Since 2001, an 11-week seasonal fishing closure has operated in areas of the Firth of Clyde to protect spawning cod and aid recovery of depleted cod stocks. In 2022, the Scottish Government announced a late change of approach to strengthen the seasonal closure which prompted a backlash from stakeholders.
This two-part blog series explores what happened, how the Scottish Government responded, and what it tells us about the Scottish Government’s approach to evidence-based policy making in Scotland’s fisheries.
Part one will examine how this controversial measure provides a test of the Scottish Government’s commitment to ‘co-management’ of fisheries.
Part two will look at the evidence used to support its approach and if decisions align with its obligations for ‘evidence-based’ fisheries management.
To begin, it’s worth establishing the historical context of the Clyde seasonal closure.
A very brief history of the Clyde cod spawning closures
The impetus for the seasonal closure arose in November 2000, when the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) — the international organisation responsible for providing scientific advice to support sustainable fisheries management — reported that the cod stock in the West of Scotland was at serious risk of collapse.
At the turn of the millennium, fish stocks had been depleted because of sustained pressure from the expansion and technological advance of European fisheries during the 1970s and 80s. The graph below shows how landings of cod in the Clyde peaked in the mid-1980s before steadily declining until the direct cod fishery (along with other whitefish species) effectively ceased in the early 2000s. Since then, the only catches of cod in the Clyde have been from by-catch (unintentional catches, assessed to be mostly discarded) by vessels targeting prawns.
In 2001, the European Commission identified a “need for emergency and long-term measures to help the recovery of the cod stocks”. The seasonal closure in the Firth of Clyde was introduced as part of emergency measures implemented.
The seasonal closure was first implemented in 2001 by an EU regulation (and subsequently by domestic legislation) which provided exemptions to vessels “fishing with gears appropriate for the capture of pelagic fish [e.g. mackerel and herring], molluscs and crustaceans” which were considered to create “no peril for the cod stock”.
The map below shows the closure area from 2002-2021. In the purple area, exemptions allowed fishing by vessels using a scallop dredge, creel or trawling for prawns and in the blue area, scallop dredge and creel only.
The closure continued in this format until 2022, when the Scottish Government decided to take a different approach to exemptions.
Why did the Scottish Government change its approach?
To answer this question, it’s worth repeating the original reason for the closure. Cod stocks were in a heavily depleted state and measures were needed to help recover the stocks.
After 20 years of the seasonal closure, it made sense to assess if it was working and if cod stocks were recovering. Indeed, a 2015 study evaluating the effectiveness of the seasonal closure had concluded that implementation of the closure appeared to have been “too little and too late”.
In December 2021, the Scottish Government introduced legislation to implement the closure for the 2022 and 2023 fishing seasons. This followed the standard practice of previous years, with the usual exemptions in place.
However, in January 2022, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands wrote to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs and Islands (RAI) Committee to inform it that the legislation would be revoked and re-introduced. She wrote:
“I believe that this approach [to previous exemptions] is no longer appropriate. Despite the ongoing seasonal closure, the stock has shown little sign of recovery and as such the Scottish Government has removed the exemptions to maximise numbers.”
The Cabinet Secretary also stated that the removal of exemptions would be consistent with other cod spawning closures in the North Sea which prohibit all fishing gear types (except pelagic).
Additional information provided to the RAI Committee further explained the decision was “in line with both the Future Fisheries Management strategy and the Bute House Agreement, which commit the government to restoring marine habitats in Scottish inshore waters” and “takes into account the Scottish Government’s commitment to consider the precautionary principle in environmental matters”.
In other words, the justification was that the previous approach appeared to be unsuccessful, so strengthening the protections for spawning cod by removing exemptions might improve outcomes. Why did this create controversy? In part, it relates to how the decision was made.
The decision-making process
To understand the negative reaction by some, to the decision, it’s important to understand the policy context. Specifically, the Scottish Government’s commitment to ‘co-management’ which it describes as “Government officials and fisheries stakeholders working in partnership to oversee the management of our fisheries and guide key decisions”. The Future Fisheries Management Strategy 2020-2030 says:
“WE WILL strengthen our co-management processes and support transparent and responsive management to a local level wherever possible, […] As part of this, we will always consider local community impact as part of our decision making process” (Scottish Government emphasis).
What’s important here is the commitment to being ‘transparent’, ‘responsive’ and considering ‘local community impact’. Was the Scottish Government’s approach consistent with these commitments?
The consultation on the 2023/23 closure ran from 4 November to 20 October 2021. The consultation document specifically stated that the Scottish Government “proposes to retain these exemptions” and asked a broad question seeking “any views on the proposed continuation of exemptions”.
One caveat provided by the Scottish Government was that continuation of the exemptions “would be subject to the planned Scottish Government and the Scottish Green party consultations and subsequent policy changes”.
The decision to remove existing exemptions therefore came as a shock to fishers that had expected exemptions to continue.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described it as an “extremely poor example of decision making and stakeholder engagement” with fishers “getting less than a day’s notice that in a month’s time, they would not be able to fish grounds that they have fished for many years”.
The Clyde Fishermen’s Federation gave an example of the local community impact of the decision stating “some fishermen (particularly a small number of static gear members) are not in a position to move elsewhere. They face losing their income completely for a period of 11 weeks”.
Environmental groups welcomed the policy objective to increase protection for spawning cod but criticised the lack of a targeted approach based on the impacts of different fishing methods.
The Scottish Government’s actions could be construed as lacking transparency. But what about responsive management and consideration of local community impact?
A second change of course
The Scottish Government held further discussions with scientists and stakeholders following the reaction from some stakeholders. In February 2022, the Cabinet Secretary wrote again to the RAI Committee to announce it had again revised the legislation for the closure.
This time, the overall size of the closure was reduced to two smaller, targeted areas identified as having sand or gravel seabed, the preferred habitat for spawning cod, while maintaining the removal of exemptions in these areas. The image below shows the proposed closure area provided for in the revised legislation (areas enclosed by bold black lines).
This demonstrated a willingness from the Scottish Government to be responsive to stakeholder concerns on the local community impact. The move was cautiously welcomed by some fisheries stakeholders, but the damage to trust in decision-making was apparent in evidence submitted to the RAI Committee. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation said:
“Whilst this may go some way to mitigate the impact, it doesn’t change the fact that fishermen and businesses have been impacted by a decision taken with minimal notice and in the absence of evidence to underpin it. This has potentially wider ramifications that concern us.”
The Scottish Government acknowledged the impact of its decision and apologised for how it was handled. The Cabinet Secretary told the Committee:
“I accept that the process around the closure has been far from ideal, and I sincerely apologise for that. On this occasion, our approach has fallen short of our co-management principles and practice. It has been a really complex issue to balance, and we will ensure that we learn the lessons from the way in which this closure has been managed”.
Were lessons learned? Part two of this blog looks at the science behind the decision and how the Scottish Government approached legislating for the more recent 2024-25 seasonal closure.
Damon Davies, SPICe Research
Title image by GRID-Arendal on Flickr