On the seabed, and in how we debate the future
I’ve been arguing for the introduction of spatial management in Scotland’s inshore fisheries for some time now, and it’s fair to say that’s not a universally popular view.
Part of the problem is that we don’t always give ourselves the space to have this conversation properly. Too often, it gets shut down before it’s really begun. That’s a shame, because if we’re honest, most of us can see that something isn’t working the way it should.
Over the years, technology improved, boats got more efficient, and we adapted, as fishermen always do. We went where the fishing was and did what we had to do to keep going, whatever would put food on the table. That’s not a criticism, that’s just what we do. We adapt or we’re finished.
The uncomfortable truth is that fisheries management never really kept pace with that. We got better and better at catching, and the system that was meant to manage the industry couldn’t keep up. The consequences are plain to be seen in almost every coastal community around Scotland.
One controversial example we tend to come back to is the Clyde, partly because the Scottish Government actually carried out a detailed ecosystem review there, and partly because, to be fair, the Clyde fishermen themselves have contributed greatly to the evidence base and our understanding of what’s changed over time.
That means we’ve got better data there than in most places. And that data gives us an insight into what’s happened more widely around Scotland’s west coast.
And here, the numbers are hard to ignore. Landings data show a collapse in fish landings of well over 95% since the area was opened up to trawling and dredging. That’s not a natural cycle, that’s the loss of fishery after fishery after fishery, leaving us with an inshore fleet now dominated by shellfish.
When fisheries collapse like that, it’s not just the fish that disappear. It’s the jobs, the boats, the young people who might have come into the industry but don’t. That’s something that affects all of us, regardless of how we fish.
In much of Scotland’s inshore, what we now have is a system dominated by mobile gear, particularly Nephrops trawling and scallop dredging. At the same time, creel fishing and diving, which can support more jobs and often generate more revenue that stays in local communities, have been pushed into the margins. Not because they’re not viable, but because they don’t have the space to expand.
Clyde Inshore fish landings graph
In reality, these fisheries are often mutually exclusive. You can’t tow gear through an area and expect creels or divers to operate in the same place. So the amount of creel fishing we can support isn’t just about the health of the stock, it’s directly linked to how much of the seabed is being worked by mobile gear. Even where an area isn’t being regularly trawled or dredged, the risk of losing gear is often enough to keep creelers out.
And it’s not just about trawling. In most of Scotland, there are still no meaningful limits on creel numbers or wider effort in key fisheries. In sectors like crab and lobster, we may already be at or beyond sustainable levels of effort. That’s not the fault of individual fishermen, it’s another example of management failing to keep pace with the reality on the water.
So this isn’t about one fishing method being right and another being wrong. This system isn’t working properly for any of us.
It’s also worth acknowledging something that’s often said in response to this argument. There are few fishermen who haven’t noticed the dramatic contraction in the inshore trawl fleet over recent years. Some take that as evidence that the problem is already correcting itself.
But the issue isn’t just effort, it’s space.
The pressure on any given patch of seabed may have reduced, but the overall footprint of mobile gear hasn’t contracted in the same way. And because of that, it still doesn’t create the space needed for other fisheries to grow.
This is where spatial management comes in. Not as a silver bullet, and not as something that replaces good management in other areas, but as a practical way of making better use of the space we have.
That doesn’t mean arbitrarily excluding one group in favour of another. It means making informed decisions about where different types of fishing can operate most effectively, in a way that supports jobs, sustains stocks, and reduces conflict.
We already see glimpses of this working. In England, inshore fisheries are managed differently from offshore waters, with spatial measures in place out to six miles in many areas. In Scotland, outside a handful of MPAs and the Shetland Regulating Order, we largely don’t have that.
Fishermen are right to be wary of how MPAs have been used, and of the risk that restrictions can expand over time. That’s not just paranoia, it’s based on experience, and it’s a concern that needs to be taken seriously.
But at the same time, some of the few places where we do see spatial management in practice are within MPAs, where certain types of fishing continue because they’re compatible with protecting the features those areas were designated for.
So the question isn’t simply whether MPAs are a problem or part of the solution. It’s whether we can use the idea of managing space more intelligently, in a way that works for both the environment and the people who depend on it.
If we’re honest with ourselves, and if we actually want a future for Scotland’s inshore fishing, not just a slow managed decline, then this is a conversation we need to start having properly.
Because in the end, making space on the seabed is only part of the answer. We also need to make space for a more honest, open debate about how we manage it. And the longer we avoid that, the more we risk losing what’s left of both our fisheries and the communities that depend on them.
© 2026 Bally Philp
