Clyde Seasonal Closure 2026: consultation analysis and SG response

8. Key Findings and Scottish Government Response

8.1 Key Findings

The consultation revealed strong engagement and nuanced perspectives across stakeholders. While views diverged on specific questions, the most consistent findings emerged:

• Shared commitment to cod protection: Respondents across all sentiments recognised the importance of safeguarding spawning cod. Disagreement centred not on the principle of protection but on the design, targeting, and governance of measures.
• Conditional support for continuity: A minority supported retaining the closure as precautionary, but their support was conditional on adaptive review and stronger evidence. Continuity was seen as a safeguard against regression, not as a permanent solution.
• Neutrality as analytical caution: Neutral positions dominated in Q2 and were common elsewhere. This reflected uncertainty about the adequacy of current boundaries and timing, not disengagement. Neutral respondents consistently called for refinement, improved evidence, and complementary measures.
• Opposition rooted in scepticism and governance fatigue: Negative sentiment was strongest in Q1 (continuation of the closure) and Q4 (SSI extension to 2028). Respondents criticised the closure as outdated, symbolic, and misaligned with spawning activity. They highlighted the failure to address Nephrops trawl bycatch and other mortality sources and expressed frustration with rigid governance.
• Support for collaboration and evidence improvement: The strongest positive response was to Q5, where nearly half strongly supported collaborative working during the Targeted Scientific Programme. This reflects broad enthusiasm for co‑designed evidence gathering and recognition of fishers’ knowledge.
• Common expectation of change: Despite differences in sentiment, most respondents signalled that the closure should not remain static. Calls for adaptive review, refinement of boundaries, and governance reform were consistent across supportive, neutral, and opposing groups.

8.2 Scottish Government Response

1. How this response is organised

• Q1: Continuation of the Clyde Closure (2026–28)
• Q2: Appropriateness of Current Timing and Location of the Clyde Seasonal Closure
• Q3: Three year Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP)
• Q4: Scottish Statutory Instrument (SSI) Continuation Until 2028
• Q5: Collaborative Working During the TSP
• Q6: Returning to 2002–2022 Measures
• Q7: Alternative or Complementary Measures
• Q8: Balancing Environmental and Socioeconomic Outcomes
• Next Steps and Government Position

2. Q1 The Clyde Seasonal Closure should remain in place for 2026 and 2027 in the same location and during the same time period as in 2025

Responses:

• Majority opposed (55%), with 43% strongly disagreeing.
• 32% neutral, signalling uncertainty or conditional support.
• 14% supportive, citing precautionary protection while uncertainty persists.

Key themes:

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.

• Shared underlying goal of cod recovery, but disagreement over whether the current closure achieves that goal fairly and effectively.
• Concerns that the seasonal closure is poorly targeted and misaligned with spawning grounds and timing.
• Several respondents stated the seasonal closure has had limited ecological benefit and does not address the root causes of cod mortality, including Nephrops trawl bycatch.
• The seasonal closure has had disproportionate socioeconomic impacts on small-scale fishers and local communities.
• There is a lack of adaptability and review mechanisms in the current management arrangements.

Government response:

The consultation generated a wide range of views. We appreciate concerns raised regarding the current approach to the seasonal closure, its effectiveness as a means to recover cod in the Clyde and its socio-economic impact on local communities.

The Scottish Government recognises the current closure may not fully align with spawning grounds or timing, and that its ecological benefits remain uncertain. In addition, previous management of the closure was not adaptable, nor subject to review meaning it was not easy to modify our approach in light of new evidence. These themes have driven our decision to take a wider view of cod recovery in the Firth of Clyde, including limiting fishing activity in response to calls for immediate action to reduce mortality and take wider action beyond the seasonal closure.

We acknowledge the socioeconomic challenges this measure poses for small-scale fishers and these are explored in the BRIA accompanying this report The BRIA estimates the impact of the current closure on displaced fishing vessels, noting that there are other related costs which are difficult to estimate. These include additional fuel costs, caused by displacement and lower productivity on alternate grounds.

Our scientific advisors agree that, while the effectiveness of the current seasonal closure is not fully understood, it may be helping prevent further stock decline. It is however recognised that implementing a closure via SSI on a biennial basis does not fully reflect the dynamic nature of fish stocks and the wider ecosystem and our approach must take account of:

• The wider distribution of spawning cod in the Firth of Clyde;
• The cumulative impact of bycatch across different fleet sectors; and
• Natural mortality factors and seabed disturbance.

3. Q2 – The current timing and location of the Clyde Seasonal Closure are appropriate for protecting spawning cod :

Responses:

• Plurality neutral (48%), reflecting uncertainty rather than disengagement; and acknowledging limited protection offered.
• 32% opposed citing misalignment with spawning grounds; that cod are too scarce to protect; management failings, and a broader package of measures.
• 21% supportive, noting historical context and precautionary protection.

Key themes:

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.

• There are doubts about whether the current closure boundaries align with cod spawning activity.
• Calls for policy to address perceived causes of mortality to cod in the Clyde.
• Calls for fine scale mapping and updated scientific evidence to strengthen the basis for closures.
• Several respondents stressed the need for more robust evidence and broader measures beyond a single closure.
• Recognition that closure design must be evidence led, adaptable and integrated with wider ecosystem-based management.

Government response:

The Scottish Government acknowledges recent research by Dr Ana Adão^[6] (subsequently updated by academics at Strathclyde University). This work indicates that Clyde cod spawning stock biomass (SSB) declined from ~1000 tonnes in 1985 to ~20 tonnes by 2019, and that the maximum sustainable yield (F_MSY) is 0.56. However cod reproductive capacity appears to be high with a good chance of recovery if fishing mortality rates are decreased and environmental conditions are favourable. While recruitment remains poor, in the more recent years leading up to 2019 modest increases in the SSB have been observed which may lead to improved recruitment. We consider the Strathclyde work to be the most advanced and robust methodology that is currently available for demersal stocks in the Clyde, including cod.

The current closure respects the policy of maximum protection, minimum disturbance within a static area. However, rather than simply change the existing closure to cover a larger static area we want to be able to identify aggregations of juvenile or spawning cod throughout the wider Firth of Clyde and manage activity in a way that seeks to avoid them. This may be achieved by the use of real time closures, or further selectivity measures. In order to be able to manage the fishery in this way, our evidence base needs to improve.

We acknowledge stakeholder concern regarding the efficacy of the current closure, its alignment with spawning activity and the need to take a wider view of this stock. Our approach to these concerns is covered in the next section.

4. Q3 - What is your opinion of the option to carry out a three-year Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP) to improve the evidence base about Clyde cod:

Responses:

• Views were divided, with half (50%) opposing the TSP, reflecting concerns that sufficient evidence already exists and that further research could delay management action.
• 41% supported emphasising the importance of strengthening the evidence base, provided the programme was codesigned with fishers and scientists.
• Neutral responses (9%) showed uncertainty about whether the TSP should go ahead.

Key Themes:

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.

• Concerns that sufficient evidence already exists and that a new programme could delay urgent management action.
• Calls for clear objectives, defined timelines, and transparent governance to ensure the programme produces practical outcomes.
• Calls from some respondents to act on existing science which identifies trawl fishing is the primary cause of cod decline.
• Recognition of the importance of strengthening the evidence base, with emphasis on transparency, collaboration, and rebuilding trust between fishers, scientists, and policymakers.
• Desire for the TSP to integrate existing datasets, avoid duplication, and directly inform adaptive management decisions.
• Shared acknowledgement that credible science should underpin decision‑making, though views differed on whether evidence should precede or accompany immediate management changes.

Government response:

Fishing mortality for cod in the Clyde remains too high. However, the causes are not fully understood, including the role of different fleet segments and their cumulative impact. The effect of ongoing ecosystem and environmental changes on natural mortality is also unclear.

The Scottish Government recognises stakeholder concerns regarding the extent of bycatch in the Nephrops trawl fishery as discussed in research from Strathclyde University. We consider that the bycatch data incorporated into this modelling work is the best available evidence on this issue and we have committed to working with relevant academics to help fill the current data gaps and improve the model.

We also consider that there are limitations to this research as a management tool as it focuses almost exclusively on Nephrops trawl fisheries. It does not include potential bycatch in crab and lobster creels, and includes only very limited data on bycatch in Nephrops creels. The limited bycatch data on Nephrops creels currently used in the modelling dates from 2005 and only considers one small area (therefore making assumptions that the data was typical of the Clyde creel fleet.)

We know that bycatch occurs in these fisheries, but current evidence does not allow for a comprehensive assessment across all gear types. The catchability of cod by creels and the fate of bycatch in Nephrops and crab/lobster pots are little known, making it difficult to quantify the fishing mortality attributable to these gears. We consider that the best available evidence regarding the role of creel fishing in cod by catch is held by scientists in the Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government, including anecdotal and independently verified, qualitative data collected from a number of areas around Scotland.

The Scottish Government recognises the need to support Clyde cod recovery while ensuring decisions are informed by robust evidence. We consider that development of a Targeted Scientific Programme (TSP), co-designed with local fishers and scientific experts, to be the most effective way of informing management of Clyde cod. Without such a programme, critical data gaps will persist, limiting our ability to implement adaptive and proportionate measures.

The Scottish Government will introduce a TSP in the Clyde from February 2026. Responding to stakeholder requests, it will operate year-round across the entire Firth of Clyde area for three years. The programme will be developed in partnership with local fishers and as well as exploring the relative impacts of different fleet sectors on cod by catch, will prioritise identification of juvenile and spawning cod hotspots. This knowledge will help identify critical habitats and enable an adaptive management approach (such as real-time closures) when aggregations of juvenile or spawning cod are encountered.

Despite mixed views on the TSP emerging from the consultation, we believe it is important to progress its development. We consider that it can be adapted to address stakeholder concerns, kept under review and will be subject to monitoring - making agile use of appropriate Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) solutions. Ensuring that local fishers are at the centre of the TSP and working in partnership with scientists will be critical to its success. Key priorities will include:

• Maximising use of available data, including creel bycatch and historical catch records.
• Monitoring cod bycatch across all fishing sectors.
• Investigating discard dynamics across all fishing sectors.
• Conducting spatial surveys to support stock assessment and identify critical habitats throughout the Firth of Clyde.

5. Q4 – Should we lay an SSI that continues until the end of the TSP (2028):

Responses:

• A majority (56%) opposed extending the SSI until 2028, which reflected frustration with perceived policy inertia and concern that prolonged restrictions would delay urgent reforms.
• 30% were supportive and viewed continuity as precautionary, safeguarding spawning areas during the TSP.
• 14% of respondents were neutral, expressing uncertainty about proportionality and governance.

Key themes:

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.

• Concerns that a prolonged SSI could delay meaningful management action and perpetuate ineffective measures.
• Risk of eroding trust if measures are extended without review, transparency or adaptative mechanisms.
• Supporters emphasised stability and credibility during data collection, seeing continuity as precautionary and necessary for scientific legitimacy.
• Broad consensus that any SSI must be transparent, adaptive, and closely integrated with emerging evidence.

Government response:

We acknowledge stakeholder concerns over implementation of the three-year SSI, however, the Scottish Government regards this as being appropriate for developing a robust and reliable time series of scientific evidence to help inform future decisions.

Whilst the SSI will facilitate a TSP over a three-year period, it will not delay informed management action during that period and beyond. As set out in response to Question 3, we anticipate that the data gathered through the TSP will inform management measures and react to new evidence. We will work closely with local fishers to ensure that our approach remains credible, effective, and aligned with long-term recovery objectives.

It should also be recognised there are some elements of the TSP — such as data sharing — that can be implemented quickly, while others will require more time and collaborative work, to deliver meaningful results.

6. Q5 – The Scottish Government should work collaboratively with local fishers during the TSP to maximise data collection and improve scientific understanding:

Responses:

• This question attracted the strongest support overall.
• 47% positive (42% strongly supportive) with respondents emphasising the importance of genuine collaboration, recognising the value of fishers’ knowledge alongside scientific expertise.
• Around one third (35%) opposed, reflecting scepticism about government follow-through and whether collaboration would be genuine.
• Neutral responses (19%) reflected conditional acceptance or uncertainty about how collaboration would be delivered.

Key themes:

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.

• Respondents stressed that fishers’ ecological knowledge, long‑term experience, and spatial understanding of the Clyde are essential inputs to any meaningful scientific programme.
• Some argued that involving fishers early—during design, not just data collection—would improve buy‑in and reduce conflict and would facilitate a genuine two-way collaboration.
• Several conservation‑aligned respondents warned that partnership working must not be used to justify inaction on known drivers of mortality - particularly Nephrops trawl bycatch.
• Others stressed that the precautionary principle requires action even while evidence is being improved, and that the TSP should not become a reason to postpone or substitute for necessary reforms.
• Some emphasised that collaboration must be designed to avoid loopholes for commercial fishing during closures, with scientific access tightly regulated and independently verified.
• Calls for structured, accountable co‑production, with clear protocols and transparent data handling.

Government response:

The Scottish Government acknowledges stakeholder concerns and is committed to developing the TSP Programme (from February 2026) in a transparent and collaborative way that makes best use of academic expertise and the experience and knowledge of our fishers. Local fishers will be at the centre of this initiative and integral to shaping management measures.

To support this, survey and sampling work required by the year-round nature of the programme will utilise Marine Directorate vessels when available. We also intend to work directly with fishers, using their vessels and knowledge. This approach will be valuable in improving understanding of bycatch in the creel fishing sector as well as carrying out the required level of surveying to build an appropriate time series of data.

Our goal is to build trust through openness, collaboration, and shared responsibility, ensuring that management measures are scientifically robust and practically grounded.

7. Q6 – What is your opinion on the Scottish Government returning the Clyde Seasonal Closure to the area, duration and exemptions that were utilised from 2002 until 2022:

Responses:

• 53% opposed with exemptions seen as undermining effectiveness causing cod disturbance and earlier management viewed as repeatedly failing to deliver recovery.
• 37% were supportive citing earlier measures as more workable and proportionate, reducing socioeconomic impacts.
• 11% were neutral respondents with limited knowledge of impacts or preference for focussing on longer-term ecosystem-based recovery.

Key themes:

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.

• Opposition emphasised that exemptions for certain fleet sectors undermined ecological effectiveness by allowing disturbance of spawning cod, and going back to previous measures would simply repeat a failed approach.
• Supporters of the older system valued its predictability, but opponents stressed that familiarity cannot justify reinstating measures widely viewed as having failed to deliver recovery.
• Management should be proportionate, balancing livelihoods and conservation citing the importance of socio-economic proportionality where no clear ecological benefit is observed.
• Supportive respondents emphasised that the post‑2022 restrictions created disproportionate hardship for creelers, divers and small inshore fleets, arguing that earlier exemptions allowed viable fishing with minimal cod interaction.
• Some respondents countered that socio‑economic considerations cannot outweigh ecological ineffectiveness, noting that previous compromises already weakened conservation outcomes.
• Respondents favoured proportionate, evidence‑led management that moves beyond a binary choice between “old” and “new” closures, calling instead for adaptive refinement and a broader package of measures.
• Concern that reverting could undermine recent improvements in stock health.

Government response:

The Scottish Government recognises that exemptions applied within the larger closure area (2002–2022) helped reduce socio-economic impacts on local fishers. However, reversing the current position without strong supporting evidence would risk undermining any positive impact the existing closure has had on Clyde cod recovery.

We remain clear that disturbance of spawning cod is an important consideration in supporting recovery of the Clyde stock. Scientific advice suggests that any fishing method operating within 10 metres of the seabed has the potential to disturb spawning activity and at present, we do not have evidence identifying which fishing methods have the greatest, or least impact. Therefore, continuing with a no-exemptions policy is a prudent approach.

Our approach seeks to safeguard recent progress, while building the evidence base needed for proportionate and adaptive management in the future. This could allow consideration of refinements to fishing activity once further research has been conducted.

8. Q7 - Do you have 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 and beyond?

Responses:

• Respondents proposed a wide range of complementary and broader management measures:
  • Bycatch reduction in Nephrops trawl fisheries through gear modifications (e.g. grids, escape panels), spatial restrictions, or reduced effort.
  • Transition to low‑impact methods such as creeling, diving, or hand‑lining, with support for affected fishers.
  • Expanded or year‑round closures to include additional spawning grounds (e.g. Girvan Bay, Heads of Ayr, Arran) and protect juvenile nursery habitats.
  • Ecosystem‑based approaches, including habitat restoration (seagrass, maerl beds) and measures to maintain seabed diversity.
  • Enhanced monitoring and enforcement, with proposals for mandatory Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), observer programmes, and transparent data sharing.
  • Adaptive management, such as real‑time closures if spawning aggregations are detected, and integration of existing datasets (e.g. Strathclyde assessment model) to guide decisions.
• Conservation organisations emphasised the need for stronger protection, including restrictions on Nephrops trawling, broader closures, and ecosystem‑based approaches.
• Fishing groups highlighted socio‑economic impacts and called for proportionate, targeted measures that balance livelihoods with conservation.
• Several respondents suggested enhanced monitoring, enforcement, and transparency to strengthen credibility.

Key themes:

1. Address mortality sources. Several stakeholders emphasised that meaningful 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.

• Calls to address Nephrops trawl bycatch, viewed by some respondents as the major source of cod mortality.
• Several argued for and proposed broader ecosystem-based management approaches, moving beyond cod specific measures - such as gear modifications, spatial restrictions, or reduced trawl effort.
• Respondents highlighted the importance of using existing datasets and the forthcoming TSP to refine management, improve transparency, and strengthen confidence in decisions.
• Some supported adaptive approaches, including real‑time closures or evidence‑led adjustments, if spawning activity or habitat use is shown to extend beyond current boundaries.
• Views diverged on socioeconomic impacts, with conservation groups favouring stronger protections and fishing groups emphasising proportionate, targeted measures that safeguard livelihoods.

Government response:

The range of views highlights the challenges in developing future management options for cod in the Clyde, whilst balancing obligations under the Fisheries Act and wider policy commitments. We are clear that an adaptive approach to this policy will take us so far, but if we are to solve the challenges that recovery presents, collaboration and meaningful engagement between diverse groups of stakeholders is vital.

In relation to Nephrops bycatch, to see our response to Q3.

In considering calls for an ecosystem-based approach, it is important to note wider policy developments and management of the Firth of Clyde, including cod. The Scottish Government already delivers ecosystem-based management through a coordinated approach to management of the marine environment, and marine resources across a range of different policies and commitments, including biodiversity. This includes putting in place appropriate restrictions on human activity in areas which need additional protection, minimising interaction of human activity with key sensitive marine species, and enhancing sustainability - such as improved selectivity and reduced impacts on benthic habitats. This work involves experts from across the Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government, including policy, science and operations.

In relation to the Clyde, future developments include:

• Development of a new Future Catching Policy (FCP) with consultation planned in early 2026. This will contain proposals for improved additional selectivity measures for Nephrops trawlers fishing in Scottish waters.
• The Clyde Sea Sill Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (NCMPA) aims to protect features and associated species, including circalittoral, and offshore and coarse sediment communities. By introducing restrictions on some fishing gears, pressure will be reduced on habitats where cod may spawn.
• In parallel to 2026 Total Allowable Catch setting, there are workstreams (domestic and international) ongoing to improve the way we manage the wider Northern Shelf cod stock. These include a review of the UK’s North Sea Cod Avoidance Plan (NCAP), introduction of a Northern Shelf Fisheries Management Plan, and work with ICES to better understand cod genetics and substock mixing.

Relating to reduction of fishing mortality, the SSI will restrict access of commercial fishing vessels in the Firth of Clyde for its duration. This means that, from February 2026 only vessels (regardless of gear type) with a valid historic track record of fishing within the Firth of Clyde, and those undertaking fishing primarily for scientific research will be permitted to do so. This approach seeks to balance ecological sustainability with socioeconomic realities, taking action that will lead to a decline in mortality, while building the evidence base needed for further proportionate and adaptive management.

In response to concerns regarding enhanced monitoring, we will make appropriate use of REM and vessel tracking, ensuring that it serves both the requirements of the TSP and aids compliance with management measures.

9. Q8 - With reference to management of Clyde cod, do you have views on the balance between environmental protection and the socio-economic benefits provided by our fishing industry?

Responses:

• Respondents highlighted tension between ecological recovery and socioeconomic sustainability.
• Conservation groups emphasised the primacy of environmental protection, arguing that recovery must come first. Several proposed concrete measures such as transitioning effort away from trawling towards low‑impact methods (creeling, diving), restricting Nephrops trawl activity to reduce cod bycatch, and embedding ecosystem‑based protections to secure long‑term stock recovery.
• Fishing organisations stressed the need to sustain livelihoods and maintain viable local fleets. Some called for reinstating exemptions for low‑impact gears, proportionate restrictions that avoid disproportionate impacts on static gear fishers, and support for communities through Just Transition principles if gear changes are required.
• Broader management measures suggested included rebalancing fishing effort, introducing incentives for low‑impact practices, and ensuring that closures or restrictions are evidence‑led and proportionate.
• Many respondents called for adaptive, evidence led management that balances both priorities, with recognition that trust depends on transparent, proportionate decision‑making.

Key themes:

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.

• Conservation‑focused respondents argued that ecological recovery must take precedence, emphasising that long‑term stock health underpins any future socioeconomic benefits.
• Several proposed strengthening protections through reduced trawl activity, shifts toward low‑impact gears, and embedding wider ecosystem‑based approaches.
• Fishing organisations stressed the need for proportionate management that avoids disproportionate impacts on static‑gear and small‑scale fleets and stressed the need to sustain livelihoods and community resilience.
• Some called for reinstating exemptions for low‑impact gears and for support mechanisms, including Just Transition principles, where gear changes or effort shifts may be required.
• Many respondents favoured adaptive, evidence‑led management that balances ecological and socio-economic objectives rather than prioritising one at the expense of the other.
• Recognition that trust depends on transparent, proportionate decision making.

Government response:

This is a challenging issue and the highly diverse views across stakeholder groups are recognised. Through proposed changes to this policy, we aim to promote the recovery of Clyde cod while balancing socio-economic and environmental responsibilities. This means working in partnership with local fishers, ensuring they are at the very centre of the TSP. Our approach will be proportionate and evidence-led, adapting management in response to emerging evidence, while minimising further pressure on the fishing businesses that remain vital to many rural communities.

We need to improve our understanding of how bycatch of cod varies across the different fishing sectors. It would be premature to enter discussions about specific management measures such as static gear reserves until critical evidence gaps have been addressed.

The importance of stakeholder engagement in this process, including harnessing expert input to develop and deliver the TSP is recognised. We acknowledge the views of stakeholders supporting the variety of fishing methods used in the Clyde as well as those who support prioritisation of lower impact forms of fishing.