Consultation & fairness

The difference between consultation and participation

Consultation can be genuine — but it can also be procedural.

A procedural consultation has a familiar shape:

• local concerns are invited
• local concerns are documented
• local concerns are “considered”
• the decision proceeds as originally intended

If that is the pattern, the process may be lawful — but it is not meaningfully participatory.

Why fishermen often feel unheard

Fishermen are not objecting out of ideology. They object because they work the grounds.

When a fixed industrial site is consented on an active fishing ground, the loss is direct and immediate.

But the planning and licensing system often treats fishermen as:

• one “interest group” among many
• not a primary user of the space
• able to adapt by moving elsewhere

This framing can feel like a structural dismissal of lived reality.

Fairness is not just a feeling

Fairness can be stated in practical terms:

• Were the losses clearly identified?
• Were the losses quantified?
• Were alternative sites genuinely examined?
• Were mitigation measures enforceable?
• Was there any mechanism for recompense?

If none of these exist, then the “balance” is not a balance — it is a transfer of value.

The problem with “noted”

The phrase “concerns were noted” appears frequently in official decision documents.

For many fishermen, Brexit sharpened the sense of procedural politics: a major promise was made about “taking back control” of waters, yet subsequent arrangements kept substantial reciprocal access. The local lesson is simple: being consulted is not the same as being represented.

Noting is not the same as resolving. Noting is not the same as compensating. Noting is not the same as protecting a livelihood.

A system that repeatedly “notes” the same category of harm, while approving the same category of development, is signalling something: one side is structurally preferred.

What would meaningful consultation look like?

Meaningful consultation would include:

• clear thresholds where certain impacts trigger refusal
• real alternatives (not “considered and dismissed”)
• independent impact assessment where livelihoods are affected
• recompense mechanisms for lost grounds
• time-limited consents with mandatory review

If consultation cannot lead to refusal or redesign, it is not consultation — it is simply notification.

Why this matters beyond aquaculture

Marine space conflicts are increasing. Aquaculture is only one pressure among many.

The same structural issue appears across:

• marine cables and energy infrastructure
• offshore wind proposals
• marine protected areas
• seabed consents and leasing

If Shetland does not have a credible system of local participation, then the island’s marine environment becomes an asset managed elsewhere.

Evidence

Supporting documents are stored in the TSNS Evidence Library. You can search by tags such as Sea, FOI, and Cases.