Myths make for better stories than hard facts, and people tend to be drawn to tales of gloom and doom more readily than positive, uplifting news.

This is not a new phenomenon, of course, but one that is remorselessly exploited by campaigners who seek to influence government policy and public attitudes.

In fisheries, environmental non-governmental organisations (eNGOs) repeatedly seek lurid headlines with exaggerations and misunderstandings that are frankly embarrassing to those who know and understand the sector but are repeated unchallenged by many media outlets.

They propagate these same fallacies ad nauseam in government consultations and parliamentary forums.

But what lies behind these groups? Whose interests do they represent? And why are our governments so keen to listen to their evident falsehoods?

Many eNGOs are corporately-funded charities, and adopt tactics that are ill-befitting of such benevolent status.

Some seek to paralyse government with endless requests under freedom of information and environmental information regulations. With the same aim in mind they also threaten legal action and sometimes actually take legal action against government. 

Then they happily turn on ministers and civil servants whose precious time and resources they have consumed, berating them for failing to meet deadlines for implementing fisheries management policy. They often push for statutory targets to be embedded in each and every policy, despite knowing that they are unrealistic in complex systems – setting industry and government up to fail. 

Read more:

Fish in the Clyde: The graphs and the big questions

When fishing boats ruled the waves on the Firth of Clyde

The Future of Clyde Fishing – find all articles in series here

It would be a good subject for a farce if it wasn’t so damaging. But what might makes for good copy has an impact in the real world, putting the livelihoods of people in our remote, marginal coastal and island communities at significant risk.

Not to mention the risk of depriving consumers of a very low carbon source of vital protein that would have to be replaced by alternative forms of food production which have a much greater impact on the planet.

None of this is meant to imply that Scottish fisheries are perfect. Far from it – there is more than we can and must do. But we have a modern, forward-thinking industry that is very tightly regulated and constantly innovating to build on and improve the good story we have to tell. At the heart of it is the fact that 70% of our key commercial stocks are now fished sustainably – huge progress and a continually upwards curve over the last 30 years, from when overfishing was a real problem with a fleet that had expanded beyond the resources available. 

North Sea stocks have generally increased over the past 50 years, and particularly so in the last 20 years, according to an assessment of the annual scientific fish stock surveys and analyses carried out by governments to inform the total allowable catches (TACs) agreed in negotiations between coastal states every year.

In a global context, that is remarkable, and a real testament to the work done by fishermen themselves, who contrary to popular belief have long recognised that their futures depend on sustainable fisheries, working with fisheries managers.

But it is an improvement based on solid scientific evidence and nuanced understanding of a complex marine environment, not emotional knee-jerk reactions and overly simplistic solutions that may sound appealing but crumble on first contact with reality.

Underlying everything that the SFF does on behalf of its 450+ member vessels is the concept of balance between fishing and conservation needs.

For example, we have worked tirelessly with the Scottish Government on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), most recently highlighting in a consultation response on additional management measures that this very principle of balance lay behind the original creation of the network over a decade ago, and warning against the introduction of blanket bans on fishing in these areas instead of protection for specific features that require conservation. 

We will continue to oppose the introduction of a three-mile limit, often called for by eNGOs to exclude fishermen who use mobile gear (e.g. nets and trawls) in favour of those that deploy fixed gear (e.g. creels) in waters close inshore. We don’t believe in lines in the sand – we want conservation to be focused on the particular needs of certain features, and balanced with sustainable use. Co-existence has to be the answer if we are to have conservation and food production. 

Again, our stance is based on evidence, or rather lack of it. Claims are made that a three-mile limit would improve both sustainability and economic benefits, when in fact studies show that co-existence would be much better than exclusion. A three-mile limit might sound like an attractive solution, but in reality, it is not. Understanding and addressing complexity are needed in developing fisheries policy, not over-simplified “solutions” that will create more problems than they solve. 

Looking ahead, the planned proliferation of offshore wind farms, particularly huge arrays of floating turbines which will wholly exclude fishing activity, very often in good fishing grounds, are going to make it harder and harder for skippers to make a living or to produce the quality seafood for which Scotland is rightly world-renowned. 

Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney attended our recent annual dinner in Edinburgh, and vowed to listen to and engage with the industry on this vexed issue, while underlying how important it was that he and his ministers act to tackle climate change. Scotland’s fishing sector is also part of our journey to reaching net zero so we need both industries to thrive, not for one to be an unintended victim of the other. 

It is to be hoped that these discussions lead to meaningful action, and perhaps some recognition that the impact of offshore wind farms and their associated infrastructure and cabling on the marine environment and its species are poorly understood.

Simplicity may seem appealing – Solution X will resolve Problem Y. But our marine systems are complex, only partially understood and there is much beyond the control of any regulatory body or government department. That’s why policy and regulation in our seas needs to be carefully considered and nuanced for particular circumstances, and balancing the different needs, whether these be food production, energy generation or nature conservation. Soundbite solutions are rarely the answer to complex issues. 

Elspeth Macdonald is the Chief Executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation