Management Of The Scottish Inshore Fisheries; Assessing The Options For Change

16 GEAR CONFLICT

16.1 Introduction

A potential benefit of 1 NM or 3 NM restrictions on mobile gear is the reduction in the incidence of gear conflict. The quantification of these benefits requires quite detailed information. Specifically, the analysis requires data for each IFG on gear conflict incidence, the gears involved and the costs involved. Ideally, for each IFG these data should be available for the 0-1, 1-3, 3-6 and 6-12 NM distance zones.

Whilst Marine Scotland ( MS) does record gear conflict incidents, it was believed that many incidents remain unreported. Moreover, the intelligence files retained by MS do not systematically record the financial costs of conflict, or other information this study requires. It became clear that primary data was needed. At the same time, beyond the immediate requirements of this study, MS was aware that generally there needed to be a better understanding of the extent and characteristics of gear conflict in Scottish inshore waters. A survey of fishery operators was therefore necessary. The primary function of the survey was to serve the requirement of this study, and questionnaire design reflects this. It was however accepted that where feasible the survey should also seek to generate outputs with a broader relevance for MS. The overall aim of the survey was to "to identify the location and frequency of gear conflict within specific zones in the IFGs, the gear types involved and the financial cost to those involved".

16.2 Survey Design

Not all operators would complete the survey and there was the possibility of response bias, since those experiencing conflict would be more likely to respond. It was therefore desirable to be able to contact non-respondents and make due adjustment for the bias. One difficulty is that, whilst MS has contact details for operators, these could not be made available to Grid Economics. The responses would therefore be anonymous and individual non-respondents would not be identifiable.

Scaling for non-response therefore required extra sample information which was free from response bias. The most obvious information was the intelligence files on gear conflict held by MS, plus the detailed local knowledge of the Fishery Officers ( FOs). In working with FOs on other aspects of this study it became apparent that local FOs have very detailed and nuanced knowledge of local inshore fishing activity. It was hoped that FOs would be able to estimate the total number and spatial distribution of all gear conflicts in their IFG area(s). The totals numbers estimated by FOs would comprise the recorded conflicts held on file plus the numbers of unreported events known to FOs.

Two survey instruments were therefore required. These are explained below.

16.2.1 Survey of Fishery Officers

Initially it was proposed that a nominated FO would complete a questionnaire covering an entire IFG. Unfortunately, the IFG boundaries and Fishery Office territories overlap and a few Fishery Office territories straddle the boundary between two IFG's. Also, given the size of some IFG areas, an individual FO might not have the required local knowledge covering the whole IFG area. It was therefore agreed with Marine Scotland Compliance that each Fishery Office would complete a questionnaire relating to their Fishery Office territory within the IFG(s). On receipt they would be aggregated to generate totals for each IFG.

Where a Fishery Office territory straddled the boundary between two IFG's it was necessary for that Office complete two questionnaires. In an effort to minimise this requirement the following configuration applied:

Fraserburgh Office reported only on its territory within Moray and the North Coast IFG area, even although Fraserburgh Bay is in the East IFG. Oban reported only on its territory within the South West area. Mallaig reported only its territory within the North West area.

Thus, only Kinlochbervie was required to complete two questionnaires, one for its territory in the North West and one for its territory in Moray Firth and North Coast IFG. The table below summarises the Fishery Office aggregations.

Table 16.2.1 IFGs and Fishery Office Territories

IFG	FISHERY OFFICES
East Coast	Anstruther Eyemouth Aberdeen Peterhead
Moray Firth and North Coast	Fraserburgh Buckie Scrabster Kinlochbervie (Cape Wrath to Tongue)
North West	Kinlochbervie (Cape Wrath to Scourie) Lochinver Ullapool Portree Mallaig
South West	Oban Campeltown Ayr
Outer Hebrides	Stornoway
Orkney	Kirkwall
Shetland	Lerwick

The questionnaire was piloted in hard copy form with FOs at meetings in Peterhead, Inverness and Oban which were arranged to review this study's baseline estimates of commercial fishing in each IFG. The final version was emailed and all Fishery Offices provided a response.

Whist the primary purpose was to generate on a bias free estimate of the total number of gear conflicts, the questionnaire examined the percentage reported, trends in gear conflict, location and the gear types in conflict. These additional data would provide a check on key elements of the operator survey.

16.2.2 The On-Line Survey of Fishery Operators

Given resource and other constraints, an on-line questionnaire was preferred to other survey instruments, such as face to face interviews, postal or telephone questionnaires.

The survey was piloted among 40 representative inshore fishery operators. The pilot revealed that the questionnaire was heavily burdened in seeking to generate data disaggregated down to individual IFGs and specific zones within each IFG (01nm, 1-3nm, 3-6 NM and 6-12nm). The questionnaire was simplified and made available on-line between 2nd October and 13th December 2013.

A number of channels were used to alert and invite fishery businesses to participate. Using their email lists, MS invited every operators to access the link. The link was trailed in Fishing News and posted on various fishermen's federation and association websites. It was also highlighted on the MS website where operators are expected to check weekly with licence variations and other MS announcements.

16.2.2.1 Owner Questionnaire Structure

As respondents progressed through the questionnaire they were presented with questions addressing the following:

• Their vessel and gear type in 2012.
• Their fishing in 2012.
• Their perception of trends in the incidence of gear conflicts.
• Their reporting of gear conflicts to MS.
• The financial costs to them.
• Location and number of gear conflicts.
• Gear types in conflict.
• Scenarios giving rise to conflict.

Finally operators were invited to provide additional comments which would be presented verbatim to MS, but which would only be included in publicly available documents with the agreement of the individual respondent.

16.2.2.2 Owner Questionnaire Response Rate

A total of 341 started the survey resulting in 294 useable responses. Some fished more than one IFG area hence we have 323 observations across the IFG areas. Those fishing more than one IFG areas were allocated to the IFG in which they undertook most of their fishing. The estimated vessel populations for each IFG were compiled from MS data on vessels home ports or creeks.

Table 16.2.2 Respondents by IFG

IFG	Nos
South West	57
North West	96
Outer Hebrides	38
MF& NC	42
Orkney	11
East Coast	51
Shetland	7
Non IFG	21
Total	323

Table 16.2.3 Estimated Vessel Pop. by Size by IFG

IFG	<10m	10-15m	>15m	Total
South West	214	73	78	365
North West	157	44	33	234
Outer Hebrides	149	21	19	189
MF& NC	148	19	45	212
Orkney	94	25	8	127
East Coast	298	31	129	458
Shetland	123	10	35	168
Total	1183	223	347	1753

Table 16.2.4 Estimated Response Rate by IFG

IFG	<10m	10-15m	>15m	Total
South West	15.0%	19.2%	7.7%	14.2%
North West	36.9%	31.8%	15.2%	32.9%
Outer Hebrides	4.7%	28.6%	68.4%	13.8%
MF& NC	18.9%	10.5%	11.1%	16.0%
Orkney	5.3%	20.0%	12.5%	8.7%
East Coast	12.8%	12.9%	1.6%	9.6%
Shetland	2.4%	0.0%	2.9%	2.4%
Total	14.5%	20.2%	9.2%	14.1%

Given the exposure provided for the survey, the response rate was a bit disappointing. In addition, many respondents simply skipped some key questions. The requirement to generate data on individual zones within individual IFG may have placed a strain on the response rate. As a result, some of cross tabulations produce cells with no observations and estimates which are based on small numbers. In addition, a low response probably increases the potentially distorting effects of response bias.

The key findings from both questionnaires are presented under the following headings:

• Trends
• Relative Frequency Across IFG's
• Location of Conflict Within Each IFG
• Reporting of Incidents
• Gears in Conflict
• Beliefs About Causation
• Costs to Operators
• Respondents' Comments

16.3 Trends

Both operators and FOs were asked to compare the number of incidents in 2012 with the number in previous years and with their expectations for the 2013 which was nearly over when the questionnaires were launched.

Table 16.3.Tends in Gear Conflict

	Operators				Fishery Officers
	2012 Compared with Previous Years		2013 Compared with 2012		2012 Compared with Previous Years		2013 Compared with 2012
	Nos.	Percent	Nos.	Percent	Nos.	Percent	Nos.	Percent
Substantially more	33	19%	34	23%	0	0%	3	17%
Slightly more	50	29%	41	27%	3	18%	3	17%
About the same	64	37%	63	42%	7	41%	9	50%
Slightly less	13	8%	5	3%	3	18%	3	17%
Substantially less	7	4%	2	1%	2	12%	0	0%
Don't Know	4	2%	6	4%	2	12%	0	0%
Total	171	100%	151	100%	17	100%	18	100%

A total of 48% of operators believed that there were either substantially more or slightly more incidents in 2012 than in previous years. Only 12% believed that there were substantially less or slightly less than in previous years. A similar pattern emerges in the comparison between 2012 and 2013. This picture of gear conflict incidents becoming more frequent was not entirely reflected in responses from FOs. This differential may be due to the response bias or FOs not being fully aware of the full extent of gear conflict.

16.4 Relative Frequency Across IFG's

Information on gear conflicts was obtained from operators and from FO's. Fishery businesses recorded gear conflicts on 3,948 days. Most of these (67%) occurred in the South West and North West IFGs. The FO's responses present a broadly similar picture but with the conflict in the Outer Hebrides being more prominent. In terms of the number of conflicts in each as a proportion of all IFG fishing days, the South West and North West would appear to have a relatively bigger gear conflict problems. Gear conflict would not appear to be an issue in Orkney and Shetland.

Table 16.4 Relative Frequency of Gear Conflicts

IFG Area	Survey of Fishery Operators		Fishery Officers
	Conflict Days	% of Fishing Days in IFG	% of all FO Recorded and Unrecorded Scottish Conflicts
South West	1121 ( 28%)	12.5%	18%
North West	1536 ( 39%)	11.8%	25%
Outer Hebrides	295 ( 7%)	6.7%	38%
MF& NC	333 ( 8%)	5.6%	9%
Orkney	42 ( 1%)	2.5%	2%
East Coast	560 ( 14%)	7.3%	8%
Shetland	60 ( 2%)	8.2%	0%
Total	3948 (100%)	9.3%	100%

16.5 Location of Conflict Within Each IFG

For the purposes of this study, it was important to identify where the gear conflicts were occurring. The estimates in each row in the table below are cumulative. Of the total of 3,938 conflict days, 35% are taking place within 1 NM of the shore and 77% within 3nm. In the South West 61% take place within the 1 NM zone. In the South West and the North West, 96% and 84% respectively take place within 3nm. This is proportionately more than in the other IFG's. Given the coastal topography and island configuration, this possibly reflects the distribution of fishing effort rather than particular hot spots

Table 16.5.1 Location of Conflicts within IFG Areas

IFG		<1 NM	<3 NM	<6 NM	<12 NM	>12 NM
SOUTH WEST	Days	686	1070	1072	1121	1121
	%	61.1%	95.5%	95.2%	99.9%	100.0%
NORTH WEST	Days	504	1286	1503	1536	1536
	%	32.8%	83.7%	97.9%	100.0%	100.0%
OUTER HEBRIDES	Days	34	93	232	290	295
	%	11.6%	31.4%	78.6%	98.3%	100.0%
MORAY FIRTH and NORTH COAST	Days	0	196	296	315	333
	%	0.0%	58.8%	88.9%	94.6%	100.0%
ORKNEY	Days	32	38	40	42	42
	%	76.2%	90.5%	95.2%	100.0%	100.0%
EAST COAST	Days	124	322	467	560	560
	%	22.2%	57.4%	83.3%	100.0%	100.0%
SHETLAND	Days	0	40	40	44	60
	%	0.0%	66.7%	66.7%	73.3%	100.0%
Total	Days	1380	3044	3650	3908	3948
	%	35.0%	77.1%	92.5%	99.0%	100.0%

The Table below which presents the distribution of fishing effort broadly confirms that the distribution of conflicts broadly reflects the intensity of fishing effort within each IFG.

Table 16.5.2 Location of Fishing Effort within IFG Areas

IFG		<1 NM	<3 NM	<6 NM	<12 NM	>12 NM
SOUTH WEST	Days	3958	6995	8194	8893	8957
	%	44.2%	78.1%	91.5%	99.3%	100.0%
NORTH WEST	Days	3016	9577	11997	12877	13064
	%	23.1%	73.3%	91.8%	98.6%	100.0%
OUTER HEBRIDES	Days	579	1632	3125	4026	4427
	%	13.1%	36.9%	70.6%	90.9%	100.0%
MORAY FIRTH and NORTYH COAST	Days	2368	3817	5539	5720	5992
	%	39.5%	63.7%	92.4%	95.5%	100.0%
ORKNEY	Days	1007	1414	1514	1567	1690
	%	59.6%	83.6%	89.6%	92.7%	100.0%
EAST COAST	Days	1771	3965	6097	7313	7724
	%	22.9%	51.3%	78.9%	94.7%	100.0%
SHETLAND	Days	325	509	585	634	736
	%	44.1%	69.1%	79.4%	86.2%	100.0%
Total	Days	13024	27908	37050	41031	42590
	%	30.6%	65.5%	87.0%	96.3%	100.0%

16.6 Reporting of Incidents

Along with the questionnaire FOs were forwarded a copy of the Marine Compliance record of gear conflict incidents. They were invited to identify the number of known incidents in their IFG area resulting in an incident being recorded. There was significant variation in rates of recording and, given the information from fishery operators a surprisingly low number of recorded incidents. Once again it is difficult to determine whether response bias or some gaps in the local knowledge of FOs. No criticism of FOs is implied by this speculation.

Table 16.6.1 % of Incidents Recorded by Marine Compliance (Fishery Officers)

	South West	North West	Outer Hebrides	MF& NC	Orkney	East Coast	Shetland	Total
Known incidents	34	53	71	20	4	16	0	198
Recorded by FO	24	43	7	6	3	9	0	92
%Recorded	71%	81%	10%	30%	75%	56%	0	46%

From the table above, it would appear that 46% of incidents known to FOs resulted in a recorded incident. This contrasts with the percentage of incidents reported by operators.

Table 16.6.2 % of Incidents Reported by Fishery Operators

	% of Incidents Reported by Fishery Operators
	None	0 to <20%	20% to <50%	50% to <100%	100%	Respondents
Number	97	18	8	8	20	151
Percent	64.2%	11.9%	5.3%	5.3%	13.2%	100.0%

In the table above, 64% of operators did not report any incidents. From the responses we calculate that only 1 in 5 incidents were recorded. This would imply that, assuming perfect local knowledge, FOs would know of 460 incidents from just our respondents. We need to make allowances that a single gear conflict generates an incident for both of those involved. This would imply 230 incidents from the respondent alone. FOs were only aware of 198 incidents. Given a 14% response rate, and assuming no response bias, this suggests that FO's would collectively be aware of 1,400 incidents. It is difficult to explain this discrepancy through response bias or operators over-stating the gear conflict issue. This is problematic, since our proposed extra sample scaling factor is larger than the sample estimate itself.

16.7 Gears in Conflict

Respondents were asked to identify the gear types they were having conflict with. They were asked to identify the "other gear" type within 0-1nm, 1-3nm, 3-6nm, 6-12 NM and beyond 12nm. The results are presented below.

Table 16.7.1 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type within 1nm

	Nephrop Trawls	Other Trawls	Dredges	Nephrop pots/creels	Other shellfish pots/creels	Lines	Hand diving	Total
Demersal trawl	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	2
Nephrop pots/creels	29	2	11	13	4	0	0	59
Nephrop trawl	1	0	0	13	3	0	0	17
Other shell fish pots/creels	6	7	13	1	22	1	1	51
Other shellfish hand diving	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	2
Pelagic and other lines	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic trawl	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	4
Scallop dredge	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Scallop hand diving	1	0	2	1	1	1	1	7
Total	39	9	27	31	32	3	2	143

From the above table, we can identify that within 1 NM of the shore the gear of 29 nephrop creelers came into physical contact with Nephrops trawls. The gears of 11 nephrop creelers were in contact with dredges and 13 with other nephrop creelers.

Table 16.7.2 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type between 1 and 3nm

	Nephrop Trawls	Other Trawls	Dredges	Nephrop pots/creels	Other shellfish pots/creels	Lines	Hand diving	Total
Demersal trawl	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Nephrop pots/creels	43	2	11	15	6	0	0	77
Nephrop trawl	0	0	0	12	4	0	0	16
Other shell fish pots/creels	5	10	16	1	8	1	1	42
Other shellfish hand diving	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic and other lines	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic trawl	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	3
Scallop dredge	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Scallop hand diving	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	49	12	28	30	20	1	1	141

Table 16.7.3 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type between 3 and 6nm

	Nephrop Trawls	Other Trawls	Dredges	Nephrop pots/creels	Other shellfish pots/creels	Lines	Hand diving	Total
Demersal trawl	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Nephrop pots/creels	23	1	4	8	1	0	0	37
Nephrop trawl	1	0	1	12	3	0	0	17
Other shell fish pots/creels	5	13	20	0	7	1	1	47
Other shellfish hand diving	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic and other lines	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic trawl	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	3
Scallop dredge	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
Scallop hand diving	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	30	14	26	22	14	1	1	108

Table 16.7.4 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type between 6 and 12nm

	Nephrop Trawls	Other Trawls	Dredges	Nephrop pots/creels	Other shellfish pots/creels	Lines	Hand diving	Total
Demersal trawl	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Nephrop pots/creels	7	0	1	2	1	0	0	11
Nephrop trawl	0	0	0	5	1	0	0	6
Other shell fish pots/creels	1	8	11	1	3	1	1	26
Other shellfish hand diving	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic and other lines	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic trawl	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Scallop dredge	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Scallop hand diving	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	8	8	12	8	7	2	1	46

The above tables provided a detailed picture of where particular gear conflicts are occurring. The table below summaries the gear types in conflict.

Table 16.7.5 All Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type

	Nephrop Trawls	Other Trawls	Dredges	Nephrop pots/creels	Other shellfish pots/creels	Lines	Hand diving	Total
Demersal trawl	0	0	0	4	0	1	0	5
Nephrop pots/creels	102	5	27	38	12	0	0	184
Nephrop trawl	2	0	1	42	11	0	0	56
Other shell fish pots/creels	17	38	60	3	40	4	4	166
Other shellfish hand diving	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	2
Pelagic and other lines	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pelagic trawl	3	0	3	3	1	0	0	10
Scallop dredge	0	0	0	0	8	0	0	8
Scallop hand diving	1	0	2	1	1	1	1	7
Total	126	43	93	91	73	7	5	438

The results suggest the in addition to the contact between mobile and static gear, there is territorial conflict between static gear types. From the above table we can identify the following features:

• Nephrop creelers experience most gear conflicts with nephrop trawlers (55%), other nephrop creelers (25%) and dredges (15%) in that order.
• 75% of nephrop trawlers' gear conflicts are with nephrop creelers and 20% with other shellfish pots and creels.
• Other shellfish pots and creels seem to interact with a broader range of gear types. 36% of their conflicts are with dredges, 24% with their fellow shellfish potters and creelers and 23% with other trawlers. Anecdotal evidence and written testimony suggest that this might be trawlers targeting squid close to the shore.
• There is very little conflict between mobile gear types

The table identifies the 9 most common types of gear conflicts (see first column) and identifies their distribution from the shore.

Table 16.7.2.6 Location of the most common conflicts

Type of Conflict (9 most Common)	No. of Respondents Experiencing
	0-1 NM	1-3 NM	3-6 NM	6-12m
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Nephrop Trawls	42	55	35	12
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Dredges	11	11	4	1
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Nephrop Pots/Creels	13	15	8	2
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels	5	7	1	2
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Other Trawls	5	4	3	0
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Nephrop Trawls	9	9	8	2
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Dredges	14	18	23	13
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Other Trawls	8	10	13	8
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Other Shellfish	22	8	7	3
Pots/ Creels

For the most common conflicts the area inside 3 NM is very significant. The exception would appear to be Other Shellfish Pots/Creels which have almost as many conflicts with dredges and trawls in the 3 to 12 NM zone as they do in the 0-3 NM zone, though their encounters with their fellow Other Shellfish Pots/Creels are mostly in the 0-1 NM zone.

16.8 Beliefs About Causation

In an effort to tease out the circumstances giving rise to gear conflicts operators were presented with the question below. In the right hand column, we have provided a short hand form of words to summarise.

"With reference to 2012, please estimate the PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GEAR CONFLICTS described by each of the following scenarios"

Scenario
% where OTHERS fished their gear where they COULD NOT HAVE reasonably expected YOUR gear already to be there.	Other Initiated and Probable Accident
% where OTHERS fished their gear where they MIGHT HAVE reasonably expected YOUR gear already to be there.	Other Initiated and Uncertain Intent.
% where OTHERS fished their gear where they ALMOST CERTAINLY could have expected YOUR gear already to be there.	Other Initiated and Probably Deliberate
% where YOU deployed your gear in locations where you COULD NOT HAVE reasonably expected OTHER gear already to be there.	Respondent Initiated and Probable Accident
% where YOU deployed your gear in locations where you MIGHT HAVE reasonably expected OTHER gear already to be there.	Respondent Initiated and Uncertain Intent.
% where YOU deployed your gear where you ALMOST CERTAINLY could have expected OTHER gear already to be there.	Respondent Initiated and Probably Deliberate
% of conflicts where there was a different or unknown scenario

Table 16.8 Gear Conflict Scenarios

Gear	My Gear There First				Their Gear There First
	Accident	Uncertain	Deliberate	Them	Accident	Uncertain	Deliberate	Me	Other	N
Demersal trawl	0.0	3.3	50.0	53.3	20.0	23.3	1.7	45.0	1.7	3
Nephrop pots/creels	1.1	22.0	67.6	90.7	1.4	1.9	3.0	6.3	3.0	61
Nephrop trawl	3.9	2.2	27.2	33.3	39.0	17.5	1.9	58.4	8.2	18
Other shell fish pots/creels	6.9	22.4	62.8	92.0	2.7	3.8	0.7	7.3	0.6	54
Other shellfish hand diving	0.0	0.0	50.0	50.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	50.0	2
Pelagic trawl	5.0	20.0	20.0	45.0	20.0	10.0	10.0	40.0	15.0	1
Scallop dredge	0.0	0.0	25.0	25.0	15.0	60.0	0.0	75.0	0.0	2
Scallop hand diving	0.0	25.0	0.0	25.0	0.0	25.0	0.0	25.0	50.0	2
Total	3.6	18.7	58.2	80.5	7.3	6.2	1.9	15.4	4.1	143

By and large, static operators are stating there is quite widespread deliberate intent on the part of others. Over 67% of all nephrop creelers and 63% of all those using other creels thought conflict was almost certainly a deliberate act by another. A majority of nephrop trawlers stated the conflict was accidental or not entirely. On this evidence there would seem to be different declared understandings about how conflicts arise. Given the financial cost, the inconvenience and stress associated with gear conflict, it is not surprising that personal conflicts arise. In the absence of something changing these conflict are likely continue to be a feature of inshore fishing in some parts of Scotland.

16.9 Costs to Operators

Respondents were asked the "financial cost to your business of all gear conflicts. Please include lost profit whilst being unable to use damaged gear, repair and replacement costs, legal bills etc"

The total costs by for each IFG disaggregated by gear type is given in the Table below

Table 16.9.1 Total Gear Conflict Costs by Gear Type by IFG

Home	Gear	Mean	N	Std. Deviation	Sum
South West	Demersal trawl	£2,600	2	3,394	£5,200
	Nephrop pots/creels	£8,494	17	12,367	£144,400
	Nephrop trawl	£6,967	6	7,431	£41,800
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£1,983	10	1,759	£19,825
	Pelagic trawl	£15,000	1		£15,000
	Scallop dredge	£9,000	1		£9,000
	Total	£6,357	37	9,345	£235,225
North West	Demersal trawl	£0	1		£0
	Nephrop pots/creels	£4,340	42	6,547	£182,300
	Nephrop trawl	£4,700	9	4,232	£42,301
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£5,940	5	8,350	£29,699
	Other shellfish hand diving	£0	1		£0
	Scallop dredge	£0	1		£0
	Scallop hand diving	£8,000	2	0	£16,000
	Total	£4,431	61	6,160	£270,300
Outer Hebrides	Nephrop pots/creels	£10,850	10	15,649	£108,500
	Nephrop trawl	£5,000	6	3,688	£30,000
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£26,000	3	30,790	£78,000
	Total	£11,395	19	16,760	£216,500
Moray Firth & North Coast	Nephrop pots/creels	£2,000	1		£2,000
	Nephrop trawl	£5,000	1		£5,000
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£4,066	16	6,184	£65,050
	Scallop dredge	£0	1		£0
	Total	£3,792	19	5,744	£72,050
Orkney	Nephrop pots/creels	£3,750	2	1,768	£7,500
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£1,100	2	1,273	£2,200
	Other shellfish hand diving	£0	1		£0
	Total	£1,940	5	2,029	£9,700
East Coast	Demersal trawl	£1	1		£1
	Nephrop trawl	£3,000	1		£3,000
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£13,478	27	26,134	£363,900
	Scallop dredge	£0	1		£0
	Total	£12,230	30	25,041	£366,901
Shetland	Demersal trawl	£20,000	1		£20,000
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£8,000	1		£8,000
	Total	£14,000	2	8,485	£28,000
Total	Demersal trawl	£5,040	5	8,632	£25,201
	Nephrop pots/creels	£6,176	72	9,853	£444,700
	Nephrop trawl	£5,309	23	4,830	£122,101
	Other shell fish pots/creels	£8,854	64	19,106	£566,674
	Other shellfish hand diving	£0	2	0	£0
	Pelagic trawl	£15,000	1		£15,000
	Scallop dredge	£2,250	4	4,500	£9,000
	Scallop hand diving	£8,000	2	0	£16,000
	Total	£6,929	173	13,505	£1,198,676

The table below provides the mean gear conflict costs by gear type by IFG.

Table 16.9.2 The Mean Annual Cost of Conflict by Gear Type by IFG

	South West	North West	Outer Hebrides	MF& NC	Orkney	East Coast	Shetland	Overall Mean	N
Demersal trawl	£2,600	£0	£0	£0	£0	£1	£20,000	£5,040	5
Nephrop pots/creels	£8,494	£4,340	£10,850	£2,000	£3,750	£0	£0	£6,176	72
Nephrop trawl	£6,967	£4,700	£5,000	£5,000	£0	£3,000	£0	£5,309	23
Other shell fish pots/creels	£1,983	£5,940	£26,000	£4,066	£1,100	£13,478	£8,000	£8,854	64
Other shellfish hand diving	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	2
Pelagic trawl	£15,000	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£15,000	1
Scallop dredge	£9,000	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£2,250	4
Scallop hand diving	£0	£8,000	£0	£0	£0	£0	£0	£8,000	2
Overall Mean	£6,357	£4,431	£11,395	£3,792	£1,940	£12,230	£14,000	£6,929

From the table above, the overall annual average costs within each IFG area was £6,929. The column and row totals are weighted averages. Thus operators in the MF& NC have the lowest annual costs. For many cells in the above table there are no observations and for others there is a small number problem. Given this and the variance, the mean cost for all conflicts is the most reliable measure of cost likely to be avoided by the introduction of the 0-1 1 NM or 3 nmNM restrictions.

16.9.1 Benefits from Restricting Mobile Gear

Most conflicts arise between mobile and fixed gear and we assume that a ban on mobile gear within 1 or 3 miles of the coast would remove such conflicts. In the absence of other measures conflict between static gears would continue. The table below presents an estimate of the % of the mobile / static conflicts that would be avoided in each IFG area.

Table 16.9.3 Conflicts Avoided

IFG		<1nm			<3nm
		Fixed	Mobile	Avoided	Fixed	Mobile	Avoided
SOUTH WEST	Fixed	11	11	65.6%	18	23	68.4%
	Mobile	10	0		16	0
NORTH WEST	Fixed	8	18	75.0%	17	43	77.0%
	Mobile	6	0		14	0
OUTER HEBRIDES	Fixed	3	2	42.9%	6	5	46.7%
	Mobile	1	1		2	2
MF& NC	Fixed	6	6	50.0%	8	13	61.9%
	Mobile	0	0		0	0
ORKNEY	Fixed	1	1	50.0%	2	2	50.0%
	Mobile	0	0		0	0
EAST COAST	Fixed	8	2	20.0%	12	7	50.0%
	Mobile	0	0		8	3
SHETLAND	Fixed	1	0	0.0%	1	1	50.0%
	Mobile	0	0		0	0
Total	Fixed	38	40	59.4%	64	94	65.8%
	Mobile	17	1		33	2

Having estimated the percentage of conflicts and therefore costs saved, it is necessary to know the number of conflicts (and costs) occurring within 1 NM and 3 NM. Table 16.5.1 provides an estimate of the number and % of conflict days for each IFG by distance zones. This distribution can be used to allocate the total IFG conflict costs. This is presented in the table below along with the estimated savings

Table 16.9.4 Estimated Gear Conflict Savings

IFG	Total Cost	0-1 NM			0-3 NM
		<1nm	%Avoided	Savings	<3nm	%Avoided	Savings
SOUTH WEST	£235,225	£143,722	65.60%	£94,282	£224,640	68.40%	£153,654
NORTH WEST	£270,300	£88,658	75.00%	£66,494	£226,241	77.00%	£174,206
OUTER HEBRIDES	£216,500	£25,114	42.90%	£10,774	£67,981	46.70%	£31,747
MF& NC	£72,050	£42,365	50.00%	£21,183	£64,052	61.90%	£39,648
ORKNEY	£9,700	£7,391	50.00%	£3,696	£8,779	50.00%	£4,390
EAST COAST	£366,901	£81,452	20.00%	£16,290	£210,601	50.00%	£105,301
SHETLAND	£28,000	£0	0.00%	£0	£18,676	50.00%	£9,338
Total	£1,198,676	£388,702	54.73%	£212,718	£820,970	63.13%	£518,283

Scaling these estimates by the response rates of Table 16.2.4 produces the following total costs and savings within 1 NM and within 3 NM that would arise for, restricting mobile gear.

Table 16.9.5 Scaled Annual Gear Conflict Savings

IFG	Total Cost	< 1 NM Savings	<3 NM Savings
SOUTH WEST	£1,656,514	£663,958	£1,082,070
NORTH WEST	£821,581	£202,109	£529,502
OUTER HEBRIDES	£1,568,841	£78,072	£230,051
MF& NC	£450,313	£132,394	£247,800
ORKNEY	£111,494	£42,483	£50,460
EAST COAST	£3,821,885	£169,688	£1,096,885
SHETLAND	£1,166,667	£0	£389,083
Total	£9,597,294	£1,288,704	£3,625,851

There is undoubtedly a response bias and the estimates in Table 16.9.5 should not be used. Because of the low response rate, the un-scaled estimates of Table 16.9.4 have an equally dubious provenance. The final table below 16.9.6 is based on a mid-point estimate. This is not ideal but is preferable to using the scaled or un-scaled estimates, or indeed not producing any estimate.

Table 16.9.6 Final Estimates Annual Gear Conflict Savings

IFG	< 1 NM Savings	<3 NM Savings
SOUTH WEST	£379,120	£617,862
NORTH WEST	£134,302	£351,854
OUTER HEBRIDES	£44,423	£130,899
MF& NC	£76,789	£143,724
ORKNEY	£23,090	£27,425
EAST COAST	£92,989	£601,093
SHETLAND	£0	£199,211
Total	£750,712	£2,072,068