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

26 APPENDICES

26.1 Appendix 1: References

Adam Blake, Susanna Curtin, John Brackstone, Steven Richards, Roger Vaughan, Jon Edwards, John Fletcher (2010) The Economic Impact of Wildlife Tourism in Scotland. Scottish Government Research Findings 1/2010, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/05/12150843/0 (accessed 4/11/2014)

Barreto, E., and N. Bailey. 2013. Fish and shellfish stocks. 2013 edition. 65 pages. Edinburgh The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2013.

Bergmann, M. , Wieczorek, S. K. , Moore, P. G. and Atkinson, R. J. A. (2002): Discard composition in the Clyde Sea Nephrops fishery , Fisheries Research, 57 , pp. 169-183

Beukers-Stewart, B. D., B. J. Vause, M. W. J. Mosley, H. Rossetti, and A. R. Brand. 2005. Benefits of closed area protection for a population of scallops. Marine Ecology Progress Series 298:189–204.

British Marine federation (2010) Water sports and Leisure Participation Survey 2009

Bryden, D.M., Westbrook, S.R., Burns, B., Taylor, W.A., and Anderson, S. (2010) Assessing the economic impacts of nature based tourism in Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 398. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B726802.pdf (accessed 4/11/2014)

Cambell, A. (2010). Future of Fisheries Management in Scotland. Report of an Independent Panel. Produced for the Scottish Government by APS Group.

Cappell,R., Robinson,M., Gascoigne, J. and Nimmo, F.A.(2013) Review of the Scottish Scallop Fishery. Poseidon. Report to Marine Scotland, December 2013.

Collie, J. S., J. M. Hall-Spencer, M. J. Kaiser, and I. R. Poiner. (2000). A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:785–798.

Combes, J. & W. Lart (2007) Clyde Environment and Fisheries Review. Part I of ClydeFisheries Development Project, 69 pp.

Dare, P., D. Key, and P. M. Connor. (1993). The efficiency of spring-loaded dredges used in the Western English channel fishery for scallops, Pecten maximus (L.). ICES Report No. CM 1993/B:15. Copenhagen, Denmark

Denderen, P.D, Kooten, T and Rijnsdorp (2013). When does fishing lead to more fish? Community consequences of bottom trawl fisheries in demersal food webs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences Vol 280

Dickie, I., Hughes J., & Esteban, A. 2006. Watched like never before… the local

economic benefits of spectacular bird species. The RSPB,Sandy, UK

RSPB(2010) The Local Value of Seabirds: Estimating spending by visitors to RSPB coastal

reserves and associated local economic impact attributable to seabirds. The RSPB,Sandy, UK. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/localvalueseabirds_tcm9-258550.pdf (accessed 4/11/2014)

Drew Associates (2004) Research into the Economic Contribution of Sea Angling. A report prepared for DEFRA by Drew Associates.

Fraser of Allender Institute, (2002). Input Output Multiplier Study of the UK and Scottish Fish Catching and Fish processing Sectors. University of Strathclyde. Glasgow.

Homarus Ltd, (2010). Inshore Fisheries Groups in Scotland: Early Review and Policy Appraisal.

Howarth, L. M. & Stewart, B. D. (2014) The dredge fishery for scallops in the United Kingdom ( UK): effects on marine ecosystems and proposals for future management. Report to the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust. Marine Ecosystem Management Report no. 5, University of York, 54 pp

Indurot ( 2012) Valuing The Benefits Of Designating A Network Of Scottish Mpas In Territorial And Offshore Waters A Report To Scottish Environment LINK. González-Álvarez, J., García-De-La-Fuente, L and Colina-Vuelta A. Institute Of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning ( INDUROT) University Of Oviedo

Jones, E. (2103) The Impact of Sea Fishing on Social Wellbeing in Scottish Coastal Communities A Report for The Marine Analytical Unit, Marine Scotland.

Kenter, J.O, Bryce, R., Davies, A., Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Ranger, S., Solandt, J.L., Duncan, C., Christie, M., Crump, H., Irvine, K.N., Pinard, M., Reed, M.S. (2013). The value of potential marine protected areas in the UK to divers and sea anglers. United Nations Environmental Programme – World Conservation and Monitoring Centre Cambridge, UK.

Leocádio A.M., Whitmarsh, D. and Castro, M. (2012) Comparing Trawl and Creel Fishing for Norway Lobster ( Nephrops norvegicus ): Biological and Economic Considerations. PLoS ONE 7(7): e39567. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039567

McVittie, A and Moran D (2010) Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill. Ecological Economics 70 (2010) 413–424

Pastoors M. (2014) Editor: Draft Discard Atlas of North Seas Fisheries ; Scheveningen Group SDSG 4.5 June 2014 www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00453348.docx

PIEDA Ltd and the Scottish Marine Biological Association (1988) Study of Sea Angling in the Firth of Clyde for Scottish Tourist Board 1988

Radford, Riddington and Gibson (2009), Technical Report: Economic Impact of Recreational

Sea Angling in Scotland. Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2009

Rees, S., Rodwell, L.D., Attril, M.J, Austen, M and Mangi, S.C. (2010) The Value Of Marine Biodiversity To The Leisure And Recreation Industry And Its Application To Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Policy Vol 34, No 5.

Ryan, M.R and Bailey, DM (2012) Trawling and Dredging in the Clyde Sea Area: History, Impacts and Prospects for Recovery. A report to the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust University of Glasgow July 2012

Stratoudakis, Y., Fryer, R.J., Cook, R.M., Pierce, G.J. and Coull, K.A., (2001) Fish bycatch and discarding in Nephrops trawlers in the Firth of Clyde (west of Scotland). Aquat. Living Resour. Vol 14 283−291

Tang, S. F. 1941. The breeding of the scallop (Pecten maximus (L.)) with a note on growth rate. Proceedings and Transactions of the Liverpool Biological Society 54:9–28.

Vause, B., B. D. Beukers-Stewart, and A. R. Brand. 2006. Age composition and growth rates of queen scallops Aequipecten opercularis (L.) around the Isle of Man. Journal of Sea Research 25:310–312.

Vause, B. J., B. D. Beukers-Stewart, and A. Brand. 2007. Fluctuations and forecasts in the fishery for queen scallops (Aequipecten opercularis) around the Isle of Man. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:1124–1135

Watson, J.M., and Bryson, J.T. (2003). The Clyde Inshore Fishery Study : Securing a Sustainable Future for The Clyde Inshore Fishery, Edinburgh: Seafish

Wieczorek, S. K., S. Campagnuolo, P. G. Moore, C. Froglia, R. J. A. Atkinson, E. M. Gramitto & N. Bailey (1999) The composition and fate of discards from Nephrops trawling in Scottish and Italian waters. Final Report to the European Commission.

Ziegler, F (2006). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) fished by creels, conventional and species-selective trawls along the Swedish west coast. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Report 746

26.2 Appendix 2: Table: Deprivation of Coastal Communities

HOME_PORT	DRIVE_TIME	PUBLIC_TRA	ACCESS_RAN	CRIME_RAN	EDUCATION_	EMPLOYMENT	HEALTH_RAN	HOUSING_RA	INCOME_RAN	MULTIPLE_D	OVER10	UNDER10	ALL
ABERDEEN	well provide	well provided	well provided	very depriv	deprived	average	deprived	very deprived	average	average	3	41	44
ANSTRUTHER	average	well provided	well provided	average	average	well provided	well provided	average	well provided	well provided	3	9	12
ARBROATH	very well pro	well provided	very well provid	deprived	deprived	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	1	9	10
ARISAIG	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	very well provided	well provided	well provided	very deprived	average	average	0	5	5
AYR	well provide	well provided	well provided	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	39	30	69
BALLANTRAE	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	deprived	deprived	average	well provided	average	deprived	2	3	5
BENBECULA	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	deprived	well provided	average	deprived	well provided	well provided	average	1	4	5
BERNERA	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	average	average	well provided	deprived	deprived	1	9	10
BROADFORD	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	average	average	average	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	0	8	8
BUCKIE	well provide	average	well provided	deprived	average	average	average	well provided	average	average	23	37	60
BUTE	well provide	well provided	well provided	deprived	average	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	deprived	2	6	8
CAMPBELTOWN	well provide	well provided	well provided	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	27	38	65
CARRADALE	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	deprived	well provided	deprived	average	average	8	2	10
CASTLEBAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	well provid	average	average	deprived	very deprived	average	deprived	4	19	23
CENTRAL MAINLAND (SHETLAND)	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	well provid	average	very well provided	well provided	very well prov	very well prov	well provided	1	5	6
CRAIL	deprived	average	deprived	very well pr	very well provided	well provided	very well prov	very well prov	well provided	very well provid	0	6	6
DRUMMORE	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	deprived	well provided	deprived	deprived	deprived	0	5	5
DUNROSSNESS FAIR ISL	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	very well provided	very well prov	very well prov	very well prov	well provided	0	8	8
DUNVEGAN	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	well provided	well provided	deprived	well provided	average	0	10	10
EYEMOUTH	very well pro	well provided	very well provid	deprived	deprived	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	9	6	15
FORT WILLIAM	deprived	deprived	deprived	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	average	average	deprived	1	6	7
FRASERBURGH	very well pro	well provided	well provided	deprived	deprived	deprived	deprived	well provided	deprived	deprived	75	75	150
GARDENSTOWN	very deprive	well provided	deprived	average	average	well provided	well provided	well provided	deprived	average	8	3	11
GIRVAN	very well pro	well provided	well provided	deprived	deprived	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	0	5	5
GOURDON	very deprive	average	deprived	well provid	well provided	well provided	well provided	very well prov	well provided	well provided	2	7	9
GRIMSAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	very well provided	average	deprived	average	average	4	8	12
HOY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	average	well provided	very deprived	well provided	deprived	1	5	6
ISLAY	very well pro	very well provided	very well provid	well provid	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	average	average	3	12	15
JOHN O'GROATS	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	well provided	average	well provided	well provided	average	1	9	10
JOHNSHAVEN	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	well provid	average	well provided	average	average	well provided	average	0	8	8
KINLOCHBERVIE	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	well provided	well provided	well provided	average	average	6	9	15
KIRKCUDBRIGHT	well provide	average	well provided	well provid	very well provided	average	well provided	well provided	well provided	well provided	17	5	22
KIRKWALL	well provide	deprived	average	deprived	well provided	well provided	average	average	well provided	well provided	20	46	66
KYLE	very well pro	very well provided	very well provid	deprived	average	deprived	deprived	well provided	deprived	deprived	3	14	17
LERWICK	average	average	average	deprived	well provided	well provided	deprived	average	well provided	well provided	20	53	73
LOCH SCRIDAIN	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	very well provided	very well prov	very deprived	well provided	well provided	2	6	8
LOCHINVER	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	average	well provided	deprived	well provided	average	2	8	10
LUING	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	very well p3ro5v1ided	well provided	very well prov	deprived	well provided	well provided	2	6	8
LYBSTER	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very depriv	very deprived	deprived	deprived	average	deprived	very deprived	1	4	5
MACDUFF	well provide	well provided	well provided	deprived	deprived	deprived	average	well provided	average	average	13	5	18
MALLAIG	deprived	well provided	average	average	very well provided	well provided	average	deprived	well provided	well provided	19	17	36
METHIL	very well pro	well provided	very well provid	very depriv	very deprived	very deprived	deprived	average	very deprived	very deprived	0	6	6
MONTROSE	well provide	average	well provided	deprived	average	average	average	well provided	deprived	average	0	9	9
OBAN	well provide	well provided	well provided	deprived	average	average	deprived	deprived	average	average	21	45	66
PETERHEAD	well provide	average	well provided	deprived	deprived	average	average	average	average	deprived	49	43	92
PITTENWEEM	well provide	well provided	well provided	well provid	well provided	well provided	very well prov	average	well provided	well provided	7	56	63
PORTREE	well provide	average	well provided	deprived	average	deprived	very deprived	well provided	average	deprived	13	48	61
PORTSOY	deprived	well provided	average	average	deprived	average	average	well provided	average	average	1	4	5
ROSEHEARTY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	deprived	average	average	well provided	average	average	average	0	6	6
SANDAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	average	very well prov	very deprived	average	deprived	1	6	7
SCALLOWAY	well provide	very well provided	well provided	very well pr	average	average	deprived	deprived	well provided	well provided	4	18	22
SCALPAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	well provided	average	deprived	deprived	deprived	0	10	10
SCRABSTER	well provide	average	well provided	deprived	average	well provided	well provided	very well prov	well provided	well provided	2	50	52
SOUTH HARRIS	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	average	well provided	deprived	average	deprived	1	11	12
SOUTH LOCHS	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	average	very deprived	deprived	well provided	deprived	0	9	9
SOUTH RONALDSAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	well provided	average	deprived	well provided	average	2	4	6
SOUTH UIST/ERISKAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	well provided	well provided	deprived	average	average	3	18	21
ST ANDREWS	well provide	well provided	well provided	well provid	well provided	very well provided	very well prov	deprived	very well prov	very well provid	0	10	10
STORNOWAY	deprived	deprived	deprived	deprived	average	average	deprived	well provided	deprived	deprived	23	53	76
STROMNESS	well provide	average	well provided	well provid	well provided	well provided	well provided	deprived	well provided	well provided	4	1	5
TARBERT	well provide	very well provided	very well provid	average	average	average	well provided	average	well provided	well provided	5	9	14
TINGWALL	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	very well provided	well provided	well provided	very well prov	well provided	4	6	10
TOBERMORY	very deprive	deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	well provided	very well prov	average	well provided	well provided	3	6	9
TORRIDON	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	very well provided	very well prov	deprived	very well prov	well provided	3	11	14
TROON	well provide	well provided	well provided	average	well provided	average	deprived	well provided	average	average	10	0	10
ULLAPOOL	very well pro	well provided	very well provid	average	well provided	well provided	well provided	average	average	well provided	24	8	32
WEST MAINLAND	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	very well provided	very well provided	very well prov	average	very well prov	well provided	1	10	11
WESTRAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	well provided	very well prov	very deprived	well provided	average	3	17	20
WHALSAY	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	average	very well provided	very well prov	very well prov	well provided	well provided	13	14	27
WHITEHILLS	very deprive	deprived	very deprived	well provid	average	average	well provided	very well prov	average	average	4	2	6
WICK	well provide	average	well provided	deprived	deprived	deprived	very deprived	well provided	deprived	deprived	3	7	10
YELL	very deprive	very deprived	very deprived	very well pr	well provided	very well provided	very well prov	average	well provided	average	1	6	7

26.3 Appendix 3: Deprivation Scores for Each Fishing Port

Summary Deprivation Scores for Each Fishing Port

HOME PORT	Transport & Access	Education	Employment & Income	Health & Housing	Crime	Multiple Deprivation	Boats
ABERDEEN	2.0	4.0	3.0	4.5	5.0	3.0	44
ANSTRUTHER	2.3	3.0	2.0	2.5	3.0	2.0	12
ARBROATH	1.3	4.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	10
ARISAIG	5.0	1.0	2.5	3.5	1.0	3.0	5
AYR	2.0	3.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	69
BALLANTRAE	5.0	4.0	3.5	2.5	1.0	4.0	5
BENBECULA	5.0	2.0	2.5	3.0	4.0	3.0	5
BERNERA	5.0	2.0	3.5	2.5	1.0	4.0	10
BROADFORD	5.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	3.0	4.0	8
BUCKIE	2.3	3.0	3.0	2.5	4.0	3.0	60
BUTE	2.0	3.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	8
CAMPBELTOWN	2.0	3.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	65
CARRADALE	5.0	2.0	3.5	3.0	1.0	3.0	10
CASTLEBAY	5.0	3.0	3.0	4.5	2.0	4.0	23
CENTRAL MAINLAND (SHETLAND)	5.0	3.0	1.0	1.5	2.0	2.0	6
CRAIL	3.7	1.0	2.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	6
DRUMMORE	5.0	3.0	4.0	3.0	1.0	4.0	5
DUNROSSNESS FAIR ISLE	5.0	2.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	8
DUNVEGAN	5.0	3.0	2.0	3.0	1.0	3.0	10
EYEMOUTH	1.3	4.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	15
FORT WILLIAM	4.0	4.0	3.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	7
FRASERBURGH	1.7	4.0	4.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	150
GARDENSTOWN	3.7	3.0	3.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	11
GIRVAN	1.7	4.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	5
GOURDON	4.0	2.0	2.0	1.5	2.0	2.0	9
GRIMSAY	5.0	2.0	2.0	3.5	1.0	3.0	12
HOY	5.0	3.0	2.5	3.5	1.0	4.0	6
ISLAY	1.0	4.0	3.0	4.0	2.0	3.0	15
JOHN O'GROATS	5.0	2.0	2.0	2.5	1.0	3.0	10
JOHNSHAVEN	5.0	3.0	2.0	3.0	2.0	3.0	8
KINLOCHBERVIE	5.0	2.0	2.5	2.0	1.0	3.0	15
KIRKCUDBRIGHT	2.3	1.0	2.5	2.0	2.0	2.0	22
KIRKWALL	3.0	2.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	2.0	66
KYLE	1.0	3.0	4.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	17
LERWICK	3.0	2.0	2.0	3.5	4.0	2.0	73
LOCH SCRIDAIN	5.0	3.0	1.5	3.0	1.0	2.0	8
LOCHINVER	5.0	2.0	2.5	3.0	1.0	3.0	10
LUING	5.0	1.0	2.0	2.5	1.0	2.0	8
LYBSTER	5.0	5.0	4.0	3.5	5.0	5.0	5
MACDUFF	2.0	4.0	3.5	2.5	4.0	3.0	18
MALLAIG	3.0	1.0	2.0	3.5	3.0	2.0	36
METHIL	1.3	5.0	5.0	3.5	5.0	5.0	6
MONTROSE	2.3	3.0	3.5	2.5	4.0	3.0	9
OBAN	2.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	3.0	66
PETERHEAD	2.3	4.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	92
PITTENWEEM	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	63
PORTREE	2.3	3.0	3.5	3.5	4.0	4.0	61
PORTSOY	3.0	4.0	3.0	2.5	3.0	3.0	5
ROSEHEARTY	5.0	3.0	3.0	2.5	4.0	3.0	6
SANDAY	5.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	1.0	4.0	7
SCALLOWAY	1.7	3.0	2.5	4.0	1.0	2.0	22
SCALPAY	5.0	2.0	3.0	3.5	1.0	4.0	10
SCRABSTER	2.3	3.0	2.0	1.5	4.0	2.0	52
SOUTH HARRIS	5.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	1.0	4.0	12
SOUTH LOCHS	5.0	3.0	2.5	4.5	1.0	4.0	9
SOUTH RONALDSAY	5.0	3.0	2.0	3.5	1.0	3.0	6
SOUTH UIST/ERISKAY	5.0	2.0	2.5	3.0	1.0	3.0	21
ST ANDREWS	2.0	2.0	1.0	2.5	2.0	1.0	10
STORNOWAY	4.0	3.0	3.5	3.0	4.0	4.0	76
STROMNESS	2.3	2.0	2.0	3.0	2.0	2.0	5
TARBERT	1.3	3.0	2.5	2.5	3.0	2.0	14
TINGWALL	5.0	2.0	1.0	2.0	1.0	2.0	10
TOBERMORY	4.7	2.0	2.0	2.0	1.0	2.0	9
TORRIDON	5.0	2.0	1.0	2.5	1.0	2.0	14
TROON	2.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	10
ULLAPOOL	1.3	2.0	2.5	2.5	3.0	2.0	32
WEST MAINLAND	5.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	1.0	2.0	11
WESTRAY	5.0	3.0	2.0	3.0	1.0	3.0	20
WHALSAY	5.0	3.0	1.5	1.0	1.0	2.0	27
WHITEHILLS	4.7	3.0	3.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	6
WICK	2.3	4.0	4.0	3.5	4.0	4.0	10
YELL	5.0	2.0	1.5	2.0	1.0	3.0	7

 

HOME PORT	Transport ◘10m	<10m	Total
ABERDEEN	3	41	44
ANNAN	4	0	4
ANSTRUTHER	3	9	12
ARBROATH	1	9	10
ARDNAMURCHAN	0	1	1
ARDRISHAIG	0	4	4
ARISAIG	0	5	5
AYR	39	30	69
BALLANTRAE	2	3	5
BARRA	0	2	2
BENBECULA	1	4	5
BERNERA (LEWIS)	1	9	10
BODDAM	0	2	2
BRACADALE	1	1	2
BROADFORD	0	8	8
BUCKIE	23	37	60
BURGHEAD	0	1	1
BURNTISLAND	0	2	2
BUTE	2	6	8
CAMPBELTOWN	27	38	65
CARRADALE	8	2	10
CASTLEBAY	4	19	23
CENTRAL MAINLAND (SHETLAND)	1	5	6
COLL	1	1	2
CRAIL	0	6	6
DRUMMORE	0	5	5
DUNBAR	3	0	3
DUNBEATH	0	2	2
DUNROSSNESS AND FAIR ISLE	0	8	8
DUNURE	1	3	4
DUNVEGAN	0	10	10
ERRIBOL	0	2	2
EYEMOUTH	9	6	15
FORT WILLIAM	1	6	7
FRASERBURGH	75	75	150
GAIRLOCH	2	0	2
GARDENSTOWN	8	3	11
GIGHA	0	2	2
GIRVAN	0	5	5
GOURDON	2	7	9
GRANTON	2	0	2
GREENOCK	0	4	4
GRIMSAY	4	8	12
GRUINARD-AULTBEA	1	0	1
HELMSDALE	0	3	3
HOLY ISLAND	1	1	2
HOPEMAN	2	0	2
HOY	1	5	6
INVERNESS	0	1	1
ISLAY	3	12	15
ISLE OF WHITHORN	0	4	4
JOHN O GROATS	1	9	10
JOHNSHAVEN	0	8	8
JURA	0	1	1
KEISS	0	4	4
KINLOCHBERVIE	6	9	15
KIRKCUDBRIGHT	17	5	22
KIRKWALL	20	46	66
KYLE	3	14	17
KYLESKU	0	1	1
LARGS	0	1	1
LERWICK	20	53	73
LOCH BUIE (MULL)	1	1	2
LOCH GLENDCOUL-CULKEIN	0	1	1
LOCH SCRIDAIN (ISLE MULL)	2	6	8
LOCHINVER	2	8	10
LOSSIEMOUTH	3	1	4
LUING	2	6	8
LYBSTER	1	4	5
MACDUFF	13	5	18
MALLAIG	19	17	36
METHIL AND LEVEN	0	6	6
MONTROSE	0	9	9
NORTH ARRAN	0	2	2
NORTH BERWICK	0	1	1
NORTH HARRIS	0	2	2
NORTH UIST	3	12	15
NORTHMAVINE	1	2	3
OBAN	21	45	66
PETERHEAD	49	43	92
PITTENWEEM	7	56	63
PORT ELLEN	1	1	2
PORT ERROLL	0	2	2
PORT SETON	4	0	4
PORTAVOGIE	2	2	4
PORTKNOCKIE	0	3	3
PORTNAGURAN	0	2	2
PORTPATRICK	0	2	2
PORTREE	13	48	61
PORTSKERRA	0	1	1
PORTSOY	1	4	5
ROSEHEARTY	0	6	6
ROUSAY TO SHAPINSAY	0	2	2
SALEN	0	1	1
SANDAY	1	6	7
SANDHAVEN AND PITULLIE	0	1	1
SCALLOWAY AND ISLES	4	18	22
SCALPAY	0	10	10
SCOURIE	0	2	2
SCRABSTER	2	50	52
SHETLAND	0	1	1
SLEAT	0	2	2
SNIZORT	2	1	3
SOUTH HARRIS	1	11	12
SOUTH LOCHS	0	9	9
SOUTH RONALDSAY	2	4	6
SOUTH UIST & ERISKAY	3	18	21
ST ABBS	1	0	1
ST ANDREWS	0	10	10
ST MONANCE	0	3	3
STONEHAVEN	1	2	3
STORNOWAY	23	53	76
STRANRAER	0	3	3
STRATHAIRD	1	4	5
STROMNESS	4	1	5
STRONSAY	2	3	5
TARBERT	5	9	14
TAYINLOAN	0	3	3
TAYVALLICH	1	2	3
TINGWALL	4	6	10
TIREE	0	2	2
TOBERMORY (ISLE OF MULL)	3	6	9
TORRIDON	3	11	14
TROON	10	0	10
ULLAPOOL	24	8	32
UNSPECIFIED SCOTTISH PORT	0	1	1
WEST LOCH TARBERT	0	1	1
WEST MAINLAND (SHETLAND)	1	10	11
WESTRAY	3	17	20
WHALSAY AND SKERRIES	13	14	27
WHITEHILLS	4	2	6
WICK	3	7	10
YELL AND FETLAR	1	6	7
TOTAL	570	1186	1756

26.6 Appendix 5: Gear Conflict Questionnaire: Fishermen

26.8 Appendix 6: Gear Conflict Questionnaire: Fishery Officers

FISHERY OFFICE QUESTIONNAIRE

For the purposes of our analysis, gear conflict is where there has been physical contact between fishing gear. We are collecting data for 2012 (1st Jan to 31 December). If you cannot provide a definitive answer please provide the best estimate that you can.

1. Name the IFG area you are providing information for.

2. Name of your Fishery Office.

3. With respect to your Office's territory within the IFG, what was the total number of all known gear conflicts during 2012
(including those not formally reported, but known to have occurred)?

4. What percentage of the total in Q3 was formally reported to Marine Scotland Compliance or others agencies within Marine Scotland?
(Marine Scotland gear conflict intelligence data is appended to assist you answering this questionnaire) %

5. Please try and estimate the percentage of the total known gear conflicts in Q3 occurring in each of the following distance zones.

0-1 nautical mile from shore %

1-3 nautical miles from shore %

3-6 nautical miles from shore %

6. Please try and estimate the total known gear conflicts in 2012 occurring immediately outside your territory but within 6-12 nautical miles from the shore.

7. To your knowledge, how does the number of gear conflicts in your territory in 2012 compare with previous years? Please tick the appropriate box.

Substantially more
Slightly more
About the same
Slightly less
Substantially less
Don't know

8. How do you think the number of gear conflicts in your territory this year (2013) will compare with the total for 2012? Please tick the appropriate box.

Substantially more than 2012
Slightly more than 2012
About the same as 2012
Slightly less than 2012
Substantially less than 2012
Don't know

9. We need to know the types of gears that are in conflict within your Office's territory. Each of the cells in the table below implies a conflict between two gears types. Only a few will be relevant to your territory. Please tick any cells that describe a gear conflict that occurred in your territory during 2012. Even if there was only one incidence of that gear conflict, please tick the relevant cell.

	Nephrop Trawls	Other Trawls	Dredges	Nephrop Pots/Creels	Other Shellfish Pots / Creels	Lines	Hand Diving	Other (Please Specify)
Nephrop Trawls
Other Trawls
Dredges
Nephrop Pots/Creels
Other Shellfish Pots / Creels
Lines
Hand Diving
Other (Please Specify)

10. We need to know the relative importance of the gear conflicts you identified above. Using the table below, as best you can, please estimate the percentage of total known conflicts (see Q3 above) accounted for by each of the conflicts you identified above.

	Nephrop Trawls	Other Trawls	Dredges	Nephrop Pots/Creels	Other Shellfish Pots / Creels	Lines	Hand Diving	Other (Please Specify)
Nephrop Trawls	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Other Trawls	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Dredges	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Nephrop Pots/Creels	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Other Shellfish Pots / Creels	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Lines	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Hand Diving	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Other (Please Specify)	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%

Thank you very much for your time and effort.

Alan Radford
Economist, Grid Economics
Radfordalan@sky.com 01475 632268

We would be very grateful for your contact details
Name:
Email:
Telephone: