COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, XX.XX.2007 SEC (2007) XXX

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL and ECONOMIC COMMITTEE for FISHERIES (STECF)

STECF Sub-group on Research Needs (SGRN):

Revision of the Biological Data Requirements under the Data Collection Regulation

(meeting coded SGRN 06-03)

Brussels, 27 November - 1 December 2006

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) evaluated and endorsed this report by correspondence in XXX

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 STECF comments 3

3 STECF Conclusions and Recommendations 4

4 Annex I: SGRN Report 4

1 Introduction

The STECF-SGRN (SGRN 06-03) met in Brussels from November 27th till December 1st, 2006, to:

1. Review all information required by the Data Collection Regulation N°1639/2001 amended N°1581/2004 for scientific advice on stocks and fisheries (Sections C, D E, F, H and I; Appendix I to XIII, XV and XVI): problems encountered, possible special statistical problems.

2. Propose clusters of fleet segments to be used as strata in the new Data Collection Framework for the Fleet-Fishery Based Sampling at the regional level based on the outcomes of the June 2006 Ad-hoc experts Workshop.

3. Review whether a list of species by region is necessary or not; propose, whenever necessary and possible, criteria for grouping species and stocks in the regional lists. The future needs for the ecosystem approach (sampling of non commercial species) in the light of the SGRN June 2006 recommendations should be also considered.

4. Provide a list of parameters and data to be collected; the needs for current and future fisheries and bio-economic models (for these models only the biological data requirements) will have to be considered; the inclusion of new parameters and new data (e.g. VMS data) should be considered.

5. Define a general framework for efficient sampling that will ensure quality in terms of coverage and precision by region; periodicity, level of aggregation (if relevant) and precision level should be considered.

6. Propose procedures for improved regional integrated sampling programmes on fish markets and at sea (observers on board).

7. Any other business.

The Report of the SGRN 06-03 is given in Annex I.

2 STECF Comments

XXX

3 STECF Conclusions and Recommendations

XXX

Annex I

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL and ECONOMIC COMMITTEE for FISHERIES (STECF)

STECF Sub-group on Research Needs (SGRN):

Revision of the Biological Data Requirements under the Data Collection Regulation

(meeting coded SGRN 06-03)

Brussels, 27 November - 1 December 2006

SGRN 06-03 - Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 List of participants ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Terms of Reference of the SGRN 06-03.......................................................... 1 1.3 Background and aims of the current revision of the DCR................................ 2 1.4 SGRN 06-03 meeting targets and structure of the report ................................ 3

2 Current and expected data needs........................................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 2.2 ICES (North East Atlantic) ............................................................................... 5 2.3 STECF (mostly North East Atlantic)................................................................. 8 2.4 NAFO (North West Atlantic) ............................................................................. 9 2.5 GFCM (Mediterranean Sea) .......................................................................... 11 2.6 GFCM (Black Sea)......................................................................................... 14 2.7 CECAF (Central East Atlantic)....................................................................... 15 2.8 ICCAT and IOTC (Tuna, tuna-likes, highly migratory sharks)........................ 15 2.9 CCAMLR (Antarctic waters) ........................................................................... 18 2.10 Eel, Anguilla anguilla (European marine and inland waters) ......................... 21 2.11 Ecosystem approach (all sea areas).............................................................. 23 2.12 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 25

3 Synoptic overview of data needs and data collection schemes............................ 29

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Data needs and data collection schemes ...................................................... 29

4 The sampling population and its stratification ....................................................... 32

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Overall structure of the métier matrices ......................................................... 32 4.3 Métier matrices agreed so far ........................................................................ 34 4.4 Inclusion of recreational fisheries in the métier matrices ............................... 34 4.5 The métier matrices as a sampling design tool.............................................. 35 4.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 35

5 Métier-specific and stock-specific data ................................................................. 37

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 37

5.2 Collection of métier-specific data ................................................................... 37 5.3 Collection of stock-specific data..................................................................... 41 5.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 41

6 Métier-based data collection "in the field" ............................................................. 43

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 43 6.2 Limiting the number of métier matrix cells to be sampled to the most

important ones ............................................................................................... 43 6.3 Mergers of métier matrix cells........................................................................ 45 6.4 Joint sampling of "supra-national" métiers ..................................................... 46 6.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 46 6.6 Frequently asked questions on the métier matrices ...................................... 48

7 Aspects of data quality.......................................................................................... 49

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 49 7.2 Precision levels in the new DCR.................................................................... 49 7.3 Interaction between end-users and data providers........................................ 50 7.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 51

8 Required changes to other fishery-related EU Regulations.................................. 52

8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 52 8.2 Logbook Regulation ....................................................................................... 52 8.3 Other Regulations governing the collection and transmission of effort and

landings data.................................................................................................. 53 8.4 VMS Regulation ............................................................................................. 53

9 Proposal for a second meeting ............................................................................. 54

9.1 Rationale for having a second meeting.......................................................... 54 9.2 Proposed ToR................................................................................................ 54

Annex 1: FAQs on the métier matrices......................................................................... 55

1

1 Introduction

1.1 List of participants

Haritz Arrizabalaga Eduardo Balguerias Guerra Mette Bertelsen (ICES) Paolo Carpentieri Jorgen Dalskov Anna Gardmark Ernesto Jardim Ciaran Kelly Philip Kunzlik Mika Kurkilahti Hans Lassen (ICES) Richard Millner (Rapporteur to the Chair) Martin Pastoors (ICES) Renaud Pianet Tiit Raid Hans-Joachim Rätz Frank Redant (Chair) Katja Ringdahl Christoph Stransky Frans van Beek Antonio Vazquez Joel Vigneau (Rapporteur to the Chair)

European Commission

Franco Biaggi, DGFish (part-time) Roberto Cesari, DGFish (part-time) Antonio Cervantes, DGFish (part-time) Pol Degnbol, DGFish (part-time) Olle Hagström, DGFish (part-time) Philippe Moguedet, DGFish (part-time) Iain Shepherd, JRC

1.2 Terms of Reference of the SGRN 06-03

The workshop of the Sub-Group on Research Needs on the revision of the biological data requirements under the Data Collection Regulation (DCR), hereafter named SGRN 06-03, took place in Brussels from November 27th till December 1st, 2006, to:

1. Review all information required by the Data Collection Regulation N°1639/2001 amended N°1581/2004 for scientific advice on stocks and fisheries (Sections C, D E, F, H and I; Appendix I to XIII, XV and XVI): problems encountered, possible special statistical problems.

2. Propose clusters of fleet segments to be used as strata in the new Data Collection Framework for the fleet-fishery based sampling at the regional level based on the outcomes of the June 2006 Ad-hoc experts Workshop.

2

3. Review whether a list of species by region is necessary or not; propose, whenever necessary and possible, criteria for grouping species and stocks in the regional lists. The future needs for the ecosystem approach (sampling of non commercial species) in the light of the SGRN June 2006 recommendations should also be considered.

4. Provide a list of parameters and data to be collected; the needs for current and future fisheries and bio-economic models (for these models only the biological data requirements) will have to be considered; the inclusion of new parameters and new data (e.g. VMS data) should be considered.

5. Define a general framework for efficient sampling that will ensure quality in terms of coverage and precision by region; periodicity, level of aggregation (if relevant) and precision level should be considered.

6. Propose procedures for improved regional integrated sampling programmes on fish markets and at sea (observers on board).

7. Any other business.

1.3 Background and aims of the current revision of the DCR

When the first DCR (EC Regulation 1639-2001) was written, fisheries management was essentially stock-based and the DCR was conceived accordingly. In 2003, it was decided to revise and amend the DCR (which resulted in EC Regulation 1581-2004), amongst others to remedy a number of inconsistencies in the initial version of the DCR (particularly in the appendices) and to replace the rather awkwardly defined sampling levels for length and age by a system of target precision levels. Overall, however, the stock-oriented approach remained.

Although the DCR has been a major step forward with regards to data collection in support of the Common Fisheries Policy, it has become clear now that it falls short in providing the general framework for the new, fleet-based approach to fisheries management. One of the main objectives of the current revision therefore is to reshape the entire DCR, so that it meets the data requirements of both the existing, stock-based assessments and the fishery-based management systems that are likely to be implemented in the foreseeable future.

Apart from the above, there are a number of other major challenges that need to be addressed while revising the DCR. These include the integration of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the data collection framework, and the inclusion of eel (Anguilla anguilla) and the associated data collection programmes in support of the eel management plans.

In addition, the planned revision is taken as an opportunity by the Commission to simplify the DCR (e.g., by replacing the long list of appendices in the current DCR by a simpler and more flexible system), and to strengthen and formalise regional co-operation, particularly in the field of biological data collection.

Over the past years, the Commission has issued several documents that spell out the aims of the planned revision of the DCR (see, e.g., the Working Documents presented at the dialogue meetings between the Commission and the Member States in spring

3

and early summer 2006). These aims can be summarised as follows (ref.: Revision of the Data Collection Regulation, Doc. D 01582 (Annex), October 27th, 2005):

• Support new approaches to fisheries management such as the move from stock-based to fleet- and area-based management.

• Support moving towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

• Promote implementation of a more regional dimension to fisheries management.

• Increase quality and validation of the data used in fisheries management.

• Improve access to and exchange of data.

• Improve the use of the data.

• Integrate the entire chain from data collection to stock evaluation in a single framework.

• Promote simplification of the data collection framework.

1.4 SGRN 06-03 meeting targets and structure of the report

The planned move from an essentially stock-based to a fishery-based data collection framework requires a major overhaul of the DCR. This is a considerable task, which needs to be given serious thought and reflection, to make sure that all aspects of data collection are properly covered by the new framework and that the changed "rules of play" are crystal-clear to those who will have the task of putting the new DCR into practice.

Instead of trying to adapt the existing DCR to the new needs, the SGRN 06-03 has taken a top-down approach and has identified the current and expected data needs of the end-users first, before starting the discussion on how these needs should be fulfilled by the new DCR. At the meeting, it was decided to allow sufficient time for an open exchange of views on the philosophy of the new DCR, and to leave the technical aspects for a second meeting.

The report starts with an overview of (i) the current and expected data needs of the prime end-users of DCR-data (ICES, STECF, NAFO, GFCM, CECAF, ICCAT, IOTC and CCAMLR) and (ii) the data needs with regards to eel and the ecosystem approach (Chapters 2 and 3).

It then moves to the definition of the sampling population and how this can be subdivided in operational strata for data collection purposes (the métiers) (Chapter 4).

Next, the report discusses the difference between métier- and stock-specific data and how data collection should be organised for the two data types (Chapter 5).

In the following chapter, the report addresses the subject of how the new, fishery-based data collection framework should be implemented "in the field" and formulates suggestions on how the system can be kept workable and affordable without however impairing the quality of the end-products (Chapter 6).

The report also briefly touches upon data quality aspects (the precision levels) and the interaction between data providers and data users on quality aspects (Chapter 7).

4

As the new DCR heavily depends on data that are collected under other EU Regulations, the SGRN 06-03 also discussed the changes that are needed to these Regulations, (i) to put them in line with the data requirements of the new DCR, and (ii) to make sure that they provide the critically important, legal basis for the collection of the required data (Chapter 8).

Finally, as not all aspects of the revision process could be dealt with during the first meeting, the SGRN 06-03 is proposing to have a second meeting, to finalise the task and to fill in the technical details of the new DCR (Chapter 9).

5

2 Current and expected data needs

2.1 Introduction

In an attempt to define the data needs that should be covered by the new DCR, the SGRN 06-03 decided to take a top-down approach and to ask experts from the different regional advisory bodies to make an inventory of the advisory bodies' data needs. In so doing, attention was paid not only to the data requirements for the existing types of management advice that the advisory bodies are giving, but also to the likely future types of advice and their associated data needs. In the following sections, the current and expected data needs are reviewed by advisory body, viz.:

• ICES, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

• STECF, the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries.

• NAFO, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.

• GFCM, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.

• CECAF, Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic.

• ICCAT, International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and IOTC, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.

• CCAMLR, Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

Separate sections then deal with the data needs for eel, Anguilla anguilla, in both marine and inland waters, and the ecosystem approach, which is common to all sea areas.

2.2 ICES (North East Atlantic)

Summary of presentation given by Martin Pastoors (Chair of ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, ACFM).

General advisory needs

Thinking about fisheries management in the ICES-area in the years to come could be in terms of the following types of management measures:

• Capacity and effort regulations:

- Licenses. - Gear bans and gear restrictions. - General activity restrictions.

• Catch regulations:

- TACs and quota by country. - Quota by fleet. - Quota by vessel, by means of, e.g., Individual Transferable Quota (ITQs).

6

• Spatial and seasonal restrictions, e.g., marine protected areas (MPAs).

• Technical measures on gear design.

The types of management measures also shape the type of advice that will be required and the type of data that will be needed as a basis for the advice.

In the (draft) new Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and ICES (2007-2009), there are three main policy areas where ICES is asked to provide advice:

• Long-term management plans:

- Evaluate long-term management plans for consistency with horizontal policies and international agreements and – if in the agreement – provide advice on the basis of these long-term management plans.

• Fleet-based approach to mixed fisheries management:

- Ensure consistency between the advice given for each fishery and stock in a mixed fisheries context.

- Explore how advice may be further developed in relation to changes in fishing practices.

• Ecosystem approach to fisheries management:

- Assess the extent to which fishing disturbs the marine ecosystem. - Provide any new information regarding the impact of fisheries on other

components of the ecosystem including small cetaceans and other marine mammals, sea birds and sensitive habitats.

- Inform on any notable impact of other factors on and imbalances in ecosystem structure that may affect the stocks of commercially valuable species and their long-term exploitation.

- Propose reference points as guidance for management purposes in an ecosystem context.

The overall direction in both the policy development and the advisory needs appears to be towards a wider ecosystem- and fishery-based approach compared to the (recent) past, which was heavily geared towards TAC management and short-term forecasts.

Data requirements

The ambition of the DCR should be to (i) closely monitor the developments in the fisheries (where are they fishing, what are they catching, etc.), the fish stocks and the effects of fishing on the ecosystem, and (ii) allow evaluation of the types of questions that are raised in the management process to the extent that they are amenable to scientific analysis.

The implications of the trends in policy and advice for the DCR are related to three different types of information that will be needed in the future: (i) fleet activities (métiers), (ii) populations, and (iii) ecosystems.

At the fleet activity level of the commercially exploited (fish) species, ICES expects to require information on fleet capacity, effort and catches (landings and discards). The

7

lowest detailed level of information on the catches would be the relative abundance by species, and the most detailed level the length composition of the catches by métier, where métier is defined as a combination of fleet and fisheries characteristics (including gear and mesh size).

At the population level, it is expected that the data requirements will necessitate sampling for fecundity, maturity and growth (including age). This implies that the sampling for age (done at the population level) could be decoupled from the sampling for length (done by métier). Obviously, sampling at the population level will need to be structured by season and area.

At the ecosystem level, there will at least be a requirement to provide information on the trends in non-commercial by-catches and discards. These can be obtained from both research surveys and on-board observation programmes. In order to address the linkages between different species in the ecosystem, it may also be required to investigate the possibility of (low-level) stomach sampling programmes on a regular basis on the research vessel surveys.

Linkage between the different sources of information

The separation between the planning of survey sampling and catch sampling in the SGRN meetings is unfortunate (1) because it is the balance between the two types of information that determines the type of advice that can be given. Initiatives for combined surveys addressing both commercial fish stocks and ecosystem aspects should be encouraged.

Research surveys should increasingly be viewed as ecosystem research platforms instead of fish stock index generators, e.g., by incorporating:

• Non-commercial species abundance.

• (Low level) stomach sampling.

• (Low level) tagging studies to address question on migration and stock identity.

Data requirement tables

Tables 2.1 - 2.6, compiled by the ICES secretariat upon request of the SGRN 06-03, summarize the data requirements for the different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out by ICES. In an accompanying note, the ICES Secretariat stressed that the summary of the data needs is largely based on the advisory requests to-day and that the data needs will have to be re-evaluated if the management system (and hence, the type of advice requested) changes.

With regards to the new MoU species, there is a need for targeted projects aiming at the development of methodologies that can make use of relatively short time series of sometimes highly aggregated data.

(1) This comment refers to the fact that the biological data requirements and the surveys at sea are reviewed by two different meetings of the SGRN, viz. the SGRN 06-03 (the current meeting) and the SGRN 07-01 (planned for early 2007).

8

2.3 STECF (mostly North East Atlantic)

Summary of presentation given by Hans-Joachim Rätz (Chair of the STECF Sub-group on Mixed Fisheries, STECF-SGMix).

Data requirements

STECF-SGMix notes that the data aggregation levels and the lack of an obligation to collect important voyage-specific parameters in the current DCR entail that the information collected is inappropriate to evaluate many existing (and future) fleet-based management regulations (such as, e.g., the regulations based on by-catch levels by gear type and mesh size).

STECF-SGMix also notes that the métier definitions proposed and adopted by the Nantes workshops (2) and the Regional Co-ordination Meetings are designed to optimise sampling strategies in the new DCR. However, STECF-SGMix notes that the proposed métiers do not match the recent fleet-based management regulations (which are based on much finer sub-divisions of operational activities than the métiers) and may not match future regulations. Therefore, while collecting data on whatever aspect of the DCR (catch and effort data, discard data, length and age compositions, etc.), it is of critical importance that all the information is stored in its raw format (e.g., the actual location of a haul, the actual mesh size of the gear) and not by operational sampling stratum (e.g., the sub-division where the vessel was fishing, the mesh size category according to the métier definitions). In doing so, any type of post-stratification would remain possible and, provided that the DCR contains clear rules on the communication of raw data by the Member States to the end-users, it would highly facilitate STECF's work in defining groupings of vessels, operational activities, etc., that match the regulations on which the STECF is expected to advise.

Therefore, STECF-SGMix recommends that all parameters of relevance to fleet-based fisheries management should be recorded as raw data and provided by Member States to the STECF upon simple request by the latter, either at the level of raw data or at any appropriate level of aggregation defined by the STECF.

Data requirement tables

Table 2.7 summarizes the data requirements for the different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out by the STECF.

(2) Commission Staff Working Paper: Report of the Training Workshop on Fleet-Based

Approach. Nantes, France, 13-17 March 2006, 31p.

Commission Staff Working Paper: Report of the Ad hoc Meeting of Independent Experts on Fleet-Fishery Based Sampling. Nantes, France, 12-16 June 2006, 101 p.

9

2.4 NAFO (North West Atlantic)

Summary of presentation given by Antonio Vazquez (Chair of the NAFO Scientific Council).

Introduction

The NAFO Convention has four constituent bodies: (i) the General Council (which represents the Organisation), (ii) the Fisheries Commission (responsible for fisheries management), (iii) the Scientific Council (responsible for scientific advice), and (iv) the Secretariat. The NAFO Regulatory Area is the part of the Convention Area outside the EEZ of the bordering coastal states (Canada, US, Greenland and France).

Types of advice requested

According to the NAFO Convention, scientific advice can be requested by the Fisheries Commission or any coastal state. Currently, only Canada and Greenland are asking for scientific advice other than the Fisheries Commission. Canada does so on particular issues related to the stocks in the Regulatory Area, and Greenland on the West Greenland stocks inside its EEZ.

Fisheries management in the NAFO area is mainly based on a TAC and quota system. Scientific advice is requested as a basis for management, but the assessment methods to be used are not specified. However, if the advice is based on a formal analytical assessment, it is requested to consider the implications of fishing at F0.1 and FStatus quo in the following years. If the advice is based on a general production type analysis, it is requested to consider the 2/3 FMSY option. If neither of these approaches is possible, it is requested to evaluate stock status in the context of long-term sustainability.

Occasional advisory requests are made on a wide variety of issues, such as stock distribution, stock structure, mesh sizes, by-catches in regulated fisheries, status of non-regulated stocks, etc.

Since 2004, when the Fisheries Commission adopted a Precautionary Approach Framework for the management of individual stocks, additional advice is requested on (i) reference points, (ii) the current status of the stock, (iii) possible harvest strategies to move the stock to or to maintain it in the "safe zone", and (iv) risks associated with crossing the reference points.

More recently, the Fisheries Commission expressed the desire to also include ecosystem considerations in the conservation and management of fish stocks in the NAFO area. In that line, advice has already been requested on the conservation of vulnerable deep-water habitats, and the role of seals in the marine ecosystem. The request for advice on ecosystem considerations is expected to increase in the near future.

Assessment methods

The main fish and shellfish stocks in the NAFO area have been managed for many years now. Initially, scientific advice was based on production models, but it has moved towards analytical types of assessments when the data allowed for it. For some

10

stocks, particularly those that have recently been included in the advisory process, the data collected are still insufficient for analytical assessments, but there is a general willingness amongst the NAFO Scientific Council members to lift the assessments to the highest possible scientific level. Species with particular problems to reach this target are squid (Illex illecebrosus) and Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), where alternative evaluation methods are needed. Unfortunately, the annual analytical assessments had to be discontinued for some stocks that are under a fishing moratorium, mainly because of the lack of commercial catch data.

Methods currently in use for stock analysis are XSA, ADAPT, ASPIC and general production models. The newly adopted Precautionary Approach Framework is defined in terms of reference values for fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass, and requires refined estimates of these two parameters.

Data requirements

Data currently required are: CPUE, quantities caught and discarded, length and age compositions of the removals, maturation ogives and survey abundance indices (not considered here).

For the EU-fleets in the NAFO area, the basic sampling unit is the on-board observer trip. Each observer is provided with clear instructions on what, how and when to sample, as well as sampling targets to be reached. Specific instructions are also given for each species on how to take the measurements, the length groups that should be considered, and when sampling must be done by sex. It is worth noticing that the cost of an observer trip is the same, regardless whether the sampling requirements are for one hundred or for one thousand fish. In practice, the planned sampling is defined as the number of observer trips by fleet component per year. At some point, it has been proposed to join the scientific sampling trips with the NAFO Observers Programme, but the idea was rejected by the Scientific Council based on the argument that the need for confidentiality is a prerequisite to accuracy. This could no longer be guaranteed if the two programmes were merged.

Data collected by the on-board observers include: area fished, fishing effort, volume of catches, by-catches and discards, length composition of the removals, otoliths, gonads and stomachs. VMS data can be requested to verify the allocation of the fishing trips between adjacent divisions.

The NAFO Scientific Council has defined the minimum sampling requirement as one sample per 1000 t of fish or shellfish caught, for each division (or subdivision, where applicable), quarter and gear type. As a rule, the samples should consist of 200 fish from the entire length range for length measurement and one fish per cm length group for age measurement. These requirements were agreed when catches were much higher, the consequence being that nowadays sampling intensities risk falling below the minimum quality standards. In practice, the Scientific Council considers deficiencies in sampling stock by stock, and makes recommendations for improvement.

When the ecosystem approach is implemented, different additional types of data will be needed.

11

Data requirement tables

Tables 2.8 and 2.9 summarize the data requirements for the different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out in the NAFO area.

2.5 GFCM (Mediterranean Sea)

Summary of presentations given by Paolo Carpentieri and Franco Biaggi (DG Fish).

Specific nature of the Mediterranean fisheries

The main feature of the Mediterranean fisheries is the very high number of small vessels and the wide diversity of fishing techniques used by artisanal (skipper-owner) fishermen. This is important from both a socio-economic and a management point of view, and rules and regulations need to take this into account. The artisanal vessels land their catches to many small and sometimes isolated ports and beaches. This not only creates problems with regards to enforcement and control, but also makes recording of catches and fishing effort very cumbersome. Fisheries statistics in the Mediterranean have been relatively poor for many years, particularly for the smaller vessels, and while the situation has improved in recent years, they are still largely incomplete.

In addition to the small scale fisheries, there are also important fishing activities carried out by larger vessels (demersal and pelagic trawlers, long-liners, purse-seiners, etc.), which provide the larger markets with sea products. Corporate fisheries are limited to the tuna purse-seiners and the very recent activity of tuna farming.

Fisheries management and advice

Originally, fisheries management by the Mediterranean EU countries was mostly under national jurisdiction. National management regimes were then supplemented by EU Regulations. The management of tuna and tuna-like species is under the responsibility of the ICCAT (of which the EC is an active member), while management advice for some shared fish stocks other than tuna (e.g. Gulf of Lions, Sicily Channel) is provided by the GFCM. The GFCM is currently in the process of changing the form of most of its management advice from stock- to fisheries-oriented advice.

Fisheries management in the Mediterranean is primarily by effort control and minimum catching or landing size. TAC and quota regulations are restricted to internationally agreed TACs for bluefin tuna, and quota established by local management consortia for clams (Venus gallina) off the Italian Adriatic coast and some stocks of small pelagics (Engraulis encrasicolus, Sardina pilchardus) under Spanish jurisdiction.

Many fisheries in the Mediterranean are very complex, with many different métiers and a multitude of target species. Trawl fisheries, e.g., are multi-specific, and management measures suitable for one species may have undesirable effects on the other species. An important fraction of the target species in the multi-species demersal fisheries consists of small finfish, cephalopods and crustaceans with high commercial value on the local markets. This fact has conditioned the choice of the gears. The mesh size currently used in the bottom trawls (the legal mesh size is 40 mm) entails high retention rates of small-sized individuals, also for those belonging to species that

12

potentially can reach much bigger sizes. For many species, juveniles compose most of the catches.

Assessment methods and data requirements

Stock assessments for most of the species and species groups mentioned above are under the responsibility of the GFCM's Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). Currently, there are two major approaches to stock assessment:

• Simple models of biomass dynamics that rely on catch data and some index of abundance.

• Length- and age-structured analytical models, such as LCA and VPA.

Different variants of these models have been implemented and applied, using data from the commercial fishery or from research surveys, the use of the latter being limited to the analytical approaches.

Most evaluations of Mediterranean demersal resources to date were for single stocks and were based either on trends in swept area estimates of abundance, on some application of analytical and production models or, more recently, on length-based evaluation methods. Although some food chain studies have been carried out, multi-species modelling has not been developed yet. The difficulties in producing assessments have mainly been related to the scarcity of information on different aspects of the fisheries and, to some extent, on the life history of the species.

The multi-specific and multi-gear characteristics of most fisheries, the extremely dispersed landing sites and the small fraction of the catch that passes through organised fish markets, makes monitoring of the Mediterranean fisheries particularly difficult. The existing, traditional practices of fish sorting and selling make that species separation is often incomplete, and this hinders the estimation of the landings by species. In order to obtain unbiased samples of the size structure of the catches, sampling from all the fishing strategies (métiers) that capture each of the species is necessary. In most Mediterranean countries, sampling is very expensive taking into account the high price of the samples to be purchased and the high number of species of commercial importance in each fishing strategy.

Discarding at sea is practiced in the Mediterranean, at least by trawlers > 12 m, and hence the catch (and the fishing mortality by age) for some species cannot be estimated unless both information on the size composition and the overall amount of discards is available. Again, this information can only be obtained at very high cost.

In light of the difficulties with the sampling of commercial catches, programmes based on the collection of fishery-independent data (i.e. trawl-surveys, eggs and larvae surveys) were promoted at both the national and the European level to estimate stock biomass and to obtain biological data. These research activities have significantly increased the knowledge on the distribution, abundance and population structure of many, primarily demersal species of economic importance (such as hake, Merluccius merluccius, red mullets, Mullus barbatus and Mullus surmuletus, and several large crustaceans). Most of the knowledge on these resources has been acquired through bottom trawl surveys in the context of both national (e.g. the GRUND survey along the Italian coast) and international projects (e.g. the MEDITS survey). The MEDITS project started in 1993 and aimed at the standardization of the survey methodology between the different countries (France, Greece, Italy and Spain). Since 1996 and 1999

13

respectively, also data from the Eastern Adriatic Sea (Slovenia, Croatia and Albania) and the Moroccan waters are available.

For the small pelagics too, such as sardine and anchovy, different approaches to stock assessment have been used, relying on fishery-dependent data and/or direct estimates of stock abundance.

In the Mediterranean, compliance with the data requirements for fisheries assessments is more demanding than in other areas. Despite the progress made during the last decade, the available data are still far from being comparable to those in other RFO-areas, and the problems related to data reliability and accuracy are widely recognized. In this context, a continuation of the combined use of fishery-dependent and -independent data is strongly recommended.

Standardization of the approaches to data collection, fisheries monitoring, statistics compilation and research on fish population dynamics is needed in the light of the problems of over-fishing and environmental degradation in the Mediterranean.

Upcoming new Fisheries Regulation for the Mediterranean

During the meeting, the SGRN 06-03 was informed that a new Fisheries Regulation for the Mediterranean is to be agreed and implemented in the near future. This new Regulation will drastically change the overall approach to fisheries management in the area and is likely to have major consequences with regards to the supportive data collection systems. The text of the new Regulation was not available to the SGRN 06-03, but the following excerpt from the Press Release on the 20-21 November 2006 Council Meeting on Agriculture and Fisheries gives an idea of the changes that can be expected:

The Council reached political agreement by a qualified majority on a draft Regulation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, on the basis of a compromise drawn up by the Presidency in cooperation with the Commission.

The Council will adopt this Regulation at one of its forthcoming meetings after finalisation of the text. The French delegation indicated its intention to abstain.

The objective of the proposal is to establish sustainable fisheries in the region by improving the exploitation of aquatic living resources, and protecting sensitive habitats whilst taking into account the specific nature of the small-scale Mediterranean coastal fisheries. Discussions on this proposal in the Council have been taking place for nearly three years since the proposal was presented by the Commission.

The main features of the Presidency compromise endorsed by the Commission are:

• The introduction of 40 mm square mesh of bottom trawls and (under certain circumstances) diamond meshed net of 50 mm by 1 July 2008 at the latest.

• The general rule still involves prohibition of the use of trawl nets within 1.5 nautical miles. However, trawling activities within the coastal bands (between 0.7 and 1.5 nautical miles) could be authorised under certain conditions (Article 12(6)(b)).

14

• Purse seines may be temporarily used until 31 December 2007 at a distance from the coast of less than 300 metres or at a depth less than the 50 metres isobath, but not less than the 30 metres isobath.

The proposal, in particular:

• Introduces new technical measures to improve the selectivity of the current 40 mm mesh size for towed nets;

• Strengthens the current ban on the use of towed gear in coastal areas;

• Limits the overall sizes of certain fishing gear that affects fishing effort;

• Introduces a procedure for establishing temporary or permanent closures of areas to specific fishing methods, either in Community or international waters (*);

• Provides for the adoption in the Mediterranean area of management plans combining the use of effort management with technical measures (*);

• Delegates powers to Member States to regulate, in their territorial waters and under certain conditions, fishing activities that do not have any significant Community dimension or environmental impact, including certain local fisheries currently authorised under Community law.

SGRN 06-03 expects that the scientific underpinning of especially the two bullet point marked with an asterisk, will require the collection of complementary data, on top of the information that is already being collected in the Mediterranean.

Data requirement tables

Pending the availability of more detailed information on the contents of the new Fisheries Regulation for the Mediterranean, the SGRN 06-03 decided not to put together any data requirement tables for the area. Being proactive is one of the major challenges in the current revision of the DCR, and since the data requirements for the Mediterranean are likely to change when the new Fisheries Regulation comes into force, it is essential that these are taken into account when defining the data needs under the new DCR.

2.6 GFCM (Black Sea)

On January 1st, 2007, Bulgaria and Romania will join the EU and hence, be expected to comply with the rules of the DCR.

With regards to Modules C (Fleet capacity), D (Fishing effort), E (Data related to catches and landings), J (Economic data by groups of vessels) and K (Data concerning the processing industry), there is no need to adjust the contents of the DCR, as these Modules apply to all EU Member States and all areas where EU-fleets operate.

With regards to Modules F (Data concerning the catches per unit of effort), G (Scientific evaluation surveys of stocks), H (Biological sampling of catches: composition by age and by length) and I (Other biological sampling), however, there is a major problem, as the DCR, in its present form, has no provisions whatsoever for the Black Sea area.

15

As the SGRN 06-03 had no information on the current or expected advisory and data needs in the Black Sea area, it was unable to formulate proposals on the associated data requirements in the new DCR. This lack of information urgently needs to be remedied, otherwise there risks to be an embarrassing empty space in the new DCR with respect to the scientific evaluation surveys and the collection of fishery-related biological information in the Black Sea.

2.7 CECAF (Central East Atlantic)

Summary of presentation given by Eduardo Balguerias Guerra.

Data requirement tables

Tables 2.10 - 2.12 summarize the data requirements for the different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out in the CECAF area.

2.8 ICCAT and IOTC (Tuna, tuna-likes, highly migratory sharks)

Summary of presentation given by Renaud Pianet (Chair of Tropical Species Working Group of ICCAT; former Chair of Scientific Committee of IOTC). The presentation largely focused on ICCAT, but the situation with regards to stock assessments and associated data needs for the other tuna RFOs is very similar to that in ICCAT.

Fisheries management and advice

Initially, the species considered by ICCAT were tunas and tuna-like species, but ICCAT's mandate has been extended a few years ago to also include species caught in association with tuna (sharks, other fishes, marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds).

Management advice for tuna is generally based on the estimation of stock status (in relation to MSY) and results in:

• TACs, particularly for albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and swordfish (Xiphias gladius).

• Effort limitations, particularly for tropical tunas, by means of moratoria, closed areas or seasons, applicable to either all fishing activities of more specifically to fish aggregating devices (FADs); and

• Minimum landing sizes, particularly for bluefin tuna and swordfish, and until recently also for bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares).

Assessment methods

Different assessment methods are being used, depending on the information available (on fishery and biology) and the species characteristics: fishery indicators, production models, age-structured models (VPA, based on age composition data derived from length compositions and growth curves), two-box VPAs, time-and-area disaggregated statistical models (Multifan-CL, A-Scala, etc.). For the future, the use of the latter is recommended, as they require less substitutions / raisings and incorporate additional information derived from, e.g., tagging.

16

One of the major problems in the assessments of tuna is linked to the interpretation of the CPUE indices. These are standardized by means of Generalized Linear Models (GLM) to discern between year and other effects (season, area and sometimes gear type). In tropical tunas, the long-line CPUEs for adults present the problem of discriminating between the different target species, while the purse seine CPUEs for juveniles have the problem of discriminating between fishing modes. In temperate tunas, bait-boat and trolling CPUEs are problematic, because the fishing area is usually small compared to the population distribution area, and inter-annual variations in the migration pattern of the animals are likely to affect the observed trends in CPUE.

Data requirements

In principle, the responsibility over data reporting is at the country level. In practice however, data are generally reported from two sources: "reporting flag" and "vessel flag".

ICCAT defines three levels of data collection:

Task 1 (mandatory for all countries):

• Fleet characteristics:

Number of boats by flag, gear type and size (GRT or LOA classes) and main target species.

• Nominal catches:

Total annual landings by flag (reporting and vessel), main fishing area, gear type and species. Discards (dead or alive) are also supposed to be reported. Origin and processing of data have to be specified. For some surface fisheries, the landings (mainly of small fish, < 5-10 kg) are made by commercial size categories of mixed species, which have to be sampled for species composition.

Task 2 (mandatory for all countries):

• Catch and effort:

Effort and catches by species, month, gear type and spatial stratum (1° square for the purse seiners and bait-boats; 5° square for the long-liners; geographical or stock area for the artisanal fisheries). The origin of the data, logbook coverage, raising methods used, etc., has to be specified.

• Length sampling:

Actual and raised size frequencies by species, gear type and spatial stratum (month and 5° square for the purse seiners and bait-boats; month and 5x10° square for the long-liners; month or quarter and geographical or stock area for the artisanal fisheries).

Others tasks (upon recommendation by the Scientific Committee on Research and Statistics, SCRS):

• Updates of biological parameters:

- Maturity and fecundity. - Sex ratio (particularly for bigeye, yellowfin and swordfish).

17

- Growth. - Morphometric relationships (e.g. length-weight relationships).

• Observer programmes:

Estimates of the discards of tuna and by-catch species on part (5-10%) of the industrial fleets (long-line and purse-seine).

• Note: The collection of these types of information will probably become mandatory in a few years time.

Tagging

Tagging is a major tool in tuna research and management, comparable to the at-sea surveys for commercial fish and shellfish in other RFO-areas. The results of tagging experiments are of particular importance as an input to the statistical models.

Traditional tagging (spaghetti tags) has been used in all oceans since more than 40 years, and has been the principle source of information on most of the fishery-related and biological parameters for tuna: growth, movements, natural mortality, exploitation rates, interactions between fisheries, etc.

Electronic tagging provides information mainly on the behaviour and habitat use of the tunas (depth and temperature preferences, fishery-independent information on migration routes, feeding, etc.) and their association with other fishes or FADs (time of residence, etc.). The main advantage of electronic tags is that they can be used to assess the mixing rates between stocks and the availability of the stock to a given gear/fishery, independently of the dynamics of the fisheries.

Ocean-wide tagging is most beneficial in the medium term. These programmes are expensive, but extend over several years (4-5 years) and are planned every 10-15 years in each ocean. Smaller scale, routine (yearly) tagging activities are also useful in the long term.

Ecosystem approach

Recently, the ICCAT sub-committees on by-catches and environmental aspects have been merged into a single Sub-committee on Ecosystems, with the general purpose of developing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management within ICCAT. The terms of reference of this sub-committee include ecosystem monitoring, research and modelling activities that would allow integrating ecosystem considerations into the scientific advice (impact of tuna-directed fisheries on non-target species, ecosystem benefits of management options, etc.). The same approach has been also taken by IOTC at its last Scientific Committee meeting (November 2006).

Data requirement tables

Tables 2.13 - 2.22 summarize the data requirements for the different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out by ICCAT and IOTC.

18

2.9 CCAMLR (Antarctic waters)

Summary of presentations given by Eduardo Balguerias Guerra and Roberto Cesari (DG Fish).

CCAMLR’s Regulatory Framework

CCAMLR is developing a unified regulatory framework to:

• Provide guidance on the data and information requirements for all fisheries in the Convention Area to support the development of management advice by the Scientific Committee, in accordance with both the precautionary and the ecosystem approaches to fisheries management.

• Design control mechanisms to enable the collection of data and information for scientific analysis which aim to ensure that fisheries in the Convention Area do not expand faster than the acquisition of information necessary for the development of management advice.

• Streamline the process of annual review and assessment of fisheries by the Scientific Committee and its working groups in the face of the increasing number of fisheries in the Convention Area.

The regulatory framework sits within the existing regulatory requirements of CCAMLR and encompasses procedures for notification, establishment of research and fishery operation plans as well as data collection plans for all fisheries.

A key component of the framework is a reference document known as "Fishery Plan". Each such Plan provides a comprehensive summary of information on a fishery, including fishing activities and regulatory requirements (research and fishery operation plans, data collection plans, harvest controls, notification requirements).

Data collection and reporting obligations

(a) VMS data

All Contracting Parties must ensure that their vessels (except those fishing for krill) are equipped with a satellite-linked vessel monitoring device allowing for the continuous reporting of their position in the Convention Area. The vessel monitoring device shall automatically communicate at least every four hours the following data: fishing vessel identification, date and time, and geographical position of the vessel, with an error of less than 500 m.

In addition, the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework also has rules for the transmission of the VMS data to the CCAMLR Secretariat, and on the notification by Contracting Parties of the movements of their flag vessels between sub-areas and divisions of the Convention Area.

The obligation on reporting VMS data, however, does not apply to vessels licensed under French domestic law in the EEZ around Kerguelen and Crozet Islands, and to vessels licensed under South African domestic law in the EEZ surrounding Prince Edward Island.

19

(b) Catch and effort data

Within the Convention Area, there is a particular measure which compels vessels to the use of the "Five-day catch and effort reporting system". At the end of each reporting period, each Contracting Party must obtain from each of its vessels the total catch of all species, including by-catch species, together with the total days and hours fished, and transmit the aggregated catch and effort data for its vessels to the Executive Secretary of CCAMLR. For the long-line fisheries, the number of hooks must also be reported, and for the pot fisheries, the number of pots. Such a report must be submitted by every Contracting Party taking part in a fishery, for the duration of the fishery, even if no catches are taken.

Another measure orders that all Contracting Parties shall, at the end of each month, obtain from all their vessels (except those fishing for krill) the data required to complete the CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data forms. The following data must be reported: catch of all target and by-catch species, numbers of seabirds and marine mammals by species, either released or killed.

With regards to the krill fisheries, there is an obligation for the Contracting Parties to obtain from their vessels haul-by-haul data to complete the CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data forms. Krill catch and effort data must be reported according to statistical area, sub-area, division or any other unit with catch limits.

(c) Biological data

At the end of each month, each Contracting Party must obtain from its vessels (except for those fishing for krill) representative length composition samples of both the target and the by-catch species. Representative length samples must be taken from each grid rectangle (0.5° latitude by 1° longitude) where fishing has occurred.

(d) Research data

The CCAMLR measures on scientific research require that all Contracting Parties report the following for all their research activities in the Convention Area:

• All data required under the provisions of the CCAMLR five-day reporting system (see above).

• All research catches as part of the annual STATLANT returns.

• A summary of the results of all research activities, within 180 days after completion of the activities, and a full report within 12 months.

• Catch, effort and biological data resulting from the research activities, according to a particular haul-by-haul reporting format.

CCAMLR scheme of international scientific observation

The CCAMLR Regulation Framework has extensive provisions on international scientific observations. These include specific and far-reaching rules on the designation and the acceptance of scientific observers, and on the function, tasks and modus operandi of the observers.

The observers are entitled to collect information on, amongst others, the vessel's operational activities, its effort and catches by species, the procedures by which

20

declared catch weight is measured, the length composition of the catches, the occurrence and incidental mortality of seabirds and mammals in relation to fishing operations, etc. In addition, they can also collect biological information on the species in the catches (scales and otoliths for age determination, sex and gonad state, diet and stomach fullness, etc.).

Catch documentation scheme for Dissostichus spp.

The Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) for toothfish, Dissostichus spp., became binding to all Contracting Parties on May 7th, 2000. The scheme is designed to track the landings and trade flows of toothfish caught in the Convention Area and, where possible, adjacent waters. This should enable CCAMLR to identify the origin of toothfish entering the markets of all Contracting Parties, and help determine whether toothfish taken in the Convention Area are caught in a manner consistent with the conservation measures.

Completion of the CDS documents is required for all actions undertaken with Dissostichus eleginoides and D. mawsoni, including landing, transhipment, import, export or re-export, and is the same under all CDS participants' customs law or other domestic legislation.

Regulation of Exploratory Fisheries

For the period over which a fishery is classified as "exploratory", the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR can develop (and update as appropriate) a Data Collection Plan (DCP), including research proposals, to ensure that adequate information is made available for stock evaluation purposes. The DCP identifies the data needed and describes all research actions necessary to obtain the relevant data. Where appropriate, the Data Collection Plan may include:

• A description of the catch, fishing effort and related biological, ecological, and environmental data required to undertake the evaluations.

• A plan for directing fishing effort during the exploratory phase to permit the acquisition of relevant data for the evaluation of the fishery potential and the ecological relationships among harvested, dependent and related populations as well as the likelihood of adverse impacts.

• A plan for the acquisition of any other scientific data by fishing vessels, including activities that may require co-operative actions between the scientific observers and the vessels' crews.

• An evaluation of the time-scales involved in determining the responses of harvested, dependent and related populations to fishing activities.

During exploratory fisheries, the following data must be collected and reported to the CCAMLR Secretariat:

• Location of the exploratory fishing activities.

• Catch, effort and biological data for all species, on a haul-by-haul basis.

• The total number and weight of toothfish discarded.

• Length measurements of the different toothfish species, by haul, up to a maximum of 35 fish taken randomly from the catch.

21

• Length measurements of all other fish, by haul, up to a maximum of 100 fish per species, together with 30 fish sampled for biological studies.

• Records of all by-catch species, and records of the numbers of seabirds and marine mammals caught and released or killed, by species.

In addition, the long-line vessels must tag and release a specific number of toothfish per ton of catch, according to the CCAMLR Tagging Protocol. Vessels can only discontinue tagging after they have tagged 500 toothfish, or left the fishery. The tagging programme targets toothfish of all sizes, and releases are intended to cover as broad a geographical area as possible. Recaptured tagged toothfish must be biologically sampled (length, weight, sex, gonad stage), photographed (if possible), the otoliths removed and the tag recovered.

Data requirement tables

As the data requirements on the fisheries in the CCAMLR area are very well defined in the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework (which is binding to all EU Member States operating in the CCAMLR Convention Area), the SGRN 06-03 sees no need to copy these provisions to the (new) DCR. As an alternative, it is suggested to simply refer to the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework as the standard according to which data on the fisheries and stocks in the CCAMLR area need to be collected. Such an approach also ensures that there is no need to amend the DCR in case the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework would change.

However, the SGRN 06-03 is aware that the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework is not applicable to the French EEZ around Kerguelen and Crozet Island and hence, that there may be a need to specify data collection rules in the new DCR for this part of the Antarctic waters (as is the case already in the current DCR). This could be done, either by stating in the new DCR that the data collection rules under the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework also apply to the French EEZ around Kerguelen and Crozet Island, or by laying down specific data requirements for these areas. If the option is for the latter, then it is essential that the SGRN 06-03 be properly informed on the types of management advice that are required for the stocks in the Kerguelen and Crozet area, and the associated data needs, so that it can apply the same approach to this area as to the other RFO-areas.

2.10 Eel, Anguilla anguilla (European marine and inland waters)

Summary of presentation given by Anna Gardmark and Frans van Beek.

Management and advice

The eel stock in Europe is well outside safe biological limits. Repeatedly, ICES has advised that strong measures aiming at the protection and recovery of the stock need to be implemented urgently. Given the long generation cycle of eel, the effects of such measures may become detectable only after a few decades.

A few years ago, the EC proposed to implement a Management Framework for eel in the European waters, but progress in getting agreement between the Member States on the contents of the (national) Recovery Plans is slow. Up to now, no Recovery Plans are in place. Data needed to support any management of the European eel stock and

22

fishery will depend on the aims and the contents of the Recovery Plans. Hence, details of the required fishery-related and biological data will have to be revised if and when such plans have been decided upon.

Nevertheless, the SGRN 06-03 is of the opinion that the very poor state of the eel stock does not justify a further delay to start collecting the essential information that would allow identifying any changes in the state of the eel stock. Therefore, the SGRN 06-03 proposes to include a minimum set of data requirements for eel in the new DCR. The minimum sets are needed to obtain indicators of recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB) and escape rates, as well as information on the catches and growth of eel at the European level. The highest priority would be on the indicators of recruitment and SSB. Additional data requirements, making it possible to evaluate the effects of the implementation of the Recovery Plans, will have to be specified for each Member State and/or river basin separately, and could be dealt with at a later stage.

Data requirements

To advice on the status and the future of the European eel stock, at minimum four types of basic data are needed, viz. on recruitment, SSB, growth and removals from the stock.

(a) Recruitment

An index (a relative measure) of recruitment is necessary to be able to follow changes in eel recruitment over time. This can be done by monitoring the glass eels entering the European river systems. At present, there are several glass eel monitoring programmes in place already in different Member States, many of which extend over long time periods.

SGRN 06-03 proposes to include a selection of 10-20 of these surveys in the new DCR, covering different parts of Europe, and to use these to calculate a combined index of recruitment for the European eel stock. It is not essential to include all existing glass eel surveys in the DCR.

(b) Spawning stock biomass (SSB)

Similarly to the recruitment index, a relative measure of SSB is needed to be able to follow relative changes over time in eel spawning stock biomass and in the amount of fish that migrate to the spawning grounds (the so-called "escapees"). In some cases, such an index can be obtained by monitoring the silver eel population. Where this is impossible, it can be derived from the monitoring of yellow eel.

SGRN 06-03 proposes to measure directly (or estimate indirectly) the amount of escapees in a selection of areas (probably 10-20 across Europe, based on river basin) which are together representative of the European eel population. The monitoring series should be standardised, long-term and internationally co-ordinated. From the local, area-based escape information, it should be possible to construct a weighted index representative of the eel SSB in the EU waters as a whole.

23

(c) Growth

In order to be able to predict the time frame over which management measures will translate into improved SSB, information on the growth (length at age) is necessary on all parts of the eel's life cycle.

(d) Removals

Catch information is less relevant for the determination of the state of the eel stock but is crucial to be able to evaluate the usefulness and impact of management measures directed towards the eel fisheries. Catch data (ideally from both the commercial and the non-commercial fisheries, as well as estimates of the IUU removals) need to be collected by eel life stage (i.e. for glass ell, silver eel and yellow eel separately), at least by country, and preferably by river basin district. The spatial aggregation of the catch data should take account of the assessment and/or management needs.

(e) Other types of data

In the longer term, there are additional data that may be important for future advice on stock status and management, such as the condition of the spawning stock (fat content, level of toxins, amount of parasites, etc.), and, depending on the assessment methods used, length (and age) composition of the catches per métier.

Data requirement tables

Table 2.23 summarizes the data requirements for the different types of stock evaluations / analyses in support of the Eel Recovery Plans.

2.11 Ecosystem approach (all sea areas)

Summary of presentation given by Anna Gardmark (expert participant to SGRN 06-01).

Background

The SGRN 06-01 meeting (3) on the immediate data needs to support the integration of environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) recommended the use of five indicators (three of ecosystem state and two of the pressure exerted by fishing activities on the ecosystem), and presented the data needed to derive these. The focus of the SGRN 06-01 was on immediate data needs to estimate the effects of fishing on the environment, and not the other way round. The SGRN 06-01 recognised that, for implementation in the short-term, only indicators where the linkage between fishing and the ecosystem state indicator is well known and documented, can be used. However, the group also pointed out that in the medium term, it is essential to also measure the effects of the environment on fish stocks and fisheries, to be able to disentangle the effects of fishing on the ecosystem from the effects of environmental changes, such as climate change.

(3) Commission Staff Working Paper: Report of the SGRN 06-01 - Data Collection

Regulation Review - Second Meeting on the Ecosystem Approach. Brussels, June 2006 (in press).

24

Proposed indicators and associated data needs

The five indicators recommended by SGRN 06-01 for immediate implementation, and hence, inclusion in the new DCR, are listed below (coding as in the SGRN 06-01 report, S = Indicator of State, P = Indicator of Pressure).

Indicators of State (indicative of changes in ecosystem components due to fishing):

• S1: Conservation status of vulnerable fish species, as assessed from research survey data.

• S3: Mean weight and mean maximum length of the fish assemblage, as assessed from research survey data.

• S6: Age and size at maturation of exploited fish species, as assessed using the Probabilistic Maturation Reaction Norm (PMRN) technique on data from research surveys.

Indicators of Pressure (indicative of removals from the ecosystem due to fishing):

• P1: Spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, as assessed from VMS data.

• P2: Catch and discard ratios of commercial and non-commercial fish species, derived as a ratio of commercial catches (using data from on-board sampling) and an index of abundance (derived from research survey data), for (i) landed target catch, (ii) landed by-catch, and (iii) discarded by-catch.

Some of these indicators are already in use within ICES working groups, or will be in the near future. For example, indicator S3 is used in the ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO) and will be in the ICES Working Group on Integrated Assessments in the Baltic Sea (WGIAB), which both feed into assessment working groups; indicator S6 will be used in the ICES Study Group on Fisheries Induced Adaptive Change (SGFIAC), which feeds into WGECO and some assessment working groups, and indicators P1 and P2 in WGECO.

The data needed for each of these indicators were identified by SGRN 06-01 as follows:

Indicators of State:

• S1: Abundance or biomass per species in research survey catches, for all fish species that are caught annually in the survey. Periodicity: annually.

• S3: Abundance or biomass, and length (and weight) measurements for all fish species that are caught annually in the survey. Periodicity: annually.

• S6: Age, length (weight), sex and maturity status (immature / mature / resting) for at least 100 individuals per age class (only for those ages that include both immature and mature individuals) and catch year. Restricted to the most important exploited fish species. Periodicity: annually.

Indicators of Pressure:

• P1: VMS data per métier. Recording frequency at least every hour and preferably every 15 minutes.

25

• P2: On-board sampling of catches and discards: landed and discarded weight per species, for all fish species, i.e. commercial as well as non-commercial. Survey catches: abundance or biomass per species, for all fish species. Periodicity: annually.

Of the Regional Co-ordination Meetings that convened after the SGRN 06-01, RCM North Sea and East Arctic, RCM Baltic and RCM North East Atlantic all supported the use of all three state indicators (S1, S3, S6). They also stated that the data required for these indicators were already being collected, or could be with little additional effort. Similarly, the RCM NAFO stated that the data needed for indicators S1 and S3 could be collected without or with little additional effort.

As for the pressure indicator P2, the RCM North Sea and East Arctic and RCM North East Atlantic went further than the SGRN 06-01, and recommended that on-board sampling should be made of all fish species and all TAC-regulated shellfish species. The RCM NAFO, on the other hand, stated that on-board sampling should be made not for all, but for a selection of prioritized non-commercial fish species.

SGRN 06-01 also recognized that current research surveys are generally designed to monitor the abundance of particular target species, and thus, that their design may not be adequate to monitor non-target species and the ecosystem. This fact should be considered by both data providers and data users, and the DCR should be made sufficiently flexible to meet future requests for additional data needs from RFOs that are now starting to consider the ecosystem approach to fisheries.

Data requirement tables

Table 2.24 summarizes the data requirements for the different types of evaluations in support of the ecosystem approach. Table 2.25 gives further information on the different data types, with, amongst others, details on the data source and on the indicators for which the data will be used.

2.12 Conclusions

First of all, it is important that the new DCR focuses on the total removals from fish and shellfish stocks, regardless who (professional or recreational fishers) or what (fish or shellfish kept for landing and sale, or returned to the sea as discards) is at their origin. This, however, does not imply that the distinction between landings and discards should completely disappear in the new DCR. For certain types of management (e.g. measures to reduce discarding), it is important that the origin of the removals (landings or discards) is known and hence, that the distinction be made throughout the data collection process.

With regards to the removals by recreational fisheries, it is important to remember that at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002), the EU Member States have committed themselves to collect information on all their marine catches from 2004 (!) onwards. To SGRN's understanding, this includes removals by recreational fishers and therefore, there is no excuse for not including the recreational fisheries in the new DCR. In order to make sure that any future data collection schemes cover the full range of removals, from strictly professional to strictly recreational, it is necessary that the different types of fishing activities are defined in a

26

comprehensive and complementary way. Otherwise, there is the danger of leaving a grey zone which would then run the risk of being left unmonitored.

From the overviews of the data needs by RFO-area, it is clear that it should be possible to define groupings of species with similar data needs, according to the type of stock evaluation that is applied (e.g. age-based vs. length-based assessment models). In practice, this approach could take the shape of a data requirement matrix with the species groups in the top, the parameters to be sampled on the left and the data requirements (spatial and temporal resolution, frequency, precision level required, etc.) in the body of the matrix. These data requirement matrices could then replace the long list of species appendices in the current DCR. As there are differences in data needs between RFO-areas (not with regards to the parameters to be monitored but with regards to the required spatial and temporal resolution, update frequency, etc.), it will be necessary to define data requirement matrices for each RFO-area separately. One of the advantages of the data requirement matrices is that the data requirements automatically follow when a species "moves up or down the ladder" (e.g. when it moves from length- to age-based assessments) without having to go through a lengthy revision of the DCR. The SGRN 06-03 did not have the time to discuss in full detail the data requirement matrices for each RFO-area. Filling in the matrices requires careful reflection and therefore, it is proposed to accomplish this task during a second meeting (also see Chapter 9).

With regards to the collection of length and age composition data on the removals, it is suggested to derive the age compositions from the length frequency data by means of stock- and area-specific age-length keys (ALKs). Unless there is evidence of age-specific selection patterns in a fishery, the ALKs can be considered as being largely métier-independent. This will simplify data collection, as sampling for length and age can now be decoupled, with length sampling primarily being organised by fishing activity, and age sampling primarily by stock or population (or parts thereof, if there is evidence of differences in growth between different parts of a population). In addition, it also opens the perspective of establishing combined ALKs at the regional level, which will help making the collection of age data more cost-effective.

In many presentations, it was stressed that data collection during scientific evaluation surveys and from catch sampling are closely connected. It is the balance between the two types of information that determines the type of evaluations that can be made and hence, the type of advice that can be given. From that viewpoint, it is unfortunate that the two, manifestly complementary sources of information are discussed at separate meetings of the SGRN. The SGRN 06-03 therefore recommends that the survey revision meeting takes a similar top-down approach and defines the data requirements first (preferably in consultation with the end-users), before deciding on which surveys should be eligible under the new DCR. The SGRN 06-03 also agreed that research surveys should increasingly be viewed as ecosystem research platforms instead of primarily being used as generators of stock indices.

With regards to the ecosystem approach, it is obvious that considerable and valuable additional information can be collected without major changes to the existing data collection schemes (surveys, at-sea sampling, etc.), and that the collection of catch and ecosystem information can easily be integrated in a single framework. The proper integration of the catch- and ecosystem-related data needs is something that will have to be considered when filling in the data requirement matrices by RFO-area and again, it is proposed to achieve this during a second meeting (also see Chapter 9).

27

Access to the VMS data for scientific evaluation purposes has repeatedly been indicated as one of the issues that need to be addressed when revising the DCR. VMS data are routinely collected for many fleets and fisheries but in several countries, the data are not accessible (yet) to the scientific community. Full access to the VMS data would definitely improve our perception of fishing intensity (where, how much and by whom) and therefore, it is essential that the VMS data are made available for scientific purposes. For the effort estimates from VMS data to be sufficiently reliable, it is indispensable that the recording frequency of a vessel's position be increased from the current once every two hours to at least once every 15 minutes. In so doing, it should be possible to make a sufficiently fine distinction between time spent on fishing and on steaming, which can then be used to estimate fishing effort. Full access to the VMS data also would serve the data needs of the ecosystem approach, as it would allow to plot fishing effort at a sufficiently fine scale in relation to, e.g., marine protected areas or the distribution of sensitive habitats. However, it should also be clear that the use of VMS data for scientific purposes is conditional upon a number of changes being made to both EU and national legislation that regulate the collection of and access to these data (see further Section 8.4).

Management systems are likely to change with time and hence also the types of advice that will be requested from the RFOs and the types of data that will be needed to underpin the advice. Therefore, it is essential that the new DCR is made sufficiently flexible and adaptable to allow for such changes, without having to revise the entire Regulation. Ideally, the new DCR should be conceived in such a way that it can constantly be adjusted through dynamic interaction between the end-users and the data providers. Too much flexibility, however, bears the risk that the system gets "out of control" (e.g., when the number of requests for modifications is too high or when the requests are too excessive) and thus, the challenge will be to find a proper balance between flexibility, continuity and, ultimately, the cost of the data collection framework. Evidently, this is an area where the Regional Co-ordination Meetings could play an important part, as mediators between the data providers and the end-user organisations (also see Section 7.3).

Remaining question marks in the data needs identified so far are (i) the data requirements for the Mediterranean, (ii) the data requirements for the Black Sea, (iii) the data needs for salmon, including riverine salmon, and (iv) the identification of the sub-sets of glass eel, silver eel and yellow eel surveys that can be used to calculate pan-European indices of eel recruitment, spawning stock biomass and escape to the sea rates.

For the Mediterranean, it is suggested to wait for further details on the contents of the new EU Fisheries Regulation for the area, and to examine the implications of this new regulation with regards to management and advisory needs first, before deciding on the supporting data requirements. The SGRN 06-03 hopes that the information will become available very soon, so that it can be taken into account during the proposed second meeting (also see Chapter 9).

Most worrying is the gap with regards to the Black Sea. The Black Sea is not included in the present version of the DCR, and in the absence of information on the current and expected advisory needs and the associated data requirements in the area, the SGRN 06-03 was not in a position to decide on the data requirements that should be included in the new DCR. Again, the SGRN 06-03 hopes that the necessary information will become available in the coming months, so that it can accurately identify the data needs for the Black Sea during the second meeting.

28

With regards to salmon and eel, it is suggested to fill in the gaps in consultation with a small group of experts in the field, at the latest during the proposed second meeting. It should be clear, however, that the new DCR will have to address all life stages and all removals of salmon and eel, and not be restricted to the marine parts of their populations.

29

3 Synoptic overview of data needs and data collection schemes

3.1 Introduction

As a second step in the identification of the data requirements that should be laid down in the new DCR, the SGRN 06-03 made a generalised overview of the data needs in relation to the different types of fisheries advice that are or may be requested from the advisory bodies, and the data collection schemes available to collect the required information. The links thus defined between types of advice, data requirements and sources of information will help avoiding mis-interpretations and will facilitate completing the data requirement matrices introduced in Section 2.12.

3.2 Data needs and data collection schemes

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show one possible representation (the most general one, we believe) of how data collection under the DCR relates to fisheries advice, including ecosystem aspects. In these tables, an overview is given of the current and expected types of advice that are / may be requested from the advisory bodies, the data types needed to provide the scientific basis for each type of advice, and the data collection schemes available to obtain the required information.

Table 3.1 allows to identify the data needs for each type of fisheries advice, but also to see where the different types of data feed into the advisory system. Based on the information contained in Chapter 2, the following types of fisheries management advice could be identified:

• Advice on capacity and effort management.

• Advice on TAC and quota regulations.

• Advice on closed areas, closed seasons and marine protected areas (MPAs).

• Advice on technical measures with regards to the selective properties of fishing gears.

• Advice on ecosystem effects of fishing.

Within each of these, a distinction is made between the different types of analysis that are / may be required to provide the advice.

The right-hand side of Table 3.1 lists the data that are needed to underpin the analyses and hence, the management advice. Here, a distinction is made between:

• Data related to fishing activity:

- Fishing capacity. - Fishing effort. - Catch statistics, which means total removals, i.e. landings + discards. - Length composition data on the (commercial) removals. - Data on the occurrence (at least numbers and weight) of non-commercial

species (primarily fish) in the catches. This is the only data type which is not part yet of the DCR.

30

• Data related to populations:

- Fecundity. - Maturity and maturation. - Growth (i.e. length- and weight-at-age) and age-length keys (ALKs). - Sex ratio.

• Indices of recruitment, stock abundance, etc., derived from fishery-independent surveys at sea.

It should be clear that the position of the different data types in Table 3.1 also has implications with regards to the design of their collection schemes. Under the new DCR, fishery-related data should be collected