In 2014 Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead published his “Clyde 2020 Vision Statement”. That ‘Vision’ was for a healthy and thriving Firth of Clyde, the UK’s only inland sea with an area of 3000km2. It came in response to a Scottish Government Report showing that the Clyde’s fish populations were in a highly degraded state. With much fanfare Mr Lochhead promised to set up the Clyde 2020 programme, which would deliver ‘science and measures’ to improve the state of the Clyde by implication at least by the year 2020.
10 years on the Clyde 2020 programme has not generated one single measure to improve the Clyde and the Scottish Government has quietly withdrawn its support. Cynics among you may not be surprised that a bold and inspiring promise made by a politician has not been honoured. However, my concern is that this this failure is part of a broader pattern.
The chronic decline of the Clyde sea is not unique; it is part of a disastrous global pattern of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Politicians have been quick to acknowledge the ‘biodiversity crisis’. However, they are less quick to address let alone reverse the declines. From a politician's perspective the problem is that behind every story of biodiversity degradation is likely to be the livelihood of many individuals or even a whole industry. The politician must somehow balance the outrage of the those wanting action on the biodiversity crisis with a potential backlash from those who see a threat to their job or industry, however damaging it might be.
In the Clyde sea, science clearly shows that recovery of its fish populations is unlikely to happen without restrictions on the local ‘prawn’ or Nephrops trawl fishery; which is now the last remaining local commercial fishery. This fishery operates by dragging a fine net along the seabed to catch the prawns and is practised over most of the Clyde. Unfortunately, it has a small but significant bycatch of non-target species; enough to stop recovery of key fish populations such as Clyde cod. It also damages the seabed and its biodiversity.
Read more:
The Clyde cod tragedy. Will once common fish ever recover?
The Future of Clyde Fishing – find all articles in series here
Clyde cod: 'I thought closure was a joke. Government won't do that'
From a political stance this is tricky because the measures required to allow the Clyde to recover are likely to enrage those fishermen who make their living from bottom trawling for prawns. These are fishermen who have not been shy of voicing their opinions to politicians. On the one hand the politicians wishes to demonstrate that they are attentive to biodiversity decline but on the other hand they are likely to be concerned about strongly vocal criticisms from commercial fishermen particularly if they are in their constituency.
A quick analysis of the Clyde 2020 Vision and programme tells us something of how politicians triangulate these competing concerns.
First, we should note that the phrasing of Richard Lochhead’s original Vision was kept deliberately generalised:
“The Firth of Clyde is a healthy and thriving marine ecosystem that is capable of adapting to the challenges of climate change and supports sustainable fishing, tourism and leisure while offering protection to the most fragile species and habitats. This [plan] will enhance the quality of life for local communities and contribute to a diverse and sustainable economy for the West of Scotland”.
Although the Vision appears inspiring it is actually very vague: what protections are going to be offered, what levels of protection are necessary to allow the ecosystem to recovery and when can we expect action? We are none the wiser. Use of non-committal language or ‘weasel words’ promising to ‘consider’ taking action or take action ‘where appropriate’ are littered through Government policy documents. These words provide a useful way of suggesting that action is going to happen when they are not, or not any time soon.
Clyde 2020 illustrates another well used technique by governments, which is to concentrate on processes rather than clear measurable outcomes. For example, a government can create positivity from establishing programme like Clyde 2020 yet quietly ensure that it does not have the tools or resources to achieve anything in the long run. The calculation must be that the impetus for change will run out of steam after a few years and will be forgotten, as appears to be the case following the ‘death notice’ for the Clyde 2020 programme.
We should be clear that any change comes with a price attached. The question is, is that price worth paying? Is the Firth of Clyde, this magnificent inland sea, Glasgow’s village pond, worth saving? Is it too much to insist that the Scottish Government require that commercial fishermen use only low impact fishing gears to allow recovery of this once great fishery? The economic and social benefits of recovery could be huge. Of course, creating change requires courage from politicians rather than the delivery of empty promises. Is it too much to ask the Scottish Government to implement their own Vision?
Robert Younger is a solicitor with Fish Legal. He advises Fish Legal's Scottish members including Salmon Fishery Boards and Fisheries Management Scotland
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here