI through 2028. They viewed it as a mechanism to preserve ecological protection while allowing the TSP to generate robust, transparent data. Several respondents framed continuity as a measured approach, ensuring that policy is not weakened prematurely and that management decisions remain informed by empirical evidence rather than pressure or speculation. Supporters also valued the signal of commitment to evidence-based governance, arguing that the SSI’s extension would reinforce Scotland’s credibility in fisheries management and avoid policy reversals during an ongoing scientific assessment. A recurring theme was the importance of clarity, collaboration, and integration between the SSI and the TSP — respondents urged that the two processes be designed to complement one another, with clear milestones, stakeholder engagement, and transparent publication of results. Others highlighted that while new evidence is essential, management consistency during data collection is equally critical to enable valid comparison and long-term monitoring. Overall, positive responses reflected pragmatic precaution — a willingness to sustain protective measures, provided they remain adaptable and scientifically grounded.
• Neutral (14%) - Neutral views reflected analytical uncertainty and conditional acceptance, rather than disengagement. Respondents generally welcomed evidence-based management but questioned the scope, proportionality, and governance structure of a prolonged SSI. Some noted that without explicit objectives and accountability mechanisms, the SSI risked becoming a symbolic extension rather than a functional instrument of adaptive management. Several highlighted data transparency and participation as determining factors for support, stating that confidence would depend on how information from the TSP is shared and used. Others indicated that while continuity during research could be reasonable, policy responsiveness must be built in to ensure that management evolves as results emerge. Neutral responses therefore occupied a middle ground — recognising the need for continued study and cautious protection, but seeking clearer definition of purpose, timing, and exit criteria to justify an extended SSI.
• Negative (56%) - Opposition formed the majority view, characterised by scepticism toward further delay in implementing reforms. Respondents felt that there is already sufficient scientific evidence to justify decisive management action, particularly regarding Nephrops trawl bycatch and habitat disturbance. Many described the proposed SSI extension as “kicking the can down the road”, contending that prolonged study without intervention contradicts the precautionary objective under the Fisheries Act 2020. Several respondents drew on prior research (e.g., Ana Adao’s PhD¹ and under the Clyde marine partnership (Clyde 2020 research and advisory group (RAG))^[5] to assert that the causes of cod decline are well-established, and that an extended SSI would merely reinforce a failing status quo. Others emphasised the urgency of recovery measures and expressed frustration that policy remains locked in consultation rather than action. Beyond ecological reasoning, negative responses also reflected governance fatigue — a perception that repeated reviews and temporary measures have eroded confidence in management. Collectively, these views framed the SSI proposal as procedurally cautious – a continuation of measures already proven ineffective rather than a route to meaningful recovery. Respondents called instead for immediate measures to address known sources of mortality and habitat degradation.

Synthesis

Taken together, the responses to Question 4 reveal a clear divide between two groups: those who wanted scientific continuity and procedural stability — meaning the closure should stay in place during the three‑year research programme to keep protection consistent and ensure reliable data collection — and those who demanded immediate corrective action, arguing that enough evidence already exists and stronger measures should be introduced now to tackle known problems such as Nephrops trawl bycatch and habitat disturbance.

A clear majority opposed extending the SSI until 2028, viewing it as an unnecessary delay that risks prolonging ecological decline. These respondents argued that the scientific case for urgent intervention is already strong, citing evidence on Nephrops-related mortality and limited impact of current measures. By contrast, a substantial minority supported continuation of the SSI as a prudent, precautionary step—necessary to maintain protection and ensure uninterrupted data collection during the TSP. For these respondents, temporary continuity represented a means to preserve management credibility and avoid policy regression while evidence accumulates. Neutral respondents reflected analytical caution rather than disengagement, supporting continued monitoring but deferring to scientific and governmental judgement on the appropriate course.

Overall, the debate centres on how best to balance urgency and evidence. While opinions diverged on timing, there was broad consensus that future management should be transparent, adaptive, and grounded in robust science—integrating both real-time data and long-term recovery goals.

Three key insights emerge for policy design:

1. Timeliness and credibility – Management should respond to the severity of decline without deferring action.

2. Adaptive integration – Scientific programmes like the TSP should operate in tandem with active management, ensuring that new evidence directly informs policy evolution.

3. Trust and transparency – Decision-making around the SSI should be co-produced with fishers, scientists, and communities to restore legitimacy and demonstrate genuine responsiveness.

Table 13. Summary of respondent sentiment, rationale, and illustrative quotations for Question 4.

Sentiment

Positive

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

Context

• Supportive respondents viewed continuation of the SSI as a precautionary and stabilising measure during the TSP, preventing management gaps while evidence is collected.
• Several saw the proposal as a necessary step to protect any emerging recovery and to ensure scientific continuity.
• Respondents emphasised that maintaining the SSI could reduce uncertainty for fishers and scientists, supporting a more consistent framework for monitoring and decision-making.
• Support was often conditional—based on the SSI being well-designed, collaborative, and adaptive to new data rather than rigid or symbolic.
• A few respondents highlighted that long-term stability could reduce polarisation and “merry-go-round” management cycles in the Clyde by fostering trust and participation

Quotes

• “Yes – an SSI that maintains the closure through the duration of the TSP should be in place to prevent a management gap while evidence is gathered to support future decision-making. Temporarily lifting protection while scientific studies are in progress risks undermining any recovery and invalidating the TSP’s conclusions.”
• “Yes and remove all fishing.”
• “Great idea but must look at wider fisheries not just cod populations.”

Sentiment

Neutral

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

7. Other comments

Context

• Neutral respondents reflected uncertainty about the effectiveness of the SSI but generally supported ongoing evaluation and evidence-gathering.
• Some indicated that decisions on the SSI’s duration and design should depend on the results of the TSP and further scientific validation.
• Respondents stressed the importance of flexibility, urging that the government should not “restrict the options available to themselves” during the process.
• Neutrality also reflected a deference to governmental or scientific judgement rather than strong personal opinion, often framed as “for the Scottish Government to decide.”
• Several viewed the SSI instrument as administratively narrow, suggesting the need for broader, evidence-based reforms beyond its limited scope.

Quotes

• “The Scottish Government should not restrict the options available to themselves. The current process of SSIs are restricted to a small area and a small set of actions. Those have clearly historically been insufficient to achieve any real protection for the Clyde's spawning cod populations.”
• “The method by which the Scottish Government achieve their aims is for them to decide.”
• “…support the Government’s desire to improve the evidence base for Clyde cod and believes this should be part of long-term ecological monitoring for all inshore species.”

Sentiment

Negative

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

7. Other comments

Context

• The majority opposed extending the SSI, arguing that existing closures and measures had failed to improve cod stocks and that urgent, direct action is needed instead of deferral.
• Many saw the proposal as another delay or “kick-the-can-down-the-road” approach, inconsistent with legal and scientific obligations to act immediately.
• Respondents frequently cited the sufficiency of existing science and the urgency to address bycatch mortality in the Nephrops fishery, rather than prolong research cycles.
• Others criticised the SSI framework itself as symbolic, static, or ineffective, calling for a more comprehensive management package and stronger enforcement.
• Several organisations explicitly warned that delaying recovery measures until 2028 risks irreversible ecological decline and further erosion of industry confidence.

Quotes

• “The existing measures have not worked. The proposed additional science is not needed. The issue should be addressed directly.”
• “Our contention is that the existing spawning closure approach as the sole measure for managing cod in the Clyde is out-of-date, no longer relevant and demonstrably ineffective… Locking management into continuation of the failed spawning closure approach amounts to simply ‘kicking the can down the road’.”
• “.. does not believe the TSP would deliver any meaningful data which would justify a 3-year delay in taking action to recover Clyde cod. As such, we do not support the laying of an SSI that continues until 2028.”
• “The biomass is already dangerously low because the current regime does not work, and the cause of mortality of juveniles is not being addressed. We believe there is sufficient science to inform management measures that will address the main cause of cod mortality in the Clyde (bycatch in nephrops trawl)....”

6.5 Q5 – Collaborative Working During the TSP

Quantitative Summary

Table 14 shows that a majority (47%) of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the Scottish Government should work collaboratively with local fishers during the TSP. A further 35% disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 19% expressed neutral or uncertain views.

Overall, this distribution indicates broad but not universal support for collaboration but coupled with significant tension around how such collaboration interacts with the urgency of management action. For many supporters, collaboration enhances data quality, trust, and local relevance; for many opponents, the same proposal risks becoming a procedural barrier to implementing known reforms. The limited neutral response contrasts with earlier consultation questions, suggesting that respondents viewed this issue as directly consequential for how evidence and management should proceed during the TSP.

Table 14. Summary of question 5 responses.

Sentiment	Percentage (%)	Interpretation (internal consistency framework)
Positive (Strongly Agree + Agree)	47 (42 + 5)	A majority of respondents supported collaboration, indicating broad but not unanimous agreement that fisher involvement would strengthen data collection and legitimacy.
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree + Don’t Know)	19 (9.3 + 9.3)	A few/small minority, representing respondents who were cautious or conflicted — often supporting collaboration in principle but concerned about its implications for delaying action.
Negative (Disagree + Strongly Disagree)	35 (2 + 33)	Several respondents opposed the proposal, reflecting a substantial minority who believed additional collaboration should not impede or postpone urgent management measures.
Total responses	43	-

(Detailed response distribution provided in Table 5, p. 15.)

Sentiment Breakdown

Table 15 summarises respondent positions, themes and illustrative quotes. Across all groups, there was broad conceptual support for collaboration as a scientific principle but significant division over its policy implications. While most respondents endorsed working with local fishers during the TSP, a sizeable minority viewed further knowledge-gathering as a potential distraction from urgent action on known drivers of cod mortality. Neutral respondents generally straddled these perspectives, supporting collaboration in principle while cautioning against its misuse as a reason to delay statutory obligations. Together, the responses reveal a stakeholder group that values credibility, transparency and co-production but remains sharply split on the balance between evidence generation and immediate intervention.

Interpretation

• Positive (47%) – A majority strongly endorsed collaboration, viewing fisher involvement as essential for credible, practical and trusted science. Supportive respondents emphasised that local fishers hold generational ecological knowledge, familiarity with seasonal patterns, and detailed understanding of Clyde fishing grounds that could substantially strengthen the TSP’s sampling design and efficiency. Many framed collaborations as obvious or indispensable — “a no brainer” — and stressed that scientific work undertaken without those who work on the water risks wasted effort, poor targeting, or diminished legitimacy. A recurring theme was trust-building: several respondents referred to lost confidence between government and industry, arguing that structured collaboration, transparent data-sharing and clear protocols (e.g., REM, mandatory reporting, accountable survey participation) would be necessary to repair relationships and enhance the credibility of resulting evidence. For some, fisher involvement was not merely desirable but fundamental, with one respondent stating that a TSP undertaken without local participation would be “doomed to failure.” Overall, positive responses framed collaboration as practically beneficial and socially stabilising, provided it is well-designed, transparent and does not create loopholes for commercial fishing within the closure.
• Neutral (19%) – Conditional support shaped by concerns about governance, clarity of purpose and the precautionary principle. Neutral respondents generally supported collaboration in principle but expressed reservations about framing it as a standalone objective. Several noted that the question overlapped with Q3 and stressed the need for a clearly articulated TSP design before the role of fishers could be properly evaluated — including vessel selection, data protocols, and how outputs would feed into decision-making. A central concern was the possibility that collaboration could be used, implicitly or explicitly, to delay essential management action. Respondents repeatedly emphasised that “lack of data” cannot justify postponing bycatch-reduction measures already supported by existing evidence. Others stressed that statutory duties — particularly full catch documentation and REM — must be met before additional voluntary data collection is relied upon. Some neutrals also highlighted the need for collaboration beyond industry alone, emphasising the role of academic and independent scientists to ensure rigour, balance and transparency. Neutrality therefore reflected cautious agreement combined with procedural scepticism and insistence that scientific collaboration must not undermine timely action.
• Negative (35%) - Opposition centred not on collaboration itself but on the belief that additional research is unnecessary and risks further delaying urgent action. Most negative respondents did not object to fishers participating in science; rather, they rejected the premise that more data is required before decisive management steps are taken. These responses repeatedly stated that the causes of cod mortality — especially Nephrops trawl bycatch and seabed disturbance from mobile gears — are already well-evidenced. Many respondents explicitly invoked the precautionary principle, arguing that insufficient data must not be used as a reason to defer regulation when stocks are “dangerously low.” A prominent theme was frustration with prolonged research efforts that have not translated into recovery. Several described ongoing data collections as ineffective or unnecessary. Others warned that collaboration must not be used to legitimise continued bottom-towed fishing during the spawning period or to stall implementation of measures they viewed as urgently required. Negative respondents often accepted that collaboration could play a role after firm bycatch-reduction measures are in place — for example, to monitor recovery — but strongly opposed any approach that positions collaboration as a prerequisite for policy action.

Synthesis

Taken together, responses to Question 5 show broad agreement that collaborative science is desirable, but diverging interpretations of what collaboration should achieve in terms of its purpose and timing and how it should relate to management. A majority strongly supported collaboration with local fishers, emphasising that their ecological knowledge, operational experience and presence at sea make them indispensable partners in generating credible, fine-scale evidence. For many, collaboration was viewed as an essential step in rebuilding trust and improving the legitimacy, practicality, and acceptance of any TSP findings.

However, a substantial minority argued that collaboration must not delay action. These respondents stressed that existing evidence on bycatch, trawl impacts, and habitat disturbance is already sufficient to justify immediate measures, and that further data collection—whether collaborative or otherwise—should proceed only in parallel with decisive management intervention. Neutral and “Don’t know” respondents generally endorsed the principle of collaboration but raised procedural concerns, including data governance, REM requirements, selection of participating vessels, or the risk that voluntary data might substitute for statutory documentation.

Across all sentiment groups, three core insights emerge:

1. Collaboration as a foundation for credibility – Fisher participation is widely seen as vital for building trust, strengthening the evidence base, and ensuring the TSP is operationally feasible.

2. Evidence should support—not delay—action – Many respondents emphasised that collaboration should complement, not postpone, management measures already supported by existing evidence.

3. Structured and accountable co-production – Effective collaboration requires clear protocols, transparent data handling, safeguards such as REM, and tightly controlled scientific access to prevent misuse or erosion of trust.

Table 15. Summary of respondent sentiment, rationale, and illustrative quotations for Question 5.

Sentiment

Positive

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

Context

• Respondents emphasised that collaboration with local fishers is essential for improving scientific understanding, highlighting the unique ecological knowledge held by those with long-standing experience of the Clyde.
• Many stressed that local vessels can significantly enhance sampling effort and data quality, especially where government budgets and scientific resources are limited.
• Several framed collaborations as a way to rebuild trust between government and fishing communities after years of perceived tension, exclusion, or insufficient engagement.
• Supporters argued that involving fishers increases both the legitimacy and practicality of the TSP by ensuring research reflects real operational conditions at sea, rather than a purely theoretical design.
• Some respondents noted that collaboration must be structured, accountable, and safeguarded through appropriate protocols (e.g., REM, mandatory reporting) to avoid misuse of scientific activity for commercial fishing.

Quotes

• “Too many decisions that effect mens livelihoods are being made with little, no or flawed science.”
• “Its a no brainer to use local boats who have the knowledge passed down through generations of that area”
• “Engaging directly with local fishers will add a depth of knowledge to any research work that is undertaken.”
• “If fishing cannot be banned then yes involve small scale fishing in data.”
• “You have no budget or resources for good science- use the fisherman and boats to help obtain good science”

Sentiment

Neutral

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

Context

• Neutral responses largely reflected procedural uncertainty, with respondents agreeing in principle with collaboration but questioning how it would interact with current legal obligations and management duties.
• Several cautioned that collaboration must not be misinterpreted as justification for delaying necessary management action, especially where evidence already exists.
• Some neutrals suggested that collaboration is expected or routine but insufficient on its own without clear scientific objectives, transparent data protocols, and accountability.
• Others perceived duplication with Question 3 or argued that collaboration is essential for bycatch-reduction trials but should not substitute for firm regulatory action.
• A small number raised concerns regarding trust, data protection, and how findings would be verified, calling for stronger documentation standards (e.g., REM) before relying on voluntary contributions.

Quotes

• “While collaboration with local fishers to improve scientific understanding is welcome, it must not be used as a pretext to delay action.”
• “…strongly agrees that the Government should always engage with local fishers and stakeholders to gather information, support data and science collection, and help inform management decisions. However, we would remind the Government of the precautionary approach as defined under the Fisheries Act, an approach in which the absence of sufficient scientific information is not used to justify postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species, non-target species or their environment
• “Collaboration with fishers is welcome in principle, but the priority must be to meet existing legal obligations for fully documented fisheries.”

Sentiment

Negative

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

7. Other comments

Context

• Opposition centred on the argument that collaboration must not delay urgent management action, particularly reductions in Nephrops trawl bycatch and disturbance from mobile gears.
• Many respondents asserted that sufficient scientific evidence already exists and that additional collaboration-based data collection is unnecessary or risks becoming a distraction from needed reforms.
• Several expressed strong dissatisfaction with the premise of “more science,” describing it as inconsistent with precautionary obligations when stock biomass is viewed as dangerously low.
• Some questioned whether the concept of “local fishers” is meaningful in the Clyde context or expressed doubt about the representativeness of the remaining fleet.
• A recurring theme was that collaboration is valuable only if paired with immediate regulatory intervention; otherwise, respondents viewed it as a mechanism for continued inaction.

Quotes

• “Whilst data collection is valuable, under the precautionary principle lack of data is not a good reason to delay action…”
• “There is already enough data and scientific fact in the public domain, gathered over 23 years that indicates where the mortality of juvenisle Cod is happening and the discard of those juvenisle fish”
• “…we need action now to protect what we have left, whilst further data may be useful that shouldn’t stop action being taken now”

6.6 Q6 – Returning to the 2002-2022 Measures

Quantitative Summary

Table 16 shows that over half of respondents (53%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with returning to the 2002–2022 closure arrangements, making opposition the dominant sentiment. Just over one-third (37%) agreed or strongly agreed, forming a substantial but not majority supportive group. 11% selected a neutral position or “Don’t know,” indicating that most respondents held clear and considered views on this issue.

This pattern reflects a community that is divided but leans toward opposition. Supportive respondents tended to view the earlier measures as more proportionate, co-designed, and workable for local fleets, particularly creel, crab/lobster and Nephrops fishers. They argued that post-2022 changes have imposed significant socioeconomic pressures without demonstrating clear ecological benefit. Those opposed, however, emphasised that the 2002–2022 configuration had already been tested for nearly two decades and failed to recover Clyde cod—largely, in their view, because exemptions permitting trawling and dredging within the nominally “closed” spawning area undermined its conservation purpose. The small neutral group expressed limited knowledge of impacts or a preference to prioritise longer-term, ecosystem-based recovery rather than choosing between historical configurations.

Table 16. Summary of question 6 responses.

Sentiment	Percentage (%)	Interpretation (internal consistency framework)
Positive (Strongly Agree + Agree)	37 (23 + 14)	Several respondents supported a return to the 2002-2022 measures, representing a substantial minority who viewed the previous regime as more proportionate and workable for local fleets.
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree + Don’t Know)	11 (5 + 0)	A few/small minority of respondents were neutral or uncertain, reflecting limited but notable caution and a desire to focus on wider recovery planning rather than this specific configuration.
Negative (Disagree + Strongly Disagree)	53 (14 + 39)	Around half of respondents opposed reversion, making this the dominant view and indicating strong concern about repeating measures seen as ineffective for cod recovery.
Total responses	44	-

(Detailed response distribution provided in Table 5, p. 15.)

Sentiment Breakdown

Table 17 provides a structured overview of respondent positions, themes and illustrative quotes. Positive responses framed the 2002–2022 closure as a pragmatic, co-designed arrangement that balanced protection with socio-economic viability and argued that post-2022 changes have harmed local fisheries without demonstrable stock benefits. Neutral comments were few and tended either to express limited knowledge of the specific impacts or to emphasise that debate should focus on longer-term recovery and ecosystem health rather than reverting to a previous model. Negative responses, which formed the largest group, characterised the earlier measures as a failed experiment. They argued that allowing trawling and dredging within a supposedly “closed” spawning area undermined conservation objectives and that returning to those arrangements would amount to “admitting defeat” on Clyde cod recovery.

Interpretation

• Positive (37%) – Support for a familiar, co-designed and less restrictive regime. Supportive respondents tended to view the 2002–2022 closure as a more practical and proportionate measure, particularly for inshore fleets. They argued that the original “box” was designed jointly by fishers and government around known spawning grounds and questioned the rationale for subsequent expansion and removal of exemptions. Several emphasised that the current closure “has had no effect on cod stock but has brought financial hardship” to crab, lobster and Nephrops vessels displaced from traditional grounds, pointing to trawlers being sold, crews leaving the industry and ports losing activity. Others noted that there is “no evidence” that the post-2022 changes have delivered additional ecological benefit, seeing them instead as “unnecessary economic harm” imposed on the local fleet. Some organisations supported a return to the earlier regime as an interim or corrective step – restoring co-designed measures and exemptions for gears perceived to have limited cod interaction – while longer-term, evidence-based arrangements (such as those anticipated through the Clyde Sill MPA process) are developed.
• Neutral (11%) – Limited knowledge and emphasis on broader recovery rather than configuration. Neutral respondents were few but offered two distinct types of reasoning. A small number explicitly stated that they were “not aware of any of the issues that this may have caused,” and therefore felt unable to take a firm position. Others used their neutral stance to reframe the question: rather than arguing for or against a specific historical configuration, they stressed that “all efforts should be focused on what is best for the marine environment” and on a “progressive long-term plan for the Clyde” that prioritises recovery, regeneration and monitoring. One respondent observed that previous measures had “proved to be insufficient to arrest the decline,” but did not endorse either maintaining or abandoning them, instead stressing the need to look beyond a simple choice between pre- and post-2022 arrangements.
• Negative (53%) - Opposition to “going back” to measures seen as ineffective or contradictory. Negative respondents overwhelmingly argued that returning to the 2002–2022 regime would repeat an approach that has already failed to deliver recovery. Many pointed out that these measures were in place for almost two decades without meaningful improvement in Clyde cod, summarising that “if these measures didn’t work over an 18-year period there is no reasonable basis to suppose they would work now.” A recurring critique was that exemptions allowing trawling and dredging inside the nominal spawning closure fundamentally undermined its purpose; some described this as “the polar opposite of what ‘closed’ or ‘protected’ means”. Others framed reversion as “admitting defeat,” arguing that it would signal abandonment of the commitment to recover cod rather than learning from past mistakes. Several respondents instead called for stronger, modernised management that removes bottom-towed gears from spawning and essential fish habitats and tackles Nephrops-trawl bycatch directly. For a few, even the current closure is inadequate, with calls for an all-year no-take zone with no exemptions at all. Overall, negative responses reflected the view that policy should not revert to a configuration widely perceived as ineffective, but move toward more ambitious, evidence-led measures.

Synthesis

Taken together, responses to Question 6 reveal a reluctance to simply revert to the 2002–2022 closure regime, even though a substantial minority regarded it as more workable than the current arrangements. Supporters viewed the earlier configuration as a co-designed compromise that targeted known spawning grounds while allowing low-perceived-risk gears to operate, and argued that post-2022 changes have increased economic hardship without clear evidence of ecological gain. Neutral respondents were few but tended either to lack detailed knowledge of the specific impacts or to emphasise that the debate should centre on long-term recovery, regeneration and ecosystem health rather than on toggling between past and present versions of the same closure.

By contrast, the largest group of respondents saw returning to the 2002–2022 measures as regressive. They argued that the previous regime had already been tested over nearly two decades and had failed to deliver cod recovery, particularly because exemptions for trawling and dredging allowed continued disturbance and bycatch in a nominally protected spawning area. For these respondents, reversion would amount to repeating a failed experiment and “throwing in the towel” on more ambitious management, when what is needed is a shift toward measures that address the root causes of mortality and protect essential habitats.

Across sentiments, three consistent messages emerge:

1. Effectiveness over familiarity – Although some value the predictability of the earlier regime, most respondents emphasised the need for demonstrably effective conservation measures rather than a return to familiar but unsuccessful arrangements.
2. Socio-economic proportionality – Views often reflected perceptions of the balance between ecological protection and economic viability, with supporters highlighting hardship from post-2022 restrictions and opponents arguing that previous compromises already undermined ecological outcomes.
3. Need for forward-looking, evidence-led reform – Across the spectrum, respondents indicated that future policy should move beyond a binary choice between old and new closures, instead adopting a broader package of measures addressing bycatch, seabed impacts and essential habitat protection.

Table 17. Summary of respondent sentiment, rationale, and illustrative quotations for question 6.

Sentiment

Positive

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

Context

• Respondents emphasised that the 2002–2022 closure was originally co-designed between fishers and government and was therefore seen as more practical and proportionate.
• Many argued that the current post-2022 arrangements have increased economic hardship for creel, crab, lobster and Nephrops fleets without clear evidence of additional conservation benefit.
• Supporters highlighted that there is “no evidence” that recent changes have improved cod stocks, while fishing activity and viability in ports such as Maidens, Girvan and Campbeltown have visibly declined.
• Several saw a return to the earlier regime as a way to restore balance between protection and livelihoods, at least as a short-term corrective while longer-term management (e.g. through the Clyde Sill MPA) is developed.
• Some organisations stressed that exemptions for gears thought to have low interaction with cod are compatible with sustainable management and are essential to keep economically important fisheries viable.

Quotes

• “The current closure has had no effect on cod stock but has brought financial hardship to local crab and lobster fishermen displaced by it.”
• “It would make common sense to utilise the area suggested by fishermen years ago before it even became law as that was the area where the cod spawned not in the large area which has been closed the last four years”
• “Since 2022 there has been an accelerated decline in commercial fishing activity in the Clyde. Much of the evidence is qualitative or anecdotal, but there are strong pointers such as: no commercial trawlers working out of Maidens, a clutch of trawlers on the market in Girvan, and 40 year experienced skippers hanging up their wellies in Campbeltown citing the bureaucracy of fishing that should not be ignored.”
• “Only answer is to remove current restrictions and revert back to the original box”
• “We agree with this approach because there is no evidence to suggest that the measures implemented beyond 2022 have had any discernible positive benefit beyond that of the previous measures. It appears that the most recent measures have done little other than cause unnecessary economic harm to the local fleet.”

Sentiment

Neutral

Theme(s)

3. Evidence and science

5. Environmental outcomes

7. Other comments

Context

• Neutral responses were few and often reflected limited knowledge of the specific effects of reverting to the 2002–2022 measures.
• Some respondents explicitly stated that they could not comment because they were “not aware” of the issues involved.
• Others used their neutral position to emphasise that the debate should focus on what is “best for the marine environment” and on long-term recovery and regeneration rather than on the precise configuration of the seasonal closure.
• One respondent noted that previous measures had “proved to be insufficient to arrest the decline,” but did not take a clear stance on whether to return to them, signalling dissatisfaction with both past and present arrangements.

Quotes

• “Surely all efforts should be focused on what is best for the marine environment, vital recovery, regeneration, monitoring with maintenance and a progressive long-term plan for the Clyde, its marine life, seabed health and the below surface health without it being a shouting match hellbent on winning the surface debate with ultimately meaningless gasps.”
• “It has proved to be insufficient to arrest the decline”

Sentiment

Negative

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

2. Socio‑economic impacts

3. Evidence and science

4. Process and engagement

5. Environmental outcomes

6. Balancing environment & socio‑economics

7. Other comments

Context

• Opposition centred on the view that the 2002–2022 closure had already been tried for many years and failed to deliver cod recovery.
• Many respondents stressed that allowing trawling and dredging within a “closed” spawning area fundamentally contradicted the purpose of protection and contributed to ongoing collapse of Clyde cod.
• Several described reversion as irrational or regressive, characterising it as “throwing in the towel” or “admitting defeat” on recovery commitments.
• Respondents argued that if emergency measures have been in place since the early 2000s with no sign of recovery, they are “clearly not fit for purpose” and should not be reinstated.
• ySeveral respondents called instead for stronger, modernised management — including year-round closures without exemptions or the removal of bottom-towed gears from spawning and essential fish habitats — to tackle Nephrops-trawl bycatch and habitat damage directly.

Quotes

• “To revert to the previous measures would be to admit defeat.”
• “The closure should be all year round - NOT seasonal. There should be no exemptions - NONE!”
• “So Plan A fails, then Plan B is implemented and fails. What in any rational world could be a justification for going back to Plan A. If it failed first time why would it not continue to fail. I think most people would find the publication of this question troubling.”
• “If the measures were put in place in 2001 as emergency measures, and we are still not seeing recovery then they are clearly not fit for purpose.”
• “If these measures didn’t work over an 18-year period there is no reasonable basis to suppose they would work now.”