Clyde Seasonal Closure 2026: consultation analysis and SG response

7. Qualitative Findings (Q7 & Q8)

Respondents consistently linked management legitimacy to transparency, local engagement, and the proportionality of restrictions relative to risk. Responses to Q1–Q6 most frequently reflected environmental outcomes, management measures, and evidence needs. Open-text responses to Q7 and Q8 added depth and nuance, reinforcing these themes and placing greater emphasis on adaptive management and collaborative approaches involving fishers, communities, and government.

7.1 Q7 - Further Views on Alternative or Complementary Management Measures

Qualitative Summary

Question 7 asked respondents whether they had any further views on alternative or complementary management measures that could be considered for the protection of cod spawning in the Firth of Clyde for 2026 onwards. As this question was open text only, responses were qualitative and often extensive. Thematic coding shows a high level of engagement and technical and scientific awareness on Clyde cod and offered concrete management proposals – particularly from organisations.

Although respondents held differing opinions on the scale and urgency of future measures, there was broad agreement that the current closure approach alone is insufficient and that management should evolve to be more targeted, evidence-led and participatory. Submissions clustered around five recurring themes:

1. Reducing Nephrops-trawl bycatch and disturbance,

2. Strengthening scientific evidence,

3. Expanding management beyond spawning closures,

4. Balancing ecological and socio-economic objectives, and

5. Education and longer-term stewardship.

1. Nephrops-trawl bycatch and seabed disturbance

The most dominant theme—raised by the majority of respondents—was the need to address cod mortality caused by Nephrops trawl bycatch. Many highlighted peer-reviewed evidence and expert opinion confirming that the Clyde cod population is unlikely to recover unless this mortality source is substantially reduced. One respondent stated plainly:

“The advice from independent experts is that Clyde cod are very unlikely to recover unless the issue of mortality in the Clyde Nephrops fishery is addressed.”

Several cited the findings of Dr Ana Adao’s PhD¹ and the Clyde 2020 Research Advisory Group as evidence that bycatch mortality may account for up to 80 per cent of the Clyde cod biomass each year. One organisation observed that:

“The current annual bycatch of Clyde cod is known to be at least 50 tonnes pa which might be 80 % of the Clyde cod stock biomass.”

From this perspective, reducing trawl and dredge pressure was seen as the single most urgent management priority. Many respondents therefore called for mandatory selectivity devices such as the Swedish grid, tighter spatial restrictions, and greater use of low-impact gears such as creels and diving.

As one detailed submission explained:

“We should apply the scientific principal and follow the best science currently available; which is that cod mortality in Nephrops trawl must be substantially reduced. … Selectivity can be increased remarkably by mandating the use of a Swedish grid.”

Several organisations proposed two complementary options: either a large reduction in the trawl footprint or markedly greater selectivity in existing trawl gear. One response explained:

“Selectivity can be increased remarkably by mandating the use of a Swedish grid… and the use of spatial management would have the additional benefits of being a possible tool to incentivise the use of more lower impact gears and reduce seabed disturbance.”

These same respondents frequently linked bycatch control with wider ecosystem recovery, noting that lowering bottom-trawl disturbance would help Scotland achieve Good Environmental Status targets while sustaining or even increasing employment if accompanied by incentives and argued that mandatory changes should form the backbone of future management.

2. Evidence and scientific credibility

A second key theme was the importance of robust, locally derived scientific evidence to underpin any future management measures. Many respondents stressed that policy decisions should not proceed until the forthcoming Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) has produced conclusive results on cod distribution and spawning activity within the Clyde.

“Until we understand if there are cod based in the Clyde – where they are, where and when they spawn – nobody can propose management measures with any degree of assurance. The TSP may provide a basis for considering measures.”

Several contributors questioned the adequacy of earlier scientific surveys, arguing that previous research employed sampling methods unable to detect cod accurately:

“Before there is any closure there should be proper science carried out by local boats with the proper gear that catch fish not prawn nets that only stand approx 14 inches high and has been proven to catch few fish.”

This view was not limited to one stakeholder group. Both environmental organisations and fishing representatives agreed that credible, transparent, and locally informed data are essential for legitimacy, though they differed on the appropriate sequencing of science and regulation. Some called for immediate action on the best available evidence; others urged patience until the TSP’s findings are published.

3. Alternative and complementary management measures

A prominent organisational response argued that reliance on spawning-ground closures alone has proven inadequate, calling for a broader management regime combining technical and spatial measures that address bycatch throughout the year.

“Concentrating exclusively on spawning aggregation protections has been shown to be wholly insufficient to recover Clyde cod populations. … A regime which aims to recover cod must extend beyond the protection of spawning cod and should include year-round technical or spatial measures to reduce cod bycatch in the Nephrops trawl fisheries.”

Other submissions recommended the introduction of Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), mandatory selectivity devices such as the Swedish grid, and the expansion of habitat-restoration or nursery-area protection zones. Respondents argued that these tools would deliver tangible reductions in mortality while promoting a more transparent and accountable management system.

In several cases, these proposals were accompanied by reference to research evidence:

“The current annual bycatch of Clyde cod is known to be at least 50 tonnes pa which might be 80 % of the Clyde cod stock biomass.”

This emphasis on technical reform reflected a strong appetite for measurable, year-round improvements rather than continued reliance on seasonal closures.

4. Socio-economic considerations and governance

A number of respondents voiced concern that additional restrictions could further disadvantage small-scale fishers and local communities. These respondents emphasised the need for proportionate measures that protect livelihoods as well as stocks:

“Priority should be given to the artisan fishing fleet that exists here in the Firth.”

Such comments illustrate enduring support for traditional inshore protection mechanisms and reflect apprehension that larger-scale or poorly targeted closures risk accelerating community decline. Conversely, a smaller group urged more radical ecological protection, contending that partial restrictions have failed and that only a full moratorium will allow ecosystem recovery:

“The whole of the Clyde should be an all year ‘no take zone’.”

This divergence highlights the central tension between ecological urgency and socio-economic resilience. At both ends of the spectrum, respondents called for greater transparency, fairness, and stakeholder involvement in policy design, noting that legitimacy depends on visible engagement rather than top-down decisions.

5. Education and public engagement

Although fewer in number, several respondents broadened the discussion beyond regulation, advocating for education, outreach, and cultural awareness as essential to rebuilding stewardship of the Clyde.

“Education of all parties, ages and communities whether coastal or not – a multi generational layman's terms unbiased information system … for a better future generally and specifically in the long term.”

These contributions framed cod recovery as not only a biological challenge but also a social one – requiring shared understanding of marine ecosystems, inter-generational learning, and renewed public connection to the sea.

Summary of Themes

Taken together, the responses show substantial agreement that Clyde cod recovery demands an integrated, evidence-based, and socially equitable approach. While there is some consensus on the need to address Nephrops-trawl bycatch and to strengthen scientific data, opinions differ on the appropriate timing, extent, and governance of reform. Respondents advocate measures that are not only scientifically robust but also economically and culturally sustainable, combining technical innovation, transparent science, and public participation to deliver enduring recovery of cod and the wider Clyde ecosystem.

Interpretation

Analysis of Question 7 responses indicates broad agreement that the current seasonal closure is not an effective or proportionate mechanism for cod recovery, yet respondents diverge on the pace, scope, and form of future management.

1. Shared recognition of the mortality problem Across some all respondent groups, there was consensus that Nephrops-trawl bycatch remains the primary source of cod mortality. Participants emphasised that continued recovery efforts will fail unless this issue is addressed directly. Preferred solutions such as selective-gear technologies, reduced trawl footprints, and low-impact alternatives reflect a pragmatic drive for measurable outcomes rather than ideological division. Even among those critical of additional restrictions, there was implicit acceptance that management must align with scientific understanding of mortality processes.

2. Science as the axis of credibility and contention Nearly all submissions invoked the importance of scientific evidence, but opinions diverged on whether existing data justify immediate reform. Conservation and research respondents interpreted current findings as sufficient to act now, whereas many fishing-industry stakeholders argued that decisions should await definitive results from the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP). This difference is not primarily about ecological priorities but about confidence in the evidence base and the perceived fairness of decision-making. Science therefore functions as both the foundation of consensus and the principal site of disagreement.

3. Governance, legitimacy, and adaptive transition A recurrent interpretive theme concerns how management is delivered rather than what it seeks to achieve. Respondents expressed frustration with top-down consultation and called for genuine co-management, incorporating local ecological knowledge, community-led monitoring, and adaptive review processes. These perspectives underline that compliance and behavioural change depend on legitimacy and economic feasibility as much as on regulation itself.

Taken together, the responses portray a debate that is not divided along “pro-” or “anti-closure” lines but centred on balancing precaution, evidence, and fairness. The underlying interpretation is that ecological restoration and social legitimacy are interdependent: Clyde cod recovery will only succeed if management combines scientific authority with participatory governance and economic realism. These perspectives are summarised in Table 18, which outlines the main ranges of viewpoints expressed across respondent groups.

Table 18. Summary of respondent viewpoints on alternative or complementary management measures for the protection of Clyde cod (Question 7). Each category represents a distinct interpretive grouping of perspectives, supported by verbatim quotations from the consultation responses.

Viewpoint

Immediate, science-based reform (majority)

Rationale / Key Arguments

Existing evidence already sufficient; urgent reduction of Nephrops-trawl bycatch required

Illustrative Quote (verbatim)

“The advice from independent experts is that Clyde cod are very unlikely to recover unless the issue of mortality in the Clyde Nephrops fishery is addressed.”

Implications

Supports swift action and mandatory selective-gear measures.

Viewpoint

Evidence-first / delay additional measures (moderate)

Rationale / Key Arguments

Need to confirm presence and spawning behaviour before new regulations

Illustrative Quote (verbatim)

“Until we understand: if there are cod based in the Clyde: where they are: where and when they spawn nobody can propose management measures with any degree of assurance.”

Implications

Wait for TSP results before major policy change.

Viewpoint

Status-quo / socio-economic priority (minority)

Rationale / Key Arguments

Nephrops nets already selective; further closures harm livelihoods

Illustrative Quote (verbatim)

“...as for the environmental aspect it has been proven that prawn nets are sustainable owing to escape panels and low height.”

Implications

Argues that current practices are sustainable; resists additional closures.

Viewpoint

Total protection / precautionary (minority)

Rationale / Key Arguments

Only full moratorium will allow ecosystem recovery

Illustrative Quote (verbatim)

“The whole of the Clyde should be an all year 'no take zone'.”

Implications

Advocates strongest ecological intervention and full closure.

Viewpoint

Alternative approaches / education focus

Rationale / Key Arguments

Long-term behaviour change and public understanding vital to lasting sustainability.

Illustrative Quote (verbatim)

“Education of all parties, ages and communities whether coastal or not – a multi generational layman’s terms unbiased information system … for a better future generally and specifically in the long term.”

Implications

Suggests complementary social and educational measures to support compliance and stewardship.

Synthesis

Responses to Question 7 demonstrate a strong, shared commitment to the recovery of Clyde cod but differing views on how rapidly and by what means this should be achieved. The central tension is between ecological urgency and socio-economic continuity.

Most respondents supported targeted reform of existing fisheries to address what they perceive to be the primary source of mortality—Nephrops-trawl bycatch—through selective-gear requirements, spatial management, and encouragement of lower-impact methods such as creeling and diving. Others preferred a staged, evidence-first approach, arguing that new measures should follow conclusive results from the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP). A smaller minority either defended current practices as already sustainable or called for a complete prohibition on mobile gear.

Despite this variation, a coherent direction emerges. Stakeholders seek management that is credible, transparent, and participatory built on sound science and responsive to the realities of local livelihoods. They view effective policy as one that links ecological recovery with social legitimacy, replacing one-off closures with an adaptive framework capable of continual learning and refinement.

Key insights:

1. Address mortality sources. It is perceived by some stakeholders that cod recovery depends on reducing Nephrops-trawl bycatch and seabed disturbance rather than relying solely on temporal closures.

2. Base decisions on credible local science. The TSP and participatory data collection are essential to strengthen evidence, transparency, and confidence in outcomes.

3. Integrate people and policy. Co-management, fair transition pathways, and incentives for sustainable gears are crucial to align ecological and economic objectives.

In summary, the synthesis of responses points to a pragmatic consensus: future management must be science-led, socially fair, and adaptive, capable of delivering measurable ecological recovery while sustaining the Clyde’s fishing communities. Thematic patterns identified through coding of the free-text responses are presented in Table 19, which details the principal themes, sub-themes, and verbatim supporting quotations.

Table 19. Thematic coding of Question 7 free-text responses (Alternative or Complementary Management Measures). Each theme and sub-theme summarises key contextual findings, supported by verbatim quotations from respondents.

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

Sub-theme(s)

1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F

Context

Respondents argued that the current seasonal closure alone is insufficient to secure recovery. Many called for broader, year-round management focused on reducing Nephrops-trawl bycatch through gear selectivity, spatial limits, and technical controls such as REM.

Quotes

• “The advice from independent experts is that Clyde cod are very unlikely to recover unless the issue of mortality in the Clyde Nephrops fishery is addressed.”
• “Concentrating exclusively on spawning aggregation protections has been shown to be wholly insufficient to recover Clyde cod populations. … A regime which aims to recover cod must extend beyond the protection of spawning cod and should include year-round technical or spatial measures to reduce cod bycatch in the Nephrops trawl fisheries.”
• “Selectivity can be increased remarkably by mandating the use of a Swedish grid …”

Theme(s)

2. Socio-economic impacts

Sub-theme(s)

2A

Context

Several respondents warned that additional closures could harm small-scale fishers and coastal communities. Others suggested the re-introduction of the traditional three-mile limit as a balanced compromise.

Quotes

• “Priority should be given to the artisan fishing fleet that exists here in the Firth.”

Theme(s)

3. Evidence and science

Sub-theme(s)

3A, 3B

Context

There was strong emphasis on the need for robust, locally derived evidence. Respondents welcomed the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) to confirm cod spawning distribution, while others criticised past surveys that used inappropriate gear.

Quotes

• “Until we understand if there are cod based in the Clyde – where they are, where and when they spawn – nobody can propose management measures with any degree of assurance. The TSP may provide a basis for considering measures.”
• “Before there is any closure there should be proper science carried out by local boats with the proper gear that catch fish not prawn nets that only stand approx 14 inches high and has been proven to catch few fish.”

Theme(s)

4. Process and engagement

Sub-theme(s)

4A, 4B, 4C

Context

Many respondents stressed that future management should involve direct participation from industry, co-management, and transparent communication. Collaboration and fairness were identified as vital for legitimacy and compliance.

Quotes

• “It is important that any ongoing management involves industry directly, not simply through consultation. Working with the fisheries in the Clyde to apportion appropriate management, if needed, is essential for effective sustainable management.”

Theme(s)

5. Environmental outcomes

Sub-theme(s)

5A, 5B

Context

A minority supported stronger environmental protection, calling for full closure of the Clyde to allow recovery, while others highlighted the sustainability of existing practices.

Quotes

• “The whole of the Clyde should be an all year ‘no take zone’.”
• “As for the environmental aspect it has been proven that prawn nets are sustainable owing to escape panels and low height.”

Theme(s)

6. Balancing environment & socio-economics

Sub-theme(s)

6A, 6B

Context

Several submissions highlighted the need to balance ecological recovery with the economic sustainability of fishing communities. Others saw this balance as dependent on education and cultural change.

Quotes

• “Education of all parties, ages and communities whether coastal or not – a multi generational layman's terms unbiased information system … for a better future generally and specifically in the long term.”

7.2 Q8 - Views on Balancing Environmental Protection and Socio-Economic Benefits

Qualitative Summary

Question 8 invited respondents to provide additional comments on the proposed 2025 seasonal closure for the protection of cod spawning in the Firth of Clyde. The open-text format generated strongly worded and emotive responses from a wide range of stakeholders, including individual fishers, industry bodies, environmental groups, and members of the public. While opinions were divided, the submissions revealed a shared concern about legitimacy, fairness, and long-term sustainability, rather than simple opposition or support.

1. Perceived socio-economic harm and frustration

A dominant theme among fishing and community respondents was the economic and social hardship attributed to repeated closures. Many described the policy as detrimental to livelihoods, particularly for small boats and family-run businesses operating on narrow margins.

“...some fishermen that have sold up as they could not make a living in the area they had worked for years...”

Respondents also expressed frustration that, despite years of closures, there is no visible evidence of cod recovery, interpreting this as proof that the measures have failed.

Within this group, however, there was variation. Some respondents opposed closures outright, arguing they are “pointless,” while others accepted the need for conservation but demanded different, more locally informed approaches. This indicates that resistance is not necessarily to conservation itself, but to how measures are designed and implemented.

2. Evidence, science, and effectiveness

A focus of responses was the scientific credibility of the seasonal closure. Some fishers argued that cod do not spawn within the restricted zones, questioning the biological basis of the policy.

Conversely, some respondents—particularly environmental or research-oriented contributors—acknowledged data gaps but called for continued protection until the Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) delivers robust findings.

Thus, both supporters and opponents appealed to “science” to justify their positions yet differed on how much evidence is enough to act. For opponents, science must prove efficacy before imposing hardship; for supporters, precaution is justified in the face of uncertainty. This polarity reflects a deeper contest over who defines credible evidence—formal scientific authorities or local experiential knowledge.

3. Support for continued or strengthened closure

Several respondents advanced a protection-first position, arguing that cod recovery and wider ecosystem restoration should take priority. Environmental respondents and several members of the public supported continuation—and in some cases, strengthening—of the closure. They argued that restrictions are necessary to allow recovery and to demonstrate Scotland’s commitment to marine protection.

“Building fish stocks for the future is very important.”

Within this group, views also varied: others argued more directly for tougher enforcement, including calls for complete restriction on exploitation:

“There MUST be total protection.”

A related strand of argumentation implied that stronger protection is necessary not only for cod but for broader ecosystem function and long-term social value.

4. Calls for alternative management and co-design

Despite their contrasting positions in preferred policy direction, many responses converged on the need for management that is more collaborative, adaptive, and grounded in trust. Collaboration was presented as important not only for legitimacy but for improving the quality and applicability of evidence. Fishers repeatedly criticised what they perceived as top-down decision-making, while others saw co-design as the only way to ensure legitimacy.

Some respondents rejected the premise that environmental protection and fishing livelihoods are inherently in conflict, describing fishers as long-term stewards and emphasising voluntary action and willingness to engage where measures are demonstrably evidence-based:

“For decades, the fishermen of the Clyde have acted as custodians of the sea.”

“In short, where science can demonstrate the need to intervene to protect a fish stock, the industry will willingly comply. Where it cannot, as is the case here, they should be free to ply their trade.”

Others focused on governance, calling for processes that reduce polarisation, rebuild confidence, and generate a more scientifically sound and reflective approach alongside fair consideration of rural community impacts.

Some suggested that participatory management, incentive schemes for selective gear, and improved communication could prevent the yearly cycle of conflict that currently defines Clyde management. Co-management was framed in practical terms recommending participatory approaches that integrate fishers, scientists, and wider stakeholders:

“Promote Community-Led Fisheries Management Engage local fishers, scientists, and conservation groups in co-management schemes, giving stakeholders a meaningful role in monitoring and decision-making.”

This reflects an emerging middle ground, where differing priorities could be reconciled through shared evidence and adaptive governance.

5. Environmental and public-interest perspectives

Environmental and public respondents situated the debate within a longer-term narrative, arguing that temporary hardship is justified to secure future viability. This perspective was particularly clear in responses that positioned long-term ecosystem function as a prerequisite for any stable future for fishing communities.

“...long-term ecological recovery is a prerequisite for sustainable socio-economic benefits for and from fisheries.”

A few respondents also argued that the debate is distorted when treated as a zero-sum trade-off, contending that the current model is what produces both ecological harm and foregone socio-economic opportunity:

“Conserving/recovering the Clyde's marine environment and having a thriving commercial fishing industry in the Clyde are not mutually exclusive; it is the current model that is ineffective.”

Respondents often framed the issue as an ethical obligation rather than a technical policy question, including strong normative language about the direction of policy and the acceptability of current impacts:

“Environment needs to be first and if cod doesn’t recover the fisherman have no business anyway so it’s crazy to not hear the science and act appropriately.”

Thus, linking cod recovery to the health of the wider marine ecosystem and to the values of stewardship and intergenerational justice. The key themes emerging from these qualitative responses are summarised below.

Summary of Themes

Taken together, the responses to Question 8 reveal widespread recognition that sustainable management of the Clyde requires a balanced, transparent, and adaptive approach. While participants share the goal of restoring cod and protecting the wider marine ecosystem, they differ sharply on the means, pace, and legitimacy of intervention.

Many fishers and community respondents emphasised economic hardship, procedural unfairness, and lack of visible recovery, calling for a reassessment of current closure boundaries and greater inclusion in decision-making. Environmental and public-interest participants, meanwhile, highlighted the moral and ecological imperative to maintain or strengthen protection until clear evidence of recovery emerges. Between these poles, a number of respondents advocated collaborative, evidence-led reform that links scientific monitoring with local experience.

Across all perspectives, there was strong endorsement of credible science, participatory governance, and fairness as the essential conditions for successful management. Respondents ultimately envision a system that is not only ecologically effective but also socially legitimate and economically viable, combining robust evidence, adaptive learning, and genuine partnership to deliver long-term recovery of Clyde cod and its dependent communities.

Interpretation

The analysis of Question 8 responses suggests that the Clyde closure has become a touchstone for broader tensions over fairness, credibility, and the relationship between people and policy.

1. Divergent perceptions of effectiveness For many fishers, the absence of visible recovery signifies failure, undermining the legitimacy of the closure. For environmental respondents, the same lack of recovery underscores the need for continued protection. This illustrates how the same evidence can reinforce opposing conclusions depending on perspective and trust in governance.

2. Science as contested authority All sides claim to support science, but its role is interpreted differently. Some see science as a tool for accountability, while others invoke the precautionary principle to act despite uncertainty. The debate therefore hinges less on ecological facts than on who holds epistemic authority—formal researchers or those with lived experience at sea.

3. Governance, participation, and legitimacy A powerful cross-cutting theme is distrust in process. Insinuations reveal that perceptions of exclusion fuel policy resistance. Even among those supportive of conservation, frustration with process was evident. These responses suggest that procedural fairness—not just biological outcomes—will determine the social licence for any future management.

4. Emotional and social dimensions

The language used in some responses (for example, references to “decimation”) signals high emotional stakes, particularly in relation to fishers’ livelihoods and community continuity. For fishing respondents, closures were often framed not only as economic loss but as symbols of alienation from decision-makers and disregard for lived experience. By contrast, environmental respondents more commonly articulated normative concerns around ecological responsibility and intergenerational stewardship, with less reliance on emotive framing. This asymmetry in emotional expression mirrors the broader policy divide, underscoring that cod management is as much a social and governance challenge as it is an ecological one.

Collectively, these dynamics demonstrate that the Clyde debate cannot be reduced to simple pro- or anti-closure positions. Instead, it reflects divergent perspectives on risk, fairness, evidence use, and accountability in marine policy. Cod recovery will depend as much on rebuilding social trust and procedural legitimacy as on biological regeneration. These contrasting viewpoints are summarised in Table 20, which sets out the range of positions expressed across respondent groups.

Table 20. Range of Opposing Viewpoints on the Proposed 2025 Clyde Cod Seasonal Closure This table summarises the principal positions expressed by consultation respondents regarding the proposed 2025 seasonal closure. It identifies the main rationales, representative verbatim quotations, and indicative implications for future policy design.

Viewpoint

Opposition to closure (majority among fishers)

Rationale / Key Arguments

Closures harm livelihoods and have not shown evidence of cod recovery.

Illustrative Quote

“Yes protection of the environment should come second to protecting small fishing communities and traditional way of life within these.”

Implications

Suggests need for socio-economic mitigation and policy review.

Viewpoint

Support for continued closure (environmental / public)

Rationale / Key Arguments

Closure necessary until cod recovery is evident; demonstrates environmental responsibility.

Illustrative Quote

“Measures that support and enable the recovery of fish populations will deliver more reliable stock and consistent fishing opportunities for coastal communities in the future...”

Implications

Supports ecological precaution and continued monitoring.

Viewpoint

Evidence-first / conditional approach

Rationale / Key Arguments

Wait for Targeted Scientific Programme results before altering policy.

Illustrative Quote

“With regard to restrictions aimed at improving environmental outcomes, fishers remain willing participants where environmental risks can be demonstrated in a sound scientific way, and measures can be shown to yield results.”

Implications

Endorses evidence-led decision-making and adaptive review.

Viewpoint

Demand for co-management

Rationale / Key Arguments

Current process excludes local knowledge; collaboration.

Illustrative Quote

“Can fishing fleets off-season be utilised by environmental groups/ scientific research thus creating a common interest?”

Implications

Calls for participatory governance and improved communication.

Viewpoint

Total protection / strict enforcement

Rationale / Key Arguments

Stronger measures and better enforcement required to ensure effectiveness.

Illustrative Quote

“There MUST be total protection.”

Implications

Advocates stricter compliance and year-round protection.

Synthesis

Responses to Question 8 demonstrate a shared desire for sustainable fisheries but deep disagreement about the means, pace, and legitimacy of change. The closure has become both a technical management tool and a symbolic site of conflict, reflecting competing understandings of what constitutes ‘good management.’

Most respondents—whether supportive or opposed— felt that the Clyde ecosystem is degraded. Fishers focus on livelihood and fairness; environmental respondents emphasise precaution and stewardship; and many others occupy a middle ground, calling for adaptive, evidence-based reform co-designed with industry.

This synthesis indicates that policy acceptance depends on legitimacy, not just science. The credibility of future closures will rest on transparency, shared monitoring, and meaningful participation.

Key insights:

1. Perceived legitimacy is pivotal. Trust and inclusion are preconditions for compliance; without them, even sound measures may fail.

2. Evidence and perception should converge. The TSP should bridge formal science and local knowledge to rebuild confidence.

3. Balance ecology and economy through co-management. Adaptive governance should link cod recovery with fair transition support for affected communities.

4. Recognise emotional and moral dimensions. Policy should engage with values of fairness, identity, and intergenerational responsibility alongside technical goals.

In policy terms, the Clyde debate exemplifies a broader challenge in marine governance: aligning precautionary science with community resilience through adaptive, transparent, and co-produced management frameworks. The thematic structure of these findings is presented in Table 21.

Table 21. Thematic coding of question 8 free-text responses. This table presents the six overarching themes and associated sub-themes derived from the Question 8 qualitative dataset. Each theme is supported by contextual interpretation and verbatim quotations that illustrate the range of perspectives and issues raised by respondents.

Theme(s)

1. Management measures

Sub-theme(s)

1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F

Context

Divergent views on whether the closure should continue or be replaced with alternative measures such as spatial zoning or selective-gear requirements.

Quotes

“The question, as posed, supposes that there is a conflict between environmental protection and the actions of the fishing industry. My observations are that this is incorrect”

Theme(s)

2. Socio-economic impacts

Sub-theme(s)

2A

Context

Many fishers emphasised economic hardship and community decline resulting from the closure.

Quotes

“owing to the closure in the last four years there are some fishermen that have sold up as they could not make a living in the area they had worked for years...”

Theme(s)

3. Evidence and science

Sub-theme(s)

3A, 3B

Context

Disagreement over scientific certainty; some argued there is no evidence cod spawn in closed areas, others called for decisions to await TSP outcomes.

Quotes

“In short, where science can demonstrate the need to intervene to protect a fish stock, the industry will willingly comply. Where it cannot, as is the case here, they should be free to ply their trade.”

Theme(s)

4. Process and engagement

Sub-theme(s)

4A, 4B, 4C

Context

Respondents across viewpoints urged more inclusive, transparent management processes.

Quotes

“The socio-economic structure of the fishing industry has to feel included, not attacked not portrayed as the villain when it is the saviour to many jobs, livelihoods, communities.”

Theme(s)

5. Environmental outcomes

Sub-theme(s)

5A, 5B

Context

Environmental respondents stressed the ecological necessity of continued closures for stock recovery and wider marine health.

Quotes

“The evidence suggests that the level of environmental protection is currently too low and that this has led to some very poor social and economic outcomes”

Theme(s)

6. Balancing environment & socio-economics

Sub-theme(s)

6A, 6B

Context

The central policy challenge identified was balancing ecological restoration with economic viability.

Quotes

“Conserving/recovering the Clyde's marine environment and having a thriving commercial fishing industry in the Clyde are not mutually exclusive; it is the current model that is ineffective.”