Scotland’s marine-protection system has come under renewed criticism from campaigners who say designated areas still allow fishing practices that damage the seabed, while the industry argues that wider restrictions must be justified by scientific evidence and their effects on livelihoods.

In interviews published by the Herald, environmental charity Open Seas challenged the Scottish Government’s management of inshore waters and raised concerns about the relationship between ministers and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. The federation rejected allegations of institutional bias and said it supported effective conservation.

The dispute concerns both the strength of protection within marine protected areas and how decisions about fishing are made. Designation does not necessarily mean all fishing is prohibited: different areas protect different features and can have different restrictions on the equipment vessels may use.

Open Seas director Phil Taylor argues that the gap between the designation of protected areas and restrictions on trawling or dredging can leave the public with an exaggerated impression of how much of the seabed is safeguarded.

Campaigners call for stronger habitat protection

The charity wants at least 30% of inshore waters protected from industrial fishing methods such as trawling and dredging. Its communications director, Liam Kirkcaldy, said the organisation was not seeking to prohibit those methods everywhere, but to keep them away from important habitats.

The Herald cited government figures showing that commercial fishing is restricted across 60 square kilometres within the inshore protected-area network. That represents less than 1% of both waters within 12 nautical miles of shore and the inshore network itself. Restrictions on individual methods cover different areas.

Open Seas research manager Anna Safryghin described underwater surveys showing damage in some designated areas. Sustainable fisherman Davy Stinson, a founder of the Scottish Scallop Divers Association, said damage from dredging could also undermine the work of divers and other lower-impact operators.

These accounts connect environmental protection with the economics of coastal communities. The campaigners argue that allowing seabed habitats to recover would support fish stocks and local fishing businesses. They want management to consider where catches are landed and where income remains, as well as overall production.

Former minister’s appointment challenged

The campaigners also questioned the appointment of former fisheries minister Mairi Gougeon as the federation’s next chief executive. Her new role was announced on 22 September, following the launch of a consultation on additional marine fisheries measures on 14 September.

Taylor raised concerns about how a former minister could lead an organisation responding to proposals developed during her time in government while complying with restrictions on lobbying. His allegations are not an official finding of misconduct or evidence that appointment rules have been breached.

The federation’s serving chief executive, Elspeth Macdonald, said Gougeon was selected through an open and fair recruitment process. She said the federation would comply fully with the conditions imposed under the government’s business-appointment rules and rejected the suggestion that the appointment established bias.

Open Seas separately questioned more than £900,000 in public funding awarded to a federation-owned organisation for fisheries observation work. The funding round opened in March, before Gougeon left office in May. That chronology does not itself establish improper influence over the award.

Industry and government defend scientific work

Macdonald said the funding supported the Independent Fisheries Science Support Scheme and helped the government meet data-collection targets. She said the information belonged to the Scottish Government and contributed to assessments of fish stocks, rejecting claims that the work lacked scientific value.

Agriculture minister Jim Fairlie said the government had funded the fish-stock observer project since 2021. Former fishermen observe catches, with the findings fed into scientific models and reported to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea for evidence-based stock assessments.

Fairlie also pointed to the Marine Directorate’s observer programme, which has estimated discard rates since 1978 and works alongside the industry-supported scheme. The response addresses the purpose of the funding rather than resolving every criticism about the extent of marine protection.

On wider regulation, Macdonald said fishermen had an obvious interest in healthy seas and sustainable stocks. She argued that conservation decisions must account for complex evidence and avoid portraying fishermen as the sole cause of environmental damage.

The consultation now provides a focus for competing demands. Campaigners want stronger restrictions in sensitive habitats; industry representatives want demonstrable benefits and proportionate measures. Both say Scotland needs healthy seas, but they remain sharply divided over the rules and evidence required to achieve them.