microsoft word - rcm medbs 2012...

EU DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK (DCF), REGULATIONS (EC) 199/2008, 665/2008 AND DECISION 2010/93/EU

Report of the 10th Regional Coordination

Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black

Sea 2013

(RCM Med&BS-2013)

Final version Report

Constanta, Romania 2-6, September 2013

RCM Med&BS Report 2013

Table of Contents

Executive summary ………………………………………………………………….. 1

1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 31.1. Background and legal requirements ………………………………………… 3

2. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2012 RCM and follow up of recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 42.1. Review and follow-up of RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendations …………2.2. Review the bilateral and multilateral agreements in place...............................2.3. Review of relevant outputs of LM 2012 ………………………………………….2.4. Review of outputs of PGMed 2013 …………………………………………….2.5. Review outputs from MEDIAS 2013...............................................................2.6. Review outputs from PGECON ………………………………………………….

3. Review feedback and recommendations from data end users and relevantRFMOs …………………………………………………………………………………..3.1. Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWG 13-12 Report3.2. Review feedback and recommendations from GFCM …………………………..

4. Regional coordination ………………………………………………………………3.3. Regional database: update/actual status since RCM 2012 …………………3.4. Proposals for ways in which the work of RCMs could be expanded under the

DC-MAP, to become RCG ………………………………………………………… 3.6. Proposals for cooperation activities between MSs that could be forward

for funding under the EMFF (Article 85) …………………………………….

5. Data quality issues5.1. Review progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP proposals ……..5.2. Review of relevant recommendation of EC to settle of Large Pelagic

Species …………………………………………………………………………..

6. EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020 ……..6.1. Provide feed back on the draft EU MAP 2014-2020 …………………………6.2. Prepare a roadmap for development of a regional sampling programme …

7. Studies and pilot projects ………………………………………………………….

8. Any other business …………………………………………………………………. 9. Summary of recommendations ……………………………………………………

10. References …………………………………………………………………………..

11. Annexes ………………………………………………………………………………

2


Executive summary

The 10th Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea [RCM Med&BS] (Chair: Constantin Stroie - Romania) was held in Constantza, Romania from 02-06 September 2013.

The meeting was attended by scientists from majority Mediterranean MSs, including the Chair of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development [PGMed] and the Chair of the Mediterranean Acoustic Surveys Working Group [MEDIAS WG], the Chair of the Steering Committee of Regional Data Base, as well as a representative of the European Commission. The meeting was planed and organized in the same location and period of time with RCM Long Distance Fisheries [RCM LDF] in order to settle the issue on large pelagic species outside the Mediterranean Sea, as per annex of EU Decision 93/2012 and EC recommendation.

The representation of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean [GFCM] was delegated to the Chair of Steering Committee for Regional Data Base. Also ICCAT organization was invited but no representative attended the meeting. Should be remarked the fact that 8 EU MS were represented from 10 EU MSs in the region, missing the representatives of Bulgaria and Cyprus. Despite the invitations sent to the other 4 riparian countries of the Black Sea and to Montenegro – Mediterranean Sea those states didn’t send any representative to the meeting.

The terms of reference [ToRs] of the meeting were based on the generic ToRs of all RCMs, agreed between the Chairs of the RCMs and the Commission, with some adaptations to suit the needs of the RCM Med&BS and focusing on the issues related with the DC MAP, i.e. the new legislation in the EC fisheries policy and the changes needed in data collection framework to be ensure the implementation of the new common fisheries policy of the EC for the next 2014-2020 cycle.

Next meeting will take place in Croatia, option one, or Greece, option two, pending on the final agreement of Croatia authorities to be sent to the Chair and EC.

1. Introduction

The 10th Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med&BS) was held in the National Institute for Marine Research and Development “ Grigore Antipa” Constantza, Romania from 02 to 06 September 2013. The meeting was attended by scientists from 8 Mediterranean MS (Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and Spain), including the Chair of PGMed and the Chair of MEDIAS, the Chair of Steering Committee for Regional data Base, representing also the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and a representative of the European Commission (Annex I). The missing countries were Bulgaria and Cyprus.

3


Before the meeting, the Chair of the RCM Med&BS were informed by the Commission that the coordination of large pelagic outside the Mediterranean Sea, which is in the merit of the RCM Long Distance Fisheries, was included in the ToRs of the 2013 Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med&BS), due to the necessity to settle the issue of Large Pelagic Species outside the Mediterranean on which RCM is responsible according to the EU legislation Decision 93/2010. It was therefore agreed that the RCM Long Distance Fisheries to be organized simultaneously and in the same location for this purpose and the EC representative thanked Romania for hosting both meetings.

Representatives from third countries (Montenegro, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and Georgia) and from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) were also invited but unfortunately no one attended the meeting.

RCMMed&BS appreciates the availability of SharePoint offered by ICES proving to be very efficient in organizing the all works related to the meeting.

1.1. Background & legal requirements

The EU Data Collection Framework (DCF) is the official framework of the EU/EC dedicated to data collection on economic, biological and transversal aspects in the fisheries sector of Member States. This multiannual programme is providing the basic data for the evaluation of the status of fishery resources and the fisheries, aquaculture and processing sector of the EU, as well as the support of management and use of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice for the CFP (EC Regulation no. 199/2008). The framework of data collection uses also the provisions of EC Regulation 665/2008, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, and its technical Decision 2010/93/UE. The data collection is coordinated at regional level and specific agreements are facilitating it between MSs sea areas (regional/basins) through various ways of standardization, collaboration and task sharing between. RCMs are held annually involving the MSs experts acting in fishing sector in the respective region. As per the denomination of this RCM – RCMMed&BS is including Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea community waters.

Additional terms of reference (addressed under ToR 5) were required by the EC: RCMs to propose a list of MS for which they agree that a change to the NP2014 is essential. Guidance how to implement the NP2014 - complete the table on NP2014-2016 state of play addressing the question on “how to understand and interpret the NP2014-2016”, both for MS and for STECF for the evaluation how MS implemented these NPs.Every RCM to give their opinion on whether it would be useful for MS to still have a list of “recommended” DCF meetings for 2014-2016 (equivalent to the list of eligible meetings) should be financed under the EMFF, on shared management; it is up to MS to decide on how they allocate their funding to meetings, and there will no longer be a list decided by the Commission, on which meetings are eligible or not for EU co-financing.

4


The ToRs (Annex II) of the meeting were based on the generic ToRs of all RCMs, agreed between the Chairs of the RCMs and the Commission, with some adaptations to suit the needs of the RCM Med&BS.

Large Pelagics (LP)

In 2012 the Large Pelagic species fishery were not reviewed by any RCM due to a misunderstandings and a lack of agreement on the competence for LP between the RCM Med&BS and the RCM LDF. Therefore, in 2013 the RCMs LDF and RCM Med&BS were hold together and a working group was formed to work on all Large Pelagics with the aim that the conclusions of their work be included in both reports of the RCM LD and the RCM Med&BS.

The RCM LDF and the RCM Med&BS participants recommended the creation of a single coordination sub-group on Large Pelagics dealing with all large pelagic fisheries, species and stocks issues, covering areas of competence of RCMs LDF, NA, Med&BS and all tunas RFMOs end users in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans (ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC and WCPFC).

It is suggested to expand the RCM “Med&BS” to the RCM “Med&BS & Large Pelagics”. This “expanded” RCM would then need to have two co-chairs, one for Mediterranean and BS and one for Large Pelagics.

Regarding the approach to a RDB, the members of the LP sub-group agreed that a standardization of formats and tools at the MS level should be a first step. Level of data aggregation and localization of a physical RDB will have to be considered in a second step. The Large Pelagics RDB Steering Committee shall be established in close cooperation with other Steering Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and systems between LP RDB and other RDBs.

The LP sub-group identified some areas of studies that would benefit from the financial support which could be provided under the EMFF (article 85). These areas include, i.e.: development of common tools for data collection and data management, coordination meeting between MS, tuna tagging program, aerial survey program.

The LP sub-group advises MS, which are involved in LP fisheries to validate their sampling programmes according to guidelines of WKPICS2.

The Large Pelagics sub-group recognizes that obligation of landings all catches may interfere with data collection approaches and protocols and in particular will impact observer programs which are designed for discard estimation. It is unknown on how this obligation will effectively be set in place in the different RFMOs because, e.g. some species are not authorized to be kept on board under RFMOs present regulation, the discard ban may not be in place in certain EEZs, obligation of landings all catches will allow estimation of all species caught during port but this will only be possible for the whole trip and not by fishing operation, most RFMOs request data at a fine spatial scale (5x5 or 1x1 degree squares) which is not possible to perform if all discards are landed together.

5


These constraints lead the Large Pelagics sub-group to consider that, at this time, observer programs will still be required to collect detailed scientific data on-board independently of captain declarations.

The RCM LDF made 3 recommendations, one Strategic comment and one suggestion to be reviewed by the 10th Liaison Meeting.

The present chair of the RCM LDF, Mr Irek Wojcik (PL) was re-elected as a chair for the next term and Mr Pierre Chavance (FR) was elected as a co-chair of the Large Pelagics sub-group within the RCM Med&BS.

2. Review and follow-up in regional co-ordination since the 2012 RCMMed&BS and follow up of recommendations

The progress achieved in regional coordination since the last RCM Med&BS was reviewed. A review was made on the follow-up of the recommendations of the RCM Med&BS 2012, a special attention being paid to the outputs of the 9th Liaison meeting, the outputs of PGMed 2013, MEDIAS, PGECON and Regional Data Base status analysis.

2.1 Review and follow-up of RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendations

The Recommendations of the last RCM Med&BS, as well as the relevant comments by the Liaison Meeting (LM) and the progress achieved as a follow-up are provided below.

1. On the role of RCM

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation

Considering the increased regional tasks and power of the RCMs under the EU MAP for data collection for 2014-2020, RCM Med& BS recommends that the current structure of the RCMs (i.e. the inclusion of national correspondents, economists and biologists) remains the same. The Group further recommends that PGMed continues functioning under the umbrella of the RCM Med& BS.

Follow-up actions neededResponsible persons for follow-up actions

DGMARE, LM, RCMMed&BS

The group found that the PGMED was hosted under the RCMMed&BS as decided.

2. Feedback from data end users: Time period for provision of data

6



RCM Med& BS, recalling its 2011 recommendation and also the STECF EWG 11-20 recommendation on a harmonized time period required for data to be available for transmission to end-users, recommends that the time period of 6 months following the end of the collection of transversal and biological data is respected by the data calls and the end users. In case this time period of 6 months continues not being respected by the data calls, the Group stresses the importance that the National Correspondents follow a common approach requesting the respect of this time period and NOT submit the data.


JRC, DG MARE, LM, MS, RCM Med& BS, National Correspondents.

Time frame (Deadline)

The group reconfirmed its previous position on data availability time period.

3. Review feedback from end-users: On the eligibility of GFCM meetings under DCF


The RCM Med& BS recommends GFCM to submit to the Group a list of its planned 2013 meetings, for identifying the meetings relevant to DCF and proposing their inclusion in the list of eligible meetings under the DCF for 2013. The Group was informed on the planned GFCM workshop that will be organized early 2013 for finalizing the structure and definitions of Task 1 & 2. The RCM Med&BS recommends that this workshop will be eligible under the DCF. MS are strongly recommended to participate in this workshop.


GFCM, RCM Med&BS, LM, DGMARE

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2012 LM

The group underlined that in the list of EC eligible meetings for 2013 included the WGs of GFCM, listed in the NPs. Unfortunately not the all

7


MSs attended those meetings. It was made a call to MSs participants to pay more attention in the future on attending the mentioned above meetings.

4. Metier-related variables: on the accuracy of geographical origin of landings and effort data


The RCM Med&BS recalls its 2008 recommendation and recommends MS to investigate the accuracy of the geographical origin of landings and effort data (using the VMS data where possible). This information should be reviewed during the next RCM Med & BS.


MS, RCM Med& BS

Time frame (Deadline) Before next RCM Med& BS

The Group underlined that the access to the data is under control regulation provisions and MSs are facing difficulties to access them. In some MSs there is no problem on using those kind of data, and where possible and feasible also the use of ERS data is considered to fulfill the commitments to EC.

5. Metier related variables - on the planned minimum number of fish to be measured


RCM Med&BS recommends that in the future NPs the planned minimum no. of fish to be measured for métier related variables will not be required. Since the métier related variables are required to be collected during concurrent sampling, the Group considers that only the proposed and actual number of trips for concurrent sampling should be requested.


DG MARE, STECF, LM

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DCMAP

This issue will be raised for analyze of STECF EWG and Commisssion dedicated to the new DC MAP.

6. Métier related variables: East Atlantic Bluefin tuna

8



Concerning the east bluefin tuna stock (Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean sea), the RCM Med&BS appreciates the progress achieved with the provision of metier-related data (length) from MS participating in RCM LDF (Portugal, France, Spain) to the PGMed chair. However, the Group recommends that the data are provided according to the required data format, in order to be actually utilized for a complete estimation of the relevant CV of the bluefin tuna.

Follow-up actions needed Transmission of data to PGMed chairResponsible persons for follow-up actions

MS (France, Spain and Portugal), RCM LDF chair, PGMed chair

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2013 PGMed meeting

This recommendation was applied by the implied MSs.

7. Workshop on large pelagic


RCM Med&BS reiterates the 2011 recommendation by RCM Med&BS and RCM LDF on a joined workshop among ICCAT representatives, scientists involved

9


in large pelagic sampling, as well as representatives from RCM LDF and RCM MED&BS for harmonizing the biological sampling issues on large pelagic and specifying additional data or modifications that should be included in the future DC-MAP, taking into account the ICCAT requirements for stock assessment.


DG MARE; Liaison meeting; STECF; RCM LDF; RCM MED&BS; ICCAT; MS


Taking into account the establishment of the group for large pelagic under the RCMMed&BS, the issue will be coordinated by the Co-chair of this group in cooperation with RCM LDF to jointly mete the needs of end users: ICCAT, EC, etc.

8. Stock related variables: Development of ICCAT reporting forms for submitting data on large pelagic


RCM Med&BS endorses therecommendation made by PGMed on the development of reporting forms by ICCAT Secretariat for submitting information on individual stock-related variables - length, weight, sex, maturity and age estimation for the large pelagic, and awaits DG MARE to contact and collaborate with ICCAT on the development of the forms.


DG MARE; ICCAT

The Group expressed its hopes that DG MARE, under the new DC MAP, will settle the issue harmonization of the forms with ICCAT.

9. On the usefulness of CV as a quality indicator

RCM Med&BS 2012 RCM Med& BS considers that the


Recommendation calculation of the CV is a poor indicator for quality. Considering also that this value is not being assessed by the end-users, it is recommended that the future DC-MAP will not include the CVs as a quality indicator.

Follow-up actions neededResponsible persons for follow-up DG MARE, STECF, LM

Despite the numerous debates on various EWG on the usefulness of CV as a quality indicator, in the last STECF EWG 13-07 dedicated to the evaluation of the annual MSs Reports the problem persisted. So, many MSs were required to calculate and to explain the methodologies used, as per EC letter sent to National Correspondents. The group considers DG MARE to clarify the issue, so that MSs to not be taken responsible on the missing such indicators in their annual reports, and Commission will abstain on applying financial reduction related to this issue.

10. On the regional database


The Group agreed that the MED&BS RDB will include biological and transversal data. It was decided that economic and survey data will be excluded for the time being from the RDB, following the decision by PGECON to develop one European Database for including economic and transversal data from all supra-regions. The Group agreed that the Mediterranean & Black Sea regional database could be hosted by GFCM and that the Steering Committee for the development of the RDB will include 1 person per MS, 2 economists for the transversal data, the Chairs of Medias and Medits and a GFCM representative. It was further agreed that the RDB steering group will be represented at the planned GFCM Workshop for the finalization of GFCM Task 1 and Task 2.


DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM MED&BS, GFCM



The issue was approached under dedicated chapter of the Report – 4.2. Any way should be underline the fact that GFCM is not so cooperative with MSs on the region, considering data transmission as per their needs, and as a consequence the EC is applying financial reduction to MSs in their National Program, because of that, despite the fact GFCM didn’t launched the call for such Workshop dedicated for the finalization of GFCM Task 1 and 2, even before the date of RCMMEd&BS meeting in September 2013. EC is kindly asked to reconsider its position versus to all MSs, facing this problem, and to react accordingly to GFCM in clarifying its possibilities/availabilities on the way for the settlement of this issue in a positive manner, so that it will have the arguments to abstain in financial reduction application to those MSs for Annual Reports 2012.

11. Implementation of a Large Pelagics RDB

RCM 2012 Recommendation The RCM recommends the implementation of a large pelagics RDB

Follow-up actions needed Organisation of a regional meeting (included in NP 2013) for discussing the prototype prepared by IRD and drafting a multiannual plan 2014-2020

Responsible persons for follow-up actions

IRD, DG MARE, LM, RCMs, RDB-SC

Time frame (Deadline) July 2013actionsTime frame (Deadline) Before the new DC-MAP

The issue should be in the attention of the EC to be finalized under the new DC MAP, taking into account till now the negotiation with GFCM and works of RDB SC in such respect are pending on the conditions of GFCM to host, in general a data base for the region, including in the future the large pelagics, in one hand, and, in the other hand, the new EU legislation and financial envelop will be decided the next year.

2.2 Review the bilateral and multilateral agreements in place

Two documents were prepared by the Commission for helping RCMs to review bilateral and multilateral agreements between Member states in their region.

- the first one was a table of recommendations from RCMs and LMs that concern agreements, including an assessment on whether these recommendations have been fulfilled by MSs.

- the second was a compilation of bilateral and multilateral agreements listed by MS in addition of their Annual report 2012.

RCMs were asked to update these documents as far as possible based on the knowledge of their participants and to mention if new agreements will be settled for next years.


Following agreements were reviewed:

1) Bulgaria and Romania signed a bilateral agreement in 2010 on detailed actions to be carried out for the collection of biological data and the common scientific surveys and on the sharing of these works and the related expenses.The first implementation of the agreement occurred in 2012 but stopped in 2013 due to BG financial difficulties not allowing performing 2013 joint pelagic surveys as initially planned. Otherwise RO carried out accordingly the demersal surveys on the common continental shelf of the both MS but also one pelagic survey in its national waters on national funding.On the other hand, although the exploitation of sprat stock at regional level is unsustainable (2012 STECF/SGMed report) but taking in account the low level of BG catch lasts years, BG considers that sprat stock in BG waters is exploited sustainably with quantities a half under the determined TAC and that, for this reason, it is not necessary to perform pelagic surveys each year.As the agreement finishes in 2013, RCM Med&BS hopes the cooperation between BG and RO will continue under new rules. So the Group proposes:

- MEDIAS Working Group to analyse BG consideration and its proposal to perform pelagic surveys in a longer term basis.

- EC to redefine with MSs a more adequate sharing of the costs based for example on a well-balanced financial contribution of each country.

2) Malta and Cyprus agreement on collection of biological métiers variables from catch and landings of CY trawlers involved in the shared métier "Bottom otter trawl targeting mixed demersal and deep sea species in GSA 15".This agreement is well implemented since 2009 and will continue for next years until further notice.

3) RCM-Med&BS multilateral agreement on large pelagic species.This agreement involves Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Greece nd Cyprus. Croatia could be concerned also as from 2014. It defines yearly sampling intensities for estimation of métiers and stocks variables for 5 LPF species and the numbers of specimens to be sampled by each MS according to their importance in these shared fisheries. Since 2009, PGMed is in charge to calculate yearly the allocation of sampling effort between MS on this Mediterranean-wide basis.The agreement will be applied next years until further notice.

No new agreement for next period 2014-2016 was notified to RCM Med&BS. Excel tables on agreements were updated accordingly.

Collaboration between MS exists also for scientific surveys (vessels sharing for example). RCM Med&BS is of opinion that these ways of collaboration do not require bilateral agreements, as MEDITS and MEDIAS Working Groups are already in charge of the coordination of these international surveys.

Recommendation

Bilateral & Multilateral agreements – Bulgaria and Romania



RCM considers as first importance the updating of the agreement between BG and RO. So the Group recommends:- MEDIAS Working Group to analyse on which optimal temporal basis pelagic surveys must be conducted in Black sea waters. - EC to define with MSs an effective procedure and a well-balanced sharing of the costs between the both countries.

Follow-up actions needed Implementation of a new BG-RO agreement from 2014.


MS (Bulgaria, Romania), MEDIAS WG and RCM Med&BS chairs, EC

Time frame (Deadline) End of 2013.

In the Annex VIII could be seen all information on the bilateral and multilateral agreements in the Mediterranean and Black seas.

2.3 Review of relevant outputs of LM 2012*** On the role of RCMRCM Med&BS Recommendation

Considering the increased regional tasks and power of the RCMs under the EU MAP for data collection for 2014-2020, RCM Med& BS recommends that the current structure of the RCMs ( i.e. the inclusion of national correspondents, economists and biologists) remains the same. The Group further recommends that PGMed continues functioning under the umbrella of the RCM Med&BS.

Follow-up actions needed

LM to approve


DGMARE, LM, RCM Med&BS

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DCMAPLM 2012 comments Given the evolution of PGCCDBS and PGMED, LM suggests to

consider these 2 groups amalgamate into 1 Planning Group to facilitate future work in an efficient way. One option would be to cover this group under an ICES/GFCM MoU. Another option can be to bring this group under the STECF umbrella. Regarding the recommendation from RCM Med&BS, LM is of the opinion that pending the upcoming changes in regional coordination procedures, the current structure should not be changed.

The Group approved the Recommendation of 2013 PG MED, to remain under the umbrella of RCMMed&BS. See chapter 2.4. of the Report

*** Feedback from data end users: Time period for provision of dataRCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation

RCM Med&BS, recalling its 2011 recommendation and also the STECF EWG 11-20 recommendation on a harmonized time period required for data to be available for transmission to end-users, recommends that the time period of 6 months following the end of the collection of transversal and biological data is respected by the


data calls and the end users. In case this time period of 6 months continues not being respected by the data calls, the Group stresses the importance that the National Correspondents follow a common approach requesting the respect of this time period and NOT submit the data.


LM to consider


JRC, DG MARE, LM, MS, RCM Med&BS, National Correspondents.

Time frame (Deadline)LM 2012 comments LM doesn't endorse this recommendation. This issue should be

taken up between the Commission and MS involved while taking into account current agreements in RCM Med&BS as well as current and future regulations and legal obligations.

9th LM 2012 - Final Report

Considering the necessities of data compilation for bio, eco, effort and transversal variables, in some cases, based on accounting registers of the companies, the Group notes MSs will act accordingly, indicating this option in National Programs

16


Metier-related variables: on the accuracy of geographical origin of landings and effort dataRCM MED&BS 2012 Recommendation

The RCM MED&BS recalls its 2008 recommendation and recommends MS to investigate the accuracy of the geographical origin of landings and effort data (using the VMS data where possible). This information should be reviewed during the next RCM MED&BS


Forward to MS


MS, RCM Med& BS


Before next RCM Med& BS

LM 2012 comments LM supports the recommendation.PG MED will address this issue in 2014 meeting.

***Metier related variables - on the planned minimum number of fish to be measuredRCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation

RCM Med&BS recommends that in the future NPs the planned minimum no. of fish to be measured for métier related variables will not be re quired. Since the métier related variables are required to be collected during concurrent sampling, the Group considers that only the proposed and actual number of trips for concurrent sampling should be requested.


Forward for approval to responsible bodies


DG MARE, STECF, LM


Prior to the NEW DCMAP

LM 2012 comments LM recommends that the overview of numbers of fish to be measured is not evaluated by STECF as this number is not required by the regulation. (Table III_C_5, column J (planned no. of fish aged/measured))

The Group fully agreed and cvs exclusion and to ask to the EC to introduce this on the new DCMAP and to be discussed in the LM.

17

Métier related variables: East Atlantic Bluefin tuna


Concerning the east bluefin tuna stock (Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean sea), the RCM Med&BS appreciates the progress achieved with the provision of metier-related data (length) from MS participating in RCM LDF (Portugal, France, Spain) to the PGMed chair. However, the Group recommends that the data are provided according to the required data format, in order to be actually utilized for a complete estimation of the relevant CV of the bluefin tuna.


Transmission of data to PGMed chair


MS (France, Spain and Portugal), RCM LDF chairs, PGMed chair

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2013 PGMed meetingLM 2012 comments LM did not consider this as it was not a key recommendationHarmonization of data of the Med MSs with Atlantic MSs – PG MED analyze and presentation in the next RCMMed&BS from 2014 will include Subgroup for Large Pelagics = for RCMED only

*** Workshop on large pelagicsRCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation

RCM Med&BS reiterates the 2011 recommendation by RCM Med&BS and RCM LDF on a joined workshop among ICCAT representatives, scientists involved in large pelagic sampling, as well as representatives from RCM LDF and RCM MED&BS for harmonizing the biological sampling issues on large pelagic and specifying additional data or modifications that should be included in the future DCMAP, taking into account the ICCAT requirements for stock assessment.


DG MARE; Liaison meeting; STECF; RCM LDF; RCM MED&BS; ICCAT; MS

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DCMAPLM 2012 comments LM doesn't endorse this recommendation as LM considers this as a

task for the RCMs. The RCM should invite the relevant end-user to the to deal with this issue. Given the confusion which RCM is dealing with large pelagics. LM requests the Commission in cooperation with the relevant chairs to provide the RCM LDF and RCM Med&BS with a final conclusion where large pelagics are dealt with. The deadline for this decision is the December NC - meeting where the decision will be announced.

The Group considers the LDF is to adrress this isuue should be included in the RCM frame work and discussions on LM.


Stock related variables: Development of ICCAT reporting forms for submitting data on large pelagic


RCM Med&BS endorses the recommendation made by PGMed on the development of reporting forms by ICCAT Secretariat for submitting information on individual stock-related variables - length, weight, sex, maturity and age estimation for the large pelagic, and awaits DG MARE to contact and collaborate with ICCAT on the development of the forms.


DG MARE; ICCAT

Time frame (Deadline)LM 2012 comments LM did not consider this as it was not a key recommendation

It was agreed to maintain the recommendation for the next 2014 RCMMED.

*** On the usefulness of CV as a quality indicatorRCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation

RCM Med&BS considers that the calculation of the CV is a poor indicator for quality. Considering also that this value is not being assessed by the end-users, it is recommended that the future DCMAP will not include the CVs as a quality indicator.


Forward to DG MARE


DG MARE, STECF, LM

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DC-MAPLM 2012 comments Pending the current developments towards the DCMAP, LM

doesn't agree with this recommendation. The issue of quality indicators will be dealt with in the proper forum in the near future.

The Group agreed that it is recommended that the future DCMAP will not include the CVs as a quality indicator.

19


*** On the regional databaseRCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation

The Group agreed that the Med&BS RDB will include biological and transversal data. It was decided that economic and survey data will be excluded for the time being from the RDB, following the decision by PGECON to develop one European Database for including economic and transversal data from all supra-regions. The Group agreed that the Med&BS RDB could be hosted by GFCM and that the Steering Committee for the development of the RDB will include1 person per MS, economists for the transversal data, the Chairs of Medias and Medits and a GFCM representative. It was further agreed that the RDB Steering group will be represented at the planned GFCM Workshop for the finalization of GFCM Task 1 and Task 2.


Forward to DG MARE



Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DCMAPLM 2012 comments LM notes that GFCM will cover the data for the BS area as well. LM

supports the recommendation and suggests that a representative from the Med&BS RDB participates in the RDB FishFrame Steering Committee. However, LM notes the different approaches in selecting members for the steering committees as well as the approval procedures for proposals from the committees. LM suggests the steering committees to streamline the procedures in cooperation with the Commission to prevent both groups to develop own procedures.

The RCMed&BS agreed that EC to allocate funds in order to support RdBMed&BS. SCRDB will make proposal for the up-loading system in RDB under negotiations with GFCM (software, formats, terms etc). RCM recommends the up-loading the data by MSs in RDB is made compulsory through inclusion in the legal text of the DC MAP; this issue will be addressed to LM.

*** Implementation of a Large Pelagics RDBRCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation The RCM recommends the implementation of a large pelagics RDB


Organization of a regional meeting (included in NP 2013) for discussing the prototype prepared by IRD and drafting a multiannual plan 2014-2020


IRD, DG MARE, LM, RCMs, RDB-SC

Time frame (Deadline) July 2013LM 2012 comments In general, LM stresses that the number of databases should be

limited. LM can't assess the need for (a specific) RDB for large pelagics due to the limited background information available. The Commission is asked to specify the need for this database and if a RDB is needed, a dedicated RDB Large Pelagic Steering group shall be established in close cooperation with other Steering Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and systems between the different RDBs, according to LDF approach.

2.4. Review outputs of PGMed 2013

20


The Chair of PGMed outlined the ToRs of the last PGMed 2013 stressing the following:- Ranking system following regional harmonization of the metiers at level 6 – Review of work achieved during PGMed 2013The Chair of PGMed presented the results of the regional ranking system performed for the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea separately (see also PGMed 2013 report).For the Mediterranean, the ranking system was performed using as reference the average values of landings and effort using 2010 and 2011 as reference years, for those countries in which these data was available (Cyprus, Spain, Malta and Slovenia). For France and Italy, years used were the most recent available (2009-2010 and 2010, respectively) and in the case of Greece, as last available data were from 2008, it was not considered in the analysis. There was no information on economic value for France. Thirteen métiers were selected at Mediterranean level (see table below). In most cases, these métiers were already selected in previous years, being the most important métiers consistent along time.From PGMed 2013 Report: Table 1.4. Summary showing métiers selected by the ranking systems based on landings and effort in 2010-11 for the Mediterranean region and segmented according to Appendix VII of EC 2010/93/EU and comparison with the 2008-09 and 2009-10 ranking results. E: Total effort as days at sea; L: landings (tons) ‚ X: metier has been selected by the ranking system.

Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

L2008-2009

L2009-2010

L2010-2011

E2008-2009

E2009-2010

E 2010-2011

Purse seine [PS] Small pelagic fish >=14 X X X X X X

Bottom otter trawl [OTB] Demersal species >=40 X X X X X X

Trammel net [GTR] Demersal species >=16 X X X X X X

Pelagic pair trawl [PTM] Small pelagic fish >=20 X X X

Set gillnet [GNS] Demersal species >=16 X X X X X X

Boat dredge [DRB] Molluscs X X X X X

Set longlines [LLS] Demersal fish (a) X X X X X

Bottom otter trawl [OTB]

Mixed demersal species and deep water species

>=40 X X X X X X

Drifting longlines [LLD]

Large pelagic fish (a) X X X

Pots and traps [FPO] Demersal species (a) X X X

Midwater otter trawl [OTM]

Mixed demersal and pelagic species

>=20 X

21


Bottom otter trawl [OTB]

Deep water species >=40 X

Hand and Pole lines [LHP][LHM]

Cephalopods (a) X

For the Black Sea, the ranking system was performed at the regional level using as reference the average landings, effort and value data of the years 2010-2011 from Romania and 2009-2010 for Bulgaria. Four métiers were selected at Black Sea level (see table below), all of the selected in the previous years.

From PGMed 2013 Report: Table 1.8. Mètiers selected by the ranking systems in the Black Sea region and segmented according to Appendix VII of 2010/93/EU. E: Total effort (days at sea); V: value (€); L: landings (tons).‚ X: metier has been selected by the ranking system.

Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

L2008-2009

L2009-2010

L2010-2011

E2008-2009

E2009-2010

E 2010-2011

Midwater otter trawl

[OTM]

Mixed demersal and pelagic

species

13-20** X X X X X X

Stationary uncovered pound nets

[FPN]

Large pelagic fish (a) X X X

Set gillnet [GNS] Demersal species 360-

400** X X X

Set longlines [LLS] Demersal fish (a) X X

Set gillnet [GNS]

Small and large pelagic fish >=16 X X X

Pots and traps [FPO] Demersal species (a) X

The RCMMed&BS notice that it would be necessary to have the most updated data in order to a better approach to the regional ranking system. Following the changes of the future PGMed, the call for data should be done by the RCM chair and not only to the potential participants to the meeting, but also to the National Correspondants, in order to ensure the most updated data. Also, it was suggested that the data from the Official Data Calls launched by the JRC could be used for the PGMed, if necessary.

Data Calls PGMed and use of dataRCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation

The RCMMed&BS recommends that the Data Calls for the PGMed would be launched by the chair of the CMMed&BS. It also recommends that, when necessary, some specific

22


data could be asked to the JRC, as responsible of the Official Data Calls for the Mediterranean and Black Sea, in order to be sure that the most recent information is available.


MSs, PGMed, RCMMed&BS, JRC, DGMARE

Time frame (Deadline) Starting in 2014

- On the future of the PGMed The chair of the PGMed showed an ICES presentation about the future of Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS). This discussion in the ICES area comes after the increasing competences of PGCCDBS over time as well as after the proposal for creation of two new Working Groups, WGCATCH (WGCATCH, which will carry on the work of PGCCBDS, WKPICS and SGPIDS in areas of work related to commercial fishery sampling and analysis) and WGBIOP (based on the extension of WKNARC, and the equivalent work conducted within PGCCDBS, to support the development and quality assurance of regional and national provision of biological parameters as reliable input data to stock assessment and advice).Three options have been explored for the future:1) no changes to the present structures, keeping the PGCCDBS and avoiding the creation of WGCATCH and WGBIOP2) formation of WGCATCH and WGBIOP and retaining a much reduced PGCCDBS with responsibilities for steering the work of data collection related matter in the ICES area3) cessation of PGCCDBS but strengthening and extending the role of the Liaison Meeting (as a Liaison Group) as a steering group.As the RCMMed&BS cannot interfere in the ICES decision to be taken, the discussions were related to how these schemes could affect the future of the PGMed. However, as the most likely option seems to be option 2, the RCMMed&BS planned the future of the PGMed based on it. The main conclusions were:

- To maintain the PGMed as the methodological group as it is, keeping the kind of work developed there, and still under the RCMMed&BS umbrella.

- To constrain the work carried out by the PGMed in only two days.- The PGMed should meet in time right before the RCMMed&BS, during the

same week (PGMed: Monday-Tuesday and RCMMed&BS: Wednesday-Friday) in order to facilitate the collaboration among both groups.

Following the suggestion from PGMed 2013, the RCMMed&BS appointed Tristan Rouyer (IFREMER, France) as new PGMed chair for the period 2014-2016.

LM: Future of PGMedRCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation

The RCMMed&BS recommends maintaining the PGMed as the methodological group as it is, keeping the kind of work developed there, and still under the RCMMed&BS umbrella.

23


It also recommends to constrain the work carried out by the PGMed in only two days, meeting right before the RCMMed&BS, even during the same week (PGMed: Monday-Tuesday and RCMMed&BS: Wednesday-Friday)


Liaison Meeting, DGMARE

Time frame (Deadline) Before 2014

- List of recommended meetings:

LM: On the list of recommended meetingsRCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation

The RCMMed&BS recommends the EU to create a list of recommended meetings related to the DCF, and later to the DC-MAP, and circulate it among the MS in order to facilitate the selection of meetings to be attended by experts. This list should be based on the 2013 list of eligible meetings and cover aspects related to the data collection of commercial catches, discards, surveys, stock assessment and coordination.


LM, DGMARE

Time frame (Deadline) Before the end of 2013

RCMMed&BS agreed the Terms of Reference for the next meeting of PGMED in 2014 that will take place in the first two days before the meeting in 2014 of RCMMed&BS, as mentioned above. See Annex III of the report.

2.5. Review outputs from MEDIAS 2013

The Chair of MEDIAS presented the outcomes of the 6th Annual Steering Committee Meeting of the MEDIAS surveys, held in Capo Granitola, Italy, in the period 8-11 April 2013 (MEDIAS 2013).

Participants in the meeting were representatives from European Union countries involved in acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. Greece, Italy, Slovenia, France and Spain) as well as a representative from the EU country (Romania) operating in the Black Sea, one scientist from Croatia, as an EU candidate country, two scientists from Morocco working on fisheries acoustics in Mediterranean and

24


Atlantic Sea, and one scientist from Turkey. The aims of the 6th MEDIAS meeting were:

to present the results of the Pan-Mediterranean Pelagic survey (MEDIAS) carried out in 2012;

to coordinate the MEDIAS surveys to be performed in 2013; to improve and update the common Protocol for the MEDIAS acoustic

surveys that is incorporated in the DCF and reflected in the MEDIAS Handbook;

to update the table of “Ecosystem Indicators available from acoustic surveys”; to present and discuss the recommendations from the “Mediterranean &

Black Sea Regional Database (Med&BS RDB) meeting”; to present the results of the MAREA/MEDISEH project; to revise the ToRs from 2013 and to establish the ToRs for 2014; to elect the new chairman of the steering committee.

Mediterranean Acoustic Surveys (MEDIAS) carried out in 2012 by the MEDIAS partners in the Adriatic Sea, in the Gulf of Lions, in the Strait of Sicily, along the Iberian coast, in Maltese waters and in the Aegean Sea were presented, as well as results from acoustic surveys performed by Croatia in the Adriatic Sea, Morocco in the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea and Turkey in the Black Sea.

Specific Terms of Reference for the “MEDIAS 2013” were Update MEDIAS handbook; Develop the MEDIAS Website; To Agree on a code list for the common database; To work on common procedures to estimate a coefficient variation for

acoustic estimates; To Work on procedures to filter echograms to improve acoustic estimates.

A workshop on the use of Echoview software tools was carried out in the first two days of the meeting with the participation of two experts from Myriax LTD. A common workflow for acoustic data processing was discussed, also on the basis of the procedures adopted and the results obtained during the Echoview workshop. Taking into account the results of such workshop, a general discussion on the revision of the common MEDIAS protocol and an update of the MEDIAS handbook was carried out (see Annex IV of the Report of 6th meeting for MEDIterranean

25


Acoustic Surveys).

During the 2013 meeting a preliminary version of the MEDIAS website was presented. It has been developed by means of Joomla, i.e. one of the most popular and flexible Content Management System (CMS), and is temporarily hosted on a test server (http://140.164.26.221/medias/website/). The MEDIAS website will be revised and updated every year.

The abilities of currently applied MEDIAS surveys to contribute towards an ecosystem based management approach in relation to the current and the future DCF requirements was extensively discussed based on 2012 initial discussion and agreement. Certain ecosystem indicators that can derive from acoustic surveys were discussed and proposed. Moreover ecosystem indicators that can be provided, either on a regular basis (based on data regularly collected and analyzed) or on a potential basis (depending on survey peculiarities and available funding), were reviewed and proposed.

In the framework of the AcousMed project as well as MEDIAS meetings, a common database design has been concluded for all MEDIAS surveys (See ANNEX B of the MEDIAS Handbook). The MEDIAS Steering Committee agreed on the use of this database framework to store acoustic, biological and environmental data collected within the acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea.The Steering Committee agreed on the needs to realize soon the MEDIAS database but all the participants highlighted the importance to obtain additional funds for the completion of the database.Concerning the proposals of the Mediterranean & Black Sea Regional Database (Med&BS RDB) group, the MEDIAS Steering Committee decided to maintain the MEDIAS database separate from the MEDITS one and to include a simple link into the Med&BS-RDB. The decision is mainly linked to the particular structure of the acoustic data and to the procedures adopted for estimating pelagic fish biomass. The Steering Committee worked also on a list of fields of the MEDIAS database to include in the “Common section” of the Med&BS-RDB.

The work done within the MEDISEH project, funded by DG MARE and assigned to MAREA consortium, was presented. MEDISEH refers to DG MARE Specific Contract No 2 (SI2.600741) "Compilation and mapping of environmental and fisheries related information in the Mediterranean Sea by means or Geographical Information Systems (GIS)". In particular, concerning small pelagics (i.e., Engraulis encrasicolus, Sardina pilchardus, Scomber colias, Scomber scombrus, Trachurus trachurus, Trachurus mediterraneus) available acoustic surveys, ichthyoplankton surveys and MEDITS bottom trawl surveys were used where appropriate to apply spatial analysis techniques in order to identify suitable locations for fish nurseries and spawning grounds throughout the Mediterranean basin. Persistent habitat maps with persistent, occasional and rare habitat areas were presented to the MEDIAS group. Difficulties encountered, gaps in knowledge and potential for improvement were presented and discussed. Comments for improvement were made from the participants that were encouraged to participate in the related publications of the project.

The procedures for estimating a coefficient of variation for acoustic estimates were

26

http://140.164.26.221/medias/website/


presented and discussed by the participants to the meeting. The MEDIAS Steering Committee agreed to propose a specific workshop for working on data and defining a common procedure to evaluate the coefficient of variation for acoustic estimates. In the first approximation the CV should take into account only for sampling design error. It was decided to carry out the workshop during the next 7th MEDIAS meeting.

The MEDIAS partners reiterated the studies previously proposed:1. Inter-calibration exercise by the MEDIAS research vessels (see

RCMMed&BS 2011 Report);2. “Ex situ” experiment for TS measurement on anchovy (Engraulis

encrasicolus) and sardine (Sardina pilchardus) (see RCMMed&BS 2012 Report).

The following ToRs were proposed for the 2014 MEDIAS MeetingGeneral:

- To join and harmonize the ongoing acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea;

- To provide information for management decisions;- To provide input for stock assessment purposes concerning the stocks

which are internationally managed. Specific:

- Update MEDIAS handbook; - Update the MEDIAS Website; - Update the structure of the common database; - Update the workflow for the analysis of the echograms; - To work on acoustic data analysis for the estimation of CV in a

standardized way. Following the presentation, the RCM Med&BS 2013 endorsed the proposed ToRs for the next MEDIAS Meeting.Proposal on MEDIAS survey area:

Enlargement of pelagic survey (Medias)RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation Considering the tasks addressed by the

Chair of the Medias survey and following the output of the Medias Steering Committee, the RCMMed&BS recommends the enlargement of the MEDIAS survey in the GSA 9 (Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Sea) and GSA 10 (Central and Southern Tyrrhenian Sea) starting from 2014, and the increase of the number of vessel days in the French waters (Gulf of Lions, GSA 7).The echosurvey in the GSA 9 and GSA 10, will permit to assess the small pelagic resources, mainly anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and sardine (Sardina pilchardus), that in this area are economically relevant.


27



Liaison Meeting; DGMARE; MS


The Chair of MEDIAS stressed the importance to enlarge the MEDIAS survey area in the Tyrrhenian sea (GSAs 9 and 10). The echosurvey will permit to monitor the small pelagic resources, mainly anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and sardine (Sardina pilchardus), that in this area are economically relevant.

During the RCMMed&BS 2012 meeting in Madrid (Spain) such enlargement of the survey area was declared eligible under the new DC-MAP (see RCMMed&BS 2012 Report).

The proposed echosurvey in GSAs 9 and 10 will be carried out by IAMC-CNR, one of the Italian participants to the MEDIAS Project, according to the “Common protocol for the Pan-MEDiterranean Acoustic Survey (MEDIAS)”.

The Chair of MEDIAS highlighted also the importance to increase the number of vessel days in the French waters (GSA 7) for covering also the sea area between the Gulf of Lion and the Italian border.

Waiting for the new DC-MAP with an adjustment of total number of vessel days, the Chair of MEDIAS proposed the enlargement of the MEDIAS survey area in the GSAs 9 and 10 beginning from 2014, and the increase of the number of vessel days in the French waters (GSA 7). Moreover, taking into consideration enlargement of EU by accession of the Republic of Croatia from 1st July 2013, the MEDIAS Coordination Committee released also the enlargement of survey area in the Adriatic Sea (GSA 17), and need for an adjustment of total number of vessel days within MEDIAS framework was highlighted.

Since the Croatian national acoustic survey for 2013 and 2014 will be funded by EU, the Chair of Medias proposed for the DC-MAP an adjustment of total number of vessel days by adding 30 vessel days for the acoustic survey in the eastern part of Adriatic Sea in GSA 17.

2.6. Review outputs from PGECON

- Economic and Socio-economic DataRCM reviewed the STECF WG 13-05 report. RCM agreed on the general approach to define a core set of variables identified as necessary and a few other variables to be included as optional. RCM considered useful the publication of the glossary on economic terms in the Master Reference Register.

The group discussed the proposal to include social variables in the DCMAP and agreed on the utility of collecting such data. Nevertheless, RCM agreed with EWG 13-05 that before social data are included in the new DCMAP a pilot study should be conducted how data should be collected, which data are available through

28


common sources and what are the applications/end users and requirements.

RCM recommended that the level of aggregation of the social and economic data of the fishing fleet must be specified in the DC MAP. RCM also considered necessary to develop models to provide data at a more disaggregated level.

The group also suggested to introduce a system to upload data to the centralised database at regular intervals and fixed deadlines instead of having data calls. RCM suggested that deadlines for submission of data should be suggested by PGECON and included in the legal text.

- Transversal DataTransversal data are essential information for providing scientific advice and for implementing sound sampling plans. Over the last ten years, Mediterranean Members States have developed different approaches (sampling surveys, fixed panels, declarative forms) to collect this information and to ensure reliable data and complete coverage of the fishing operations.

In drafting the new DC-MAP, RCM considered essential to ensure the comparability over time and to keep time series. Therefore, any changes in the requirements and in the methodological approaches should be careful evaluated.

RCM recommended that the commitment to collect transversal data should be maintained in the DC-MAP. DC-MAP should also ensure that MS applies the most suitable methodologies to estimate them.

- Control DataThe group discussed the use of control data for the purpose of DCMAP and concluded that these data can be used only if these data are made available at much disaggregated level (for instance, individual logbook data should be complemented by sales notes because of the derogations in logbook provisions - only catches more than 50 kilos). Moreover, the use of control data implies to undertake processes of validation and verification of these data if used for scientific purposes.

In addition, the group underlined that the main issue to be solved refers to confidentiality. In order to carry out the DC-MAP data collection, involved public bodies/institutes in charge of the implementation of the national programme should have timely access to all primary data coming from the control regulation. The group considered that at present this is not feasible because of the provisions of the control regulation on the Confidentiality of professional and commercial secrecy (article 113 Reg. CE 1224/09).

RCM recommended that the issue of confidentiality of control data is addressed and solved before introducing a commitment in the DCMAP that obliges MS to make use of these data for the DC-MAP requirements.

3. Review feedback and recommendations from data end users and relevant RFMOs, STCEF.

29


3.1 Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWG 13-12 Report

As per the STECF EWG Report 13-12 DCF Part 2, the group stressed the importance on the access to data collected according to the control regulation; delegations invoked the necessity that the new DC MAP/Regulation should clearly state the free access to this type of data for the scientists involved in DCF, especially, for the effort, VMS data, and information of from control sampling plan results/reports even the confidentiality principle is still used at national level for the restrictions occurred during past years.Special attention was paid for data collected based on surveys at sea being underlined the necessity of the regional approach for the list of surveys and its periodical review. A special question was discussed related to the availability of funding, till now the most difficult issue referring to the unknown amount will be allocated under EMFF for each country for the evaluation of the needed money; the proposals of new surveys are reflected in the corresponding chapter of this report.Referring to the discards ban in the new regulation of CFP and the increasing number of indicators for assessing the impact of fishery to environment, it was token on discussions the needs of clear definition and agreed methodologies should be applied that need to be included in guidelines for the next DC MAP.On the aquaculture and processing challenges for 2014-2020 it was stressed the importance of clear definitions should be included in the DC MAP and the fair evaluation of the number and importance of indicators in the next period. The relevant EWGs must be requested to clarify their proposals soonest possible, so that in the next NPs experts of MSs had the possibility to design properly their sampling schemes, at regiona/national level, involving the relevant bodies.The Group agreed to support the organization of EWGs on possible definitions for possible threshold for data collection as per the specificity of each status at national level, and regional coordinated.

3.2 Review feedback and recommendations from GFCMGFCM was contacted as an end-user of the DCF data by the European Commission in order to put forward suggestions related to the new DC-MAP proposal. As the RFMO for the Mediterranean and Black Sea, the RCM Med&BS recognizes the importance of GFCM for the management of shared stocks in this area. The Commission’s approach for GFCM to give its review on the new DC-MAP is a step forward towards acknowledging GFCM’s importance towards harmonizing management of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, including both EU and non-EU states.GFCM expressed their happiness to be consulted and request for the extension of the final date to give their opinion.

Their first responses and impressions were as follows: GFCM do benefit from the data collection structures and programs that

GFCM European Members have; In that sense, GFCM will definitely benefit from a data collection system that

covers the needs that the GFCM Members express within the GFCM bodies, such as the Scientific and Advisory Committee;

Since the end of 2012 the GFCM has a running Framework Program which includes actions towards capacity building and training in data collection, with the aim to strengthening the capacity of national institutions in charge of data collection and supporting the establishment of regional databases and information systems;

30


Also, it is important to note that the EU is itself a Member of the GFCM, therefore it has a number of rights and also commitments as the rest of the Members of the GFCM.

GFCM has nine data collection currently in progress which derives from binding decision for members.The core of GFCM data collection is represented by Task 1, a multidisciplinary approach aiming at gather data and information on fleet, fishing activities, main resources, socio-economic variables, catch, effort, overall by-catch as well as on biological aspect.

Data for stock assessment is collected through stock assessment forms, which were revised last year in light of Members comments, and which include a number of sections which allow the GFCM Scientific and Advisory Committee to provide advice on the status of Mediterranean and Black Sea Stocks.

GFCM agrees that the data and information currently collected under DCF at EU level are mostly compliant with the GFCM requirements.

RCM Med&BS 2013 welcomes the first reaction of the GFCM on the Commission proposal on new DC-MAP and is looking forward for good cooperation. On the other hand RCM feels that the GFCM is an important final end user of the DCF data even they have their own data collection system. The data that is requested and send to GFCM by MS is in the majority of the cases collected and co-financed under the DCF.

However European MS that are collecting data under DCF has a lot of additional administration and technical burden to ensure the fulfilment of GFCM classification systems for data collection and to respond to GFCM data collection requirements. All this activities are usually financed only by national sources. Because of this an additional harmonisation of the DCF and GFCM data collection would be welcomed and fully supported as also additional involvement of the European Commission in the process of providing MS data to GFCM.

The RCM recommends the harmonization of data submitted to the EU’s JRC (as part of the Mediterranean and Black Sea data call, and the Fisheries Fleet economic data call) and the data required as part of Task 1 by the GFCM. This will avoid duplication of work from Mediterranean EU Member States, maximization of resources as well as the introduction of errors when transforming the data from one format to the other. The RCM recognizes that the main difference lies in the classification of vessels length, métiers and segmentation. RCM was informed that the GFCM is currently reviewing entire Task 1 and that the workshop on Task 1 will be done only when the review will be completed. However RCM suggests that the GFCM could consider sending the official reminders, with required forms and templates and required reference years for the data to the national focal points one and a half month before the official deadline for the submission of the data to GFCM stipulated by the GFCM recommendations. After the submission of the data to GFCM, RCM suggests that GFCM would perform check of the data and give the feedback to MS and time to resubmit data that are not in accordance with GFCM recommendations. RCM also identified the need to

31


harmonize as much as possible Task 1 data with data collected under DCF and future DC-MAP and to consider the reference year for the submission of the data to GFCM.

During the meeting the GFCM representative asked the RCM to put forward any suggestions to the GFCM with regards to all the data requested from the GFCM.On the basses of abovementioned issues RCM put the following recommendations:

It would be helpful if an email reminder to the national focal points for the GFCM FWP is circulated a month and a half before the deadlines stipulated by the GFCM recommendations.

Recommendation GFCM/2006/2 should be clearer about if data to be sent to the GFCM by 30th January each year is to incorporate data from the previous fishing season (August to December, sometimes extending to January) of from the previous year (January, August – December).

The deadline for the data to be sent to the GFCM with regards to GFCM recommendation; 15th January (as per EC Regulation 1343/2011) is too tight, hampering MS from providing good quality data, as this is required only 15 days after the end of the fishing season.

Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/3 should include the reference year of the data to be sent on an annual basis as it is not clear whether n-1 data or n-2 data should be submitted.

European Commission could play more important role in the submission of the available requested data from the GFCM for all European member states that are also members of GFCM. And to harmonize as much as possible the requested data and classification systems under current DCF and future DC-MAP with the data requested and classification systems from the data collection system of the GFCM.

RCM Med&BS considered that could be useful received, from the GFCM, a “reminder” with the templates and requested data for the reference year. This document should be sent to MS national focal points in order to properly prepare the data one and a half month before the deadlines stipulated by the GFCM recommendations. RCM Med&BS considered that the Recommendation GFCM/2006/2 should be clearer about if data to be sent to the GFCM by 30th January each year is to incorporate data from the previous fishing season (August to December, sometimes extending to January) of from the previous year (January, August – December).RCM Med&BS considered that the deadline for the data to be sent to the GFCM with regards to GFCM recommendation, 15th January (as per EC Regulation 1343/2011), is too tight, hampering MS from providing good quality data, as this is required only 15 days after the end of the fishing season.RCM Med&BS considered that the Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/3 should include the reference year of the data to be sent on an annual basis as it is not clear whether n-1 data or n-2 data should be submitted.

Recommandations:Submmission of the data to GFCM – introduction of reminders for data calls for GFCM MSRCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that GFCM

consider sending the reminders with the templates and requested reference years for

32


data to MS national focal points in order to properly prepare the data one and a half month before the deadlines stipulated by the GFCM recommendations. And to send the direct feedback to MS regarding the relevance of received data.

Follow-up action neededResponsible persons for follow-up actions

DG MARE, LM, GFCM

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DC-MAP

Submission of the data to GFCM – amendments of Recommendation GFCM/2006/2RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that the

Recommendation GFCM/2006/2 should be clearer about if data to be sent to the GFCM by 30th January each year is to incorporate data from the previous fishing season (August to December, sometimes extending to January) of from the previous year (January, August – December).


DG MARE, LM, GFCM

Time frame (Deadline) Before the next plenary session of the GFCM

Submission of the data to GFCM – amendments of EC Regulation 1343/2011RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that the

deadline for the data to be sent to the GFCM with regards to GFCM recommendation; 15th January (as per EC Regulation 1343/2011) is too tight, hampering MS from providing good quality data, as this is required only 15 days after the end of the fishing season.


DG MARE, LM, GFCM


Submission of the data to GFCM – amendments of Recommendation GFCM33/2009/3RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that the

Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/3

33


should include the reference year of the data to be sent on an annual basis as it is not clear whether n-1 data or n-2 data should be submitted.


DG MARE, LM, GFCM


Submission of the data to GFCM – lowering the administration and technical burden of MS and avoiding the duplication of work.RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that the

European Commission submits the available requested data from the GFCM for all European member states that are also members of GFCM. And to harmonize as much as possible the requested data and classification systems under current DCF and future DC-MAP with the data requested and classification systems from the data collection system of the GFCM.


DG MARE, LM, GFCM


Other recommendations relevant for the European Commission:

List of actual recommendations from different WGs related to the process of data collectionRCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that the

European Commission selects and publish on the data collection web page all the relevant recommendations from different working groups, scientific bodies, regional meetings and liaison meetings as well as regional management organizations that are relevant in the process of the data collection.


DG MARE, LM


34


4. Regional coordination4.1 Regional database: update/actual status since RCM 2012

Mr. Carpentieri, chair of the Steering Committee for the Mediterranean and Black Sea Regional Database (Med&B-RDB), made a presentation on the progress achieved so far during the 1st Steering Committee Meeting and on some important issues to be considered for the Med&B-RDB development. The 1st Steering Committee Meeting for the Med&BS-RDB was held in Rome, kindly hosted in the GFCM headquarters, from 29 to 30 November 2012. The Steering Committee (SC) met in response of a recommendation by the 2012 Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS - Madrid July 2012), in order to set up some principles for a Regional Database hosting the data collected under the Data Collection Framework (DCF). The meeting was attended by 18 scientists from 6 MS (Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Romania and Spain), by the chairs of MEDITS and MEDIAS surveys at sea, by the representatives of the GFCM, plus two external observers.

The Chair of the SC presented the document for the Med&BS-RDB data confidentiality and data ownership policy that all MS, uploading their data, must follow. This document has been discussed and revised during the RCMMed&BS 2013. The agreed Data Policy Document is presented in the Annex III.

Moreover, the Chair of the SC informed the RCMMed&BS on the governance model that has been discussed and suggested:

RCMMed&BS Steering CommitteeContent governance Technical governance

Prioritise and develop road map for data upload Strategic planning

Monitoring general problems (i.e. data upload, data processing) Operational issues

Suggest area for developmentAppoint member to SC

Estimate of cost and any financial issues

Estimate of cost and any financial issues

Type of dataData access and sharing

Terms of reference for the SC Terms of reference for the SC

A short explanation was given on the data that should be store, initially, under the RDB. SC proposed that Med&BS-RDB could be divided in two separate sections:

1) Common section 2) Private section The first section could be accessible to all MS, whether the second will be accessible to the MS owner of the data.

In the “Common section”, the SC proposed to report landing, value and effort data by métier (Level 6, Appendix IV Reg. 93/2010), by quarter and GSA. A proposal is

35


reported in the following Table:

In the “Private section”, the SC proposed to report biological data separately in métier (length) and stock variables (sex, maturity, weight, age) and aggregated by species, by quarter and GSA. A proposal is reported in this other Table:

The proposal presented covers Member States in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Region that have expressed a need and interest for a RDB.

The SC identified the GFCM as the best option to host and to maintain a regional database for the Mediterranean and Black Sea region. The SC recognized that hosting the Med&BS-RDB by an international organization such as GFCM should be preferred considering that GFCM is the body covering Regional needs and it has wide experience in maintaining international data bases. GFCM was approached during the SC meeting and was asked whether it would be willing to host the Med&BS-RDB. GFCM had answered positive to do so as long as costs and practical

36

Landing data Effort data Value dataYear Year Year

Country Country CountryGSA GSA GSA

Métier level 6

Métier level 6

Métier level 6

Quarter Quarter QuarterWeight (tons)

Days at sea Species

Value

Métier variables Stock variablesYear Year

Country CountryGSA GSA

Métier level 6 QuarterVessel length Species

Quarter LengthSpecies Sex

Landing (tons) MaturityLength Age

Discards or landing fraction Discards or landing fractionTot weight of the samples Tot weight of the samples

Tot n° of individuals of the sample Tot n° of individuals of the sample


issues could be resolved (both internally and with European Commission). Several types of costs related to maintenance (hardware, upgrades etc), support to users, management and further development of the database should be investigated. It will be necessary to elaborate the cost estimate in more detail and the EC need to approve this cost.

The Chair of the SC informed the RCMMed&BS on some changes that should be done in the report of the 1st SC meeting. The following sentence: “All participating MS would have the possibility to contribute to the development of the Med&BS-RDB in an open source environment following priorities defined by the SC” should be replaced by this sentence “The choice of the development platform should be performed in coherence with the infrastructure and established development tools that the GFCM is willing to put at disposal, provided that (I was the one to raise this point) it is understandable that specific portions of source code addressing sensitive statistical algorithms (T-SQL queries, R scripts or C# routines) might be made available to MS for iterative discussions and evolutions.”

The RCMMed&BS 2013, agreed on the decision that for the time being the MED&BS-RDB will include biological and transversal data. Next SC meeting should better investigate the format and which data should be incorporated.

For the economic data, RCMMed&BS 2013 agreed that they should be included in the Med&BS-RDB. Next SC meeting should evaluated which economic data should be incorporated. Regarding the surveys:

- MEDITS is developing a regional database. So, for the future will be evaluated the possibility to include a link of this database under the RDB-Med&BS;

- MEDIAS also is developing a database. The MEDIAS Steering Committee decided to maintain the MEDIAS database separate from the MEDITS one and to include a simple link into the Med&BS-RDB.

Any proposal regarding surveys data should be further discussed during the 2014 surveys working and the next SC.

On the regional database 1RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation

The Group agreed that the MED&BS RDB will include biological and transversal data. It was decided that also economic data should be incorporated in the future MED&BS-RDB.


DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM MED&BS,


37


On the regional database 2RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation

The Group agreed that the MED&BS RDB could be hosted by GFCM. Upon the clearance of the RCMMed&BS, a formal procedure will be activated in order to contact GFCM officially and consequently evaluate the related feasibility and necessary funding.Upon availability of the required funds, GFCM would dispose human resources, technical expertise and IT infrastructure that can be up-scaled in order to provide database development, administration and security.




This ToR was not addressed due to the non-attendance of representatives of any invited third country at the meeting.

5. Data quality issues

5.1. Review progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP proposals

With regard to the quality of the indicators and data delivered through the NP, respectively, Annual Reports, participants stressed the necessity on ensuring the use of the best practices on this purpose. The new requests of quality level stressed by the EC should be a constant preoccupation of the scientists of each MS. The participants agreed on the deployment of the best procedures on data collection, methods of in time up-loading the data bases. It was reiterated the necessity of the necessity of quitting on CVs, as per the above mentioned Recommendation on the previous chapter of the report.

Validation will be done according to the best methods used in international statistics activities. A regional harmonization and regular exchanging information on those methods was recommended to the participants. The progress achieved by each MS on improving the quality issue is reflected on each MS Annual Report, evaluated by the STECF and endorsed by the EC.

All participants agreed on the increasing efforts of each MS to be able to respect the new levels of quality on data, which will be the fully responsibility of them on the next 2014-2020 period, that is established into Proposals of the EMFF Regulation.

5.2. Review of relevant Recommendation of EC to settle of Large Pelagic Species issue between RCMMed&BS and RCM LDF

38


The 9th LM in 2012 stressed that there is a need to resolve the issue of competence for Large Pelagics between the RCM Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med & BS) and the RCM Long Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF).

An extensive e-mail exchanges took place on this issue over the past year. In 2012 these species were not reviewed by any RCM due to a lack of agreement. There is no perfect solution, which is why no agreement has been met despite so many discussions. A decision was needed to make the best of the situation, even if imperfect, so that 2013 does not once again result in Large Pelagics being left out of RCM discussions. The issue was addressed also to STECF EWG12-20, which made the following recommendation:

STECF-EWG 12-20: Concerning the large pelagic coordination among RCMMed&BS and RCM LDF, EGW 12-20 refers to the LM 2009 recommendation and supports the decision that all the sampling activities for the large pelagic species, included in Appendix VII of Decision 2010/93/EU for the Mediterranean and Black Sea area (i.e. albacore (ALB), swordfish (SWO), bonito (BON) and bluefin tuna (BFT)), will be managed solely by the RCM Med&BS.

RCM LDF will then deal with all other large pelagic species, operating outside the Mediterranean and/or third countries and in international waters, as several tuna fleets operating in the Atlantic or the Indian Ocean and Pacific.

Therefore, the following approach was proposed:

All large pelagic species are to be treated by the RCM LDF, except those dominantly exploited in the Mediterranean, which are to be treated by the RCM Med&BS. The Large Pelagics to be treated by the RCM Med&BS would then be species in the competence of ICCAT, including:

bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) albacore ( Thunnus alalunga) swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) shark species 'taken in association' with tuna and tuna-like species as listed

in Appendix VII of Commission Decision 93/2010 (Mediterranean and Black Sea section)

The RCM Med&BS would be responsible for dealing with data collection issues relating to these species in all geographical areas for which the fisheries takes place, and hence where data collection takes place, and not just data collection in the Mediterranean.

Despite this split in competencies, for this year, the RCMs LD and RCM Med&BS were hold together, in Constanta from 2-6 September, therefore a suggestion was made that a working group be formed to work on all large pelagics and that this working group write up the conclusions of their work and this section be included in both the reports of the RCM LD and the RCM Med&BS.

5.2.1 Position of the Large Pelagics Group

As requested by the 9th Liaison Meeting and following the approach proposed be the Commission, participants of RCM LDF and participants of RCM Med&BS dealing with Large Pelagics met and discussed the question of positioning of Large Pelagics coordination. It was agreed by all participants that it would be more efficient to have

39


a unique coordination sub-group dealing with all large pelagic fisheries, species and stocks issues. This unique sub-group would then be able to deal with all tunas RFMOs end users extending through the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea (ICCAT), the Indian Ocean (IOTC) and the Pacific Ocean East and West (IATTC and WCPFC).

The participants then recommended the creation of a single coordination sub-group on Large Pelagics covering areas of competence of RCM LDF, NA, Med&BS and dealing with all large pelagic species and fisheries. In order to avoid the risk of duplication of meetings for some scientists dealing with large pelagics, in particular in the Mediterranean and in Other areas (for example swordfish, bluefin tuna), it is suggested to expand the RCM “Med&BS” to the RCM “Med&BS & Large Pelagics”. This would facilitate more pragmatic and efficient approach by having common annual meetings allowing scientists participation either in sub-group dealing with Mediterranean and BS and/or in a sub-group dealing with large pelagics. This “expanded” RCM would then need to have two co-chairs, one for Mediterranean and BS and one for Large Pelagics.

The representatives of the MS present in RCM LDF and RCM Med&BS were unanimous in agreeing that if such modification is accepted, Pierre Chavance (from IRD, France) should take the duty of co-chair for Large Pelagics for the next two years.

Recommendation 2013-3: Regional cordination on Large Pelagics

RCM LDF 2013 Recommendation

(LP sub-group)

The RCM LDF recommend the creation of a coordination group on Large Pelagics covering areas of competence of RCM LDF, NA, Med&BS and dealing with all large pelagic species and fisheries. In order to avoid the risk of duplication of meetings for some scientists dealing with large pelagics in particular in the Mediterranean and in Other areas (for example swordfish, bluefin tuna), it is recommended to expand the RCM “Med&BS” to a RCM “Med&BS & Large Pelagics” ”, which then would consist of two sub-groups (one dealing with the


LM, STECF, DGMare


Chairs of the RCM LDF and the RCM Med&BS

Time frame (Deadline) Before the next RCM meeting in 2014

5.2.2. Bilateral Agreements table

Large Pelagic sub-group revised table listing bilateral agreement presently in place.

The document was corrected for missing ES agreements present in the “All” sheet but missing in the “ES” sheet. No Agreements were added by any of the present

40


MS. This table is contained in the file “2013-07-30 List of bi_multilateral agreements.xlsx”, available on the RCMs Sharepoint (https://groupnet.ices.dk/rcm2013/LD2013/default.aspx).

Review output of the 9th Liaison Meeting Strategic comment 2013-4: Cooperation with RMFOs

RCM LDF 2013

Strategic comment

(LP sub-group)

RCM LDF (LP sub-group) reiterates the need expressed by RCM Med&BS 2012 on a joined meeting among tuna related RFMOs (ICCAT and IOTC) representatives, scientists involved in large pelagic data collection, as well as representatives from RCM (LP sub-group). The aim of the meeting will be harmonizing the biological sampling issues on large pelagic and specifying additional data or modifications that should be included in the future DCMAP, taking into account the ICCAT /IOTC requirements for stock assessment, as well as providing guidelines for best statistically sound sampling schemes and data quality indicators.

Knowing that the LM didn’t endorse this recommendation as they considered this as a task for the RCMs, RCM LP sub-group expresses the need for some guidelines in order to know which are the exact steps to follow, with the aim to invite ICCAT and IOTC Follow-up actions

neededGuidelines from LM / Commission


EC, ICCAT/IOTC, RCM (LP sub-group), …??

Time frame (Deadline) Before the next RCM meeting

Review recommendations from ICCAT and IOTC WGs

This point was not considered by the LP sub-group due to the absence of feedback from the tuna RFMOs. As it has been expressed in the previous point, the LP sub-group thinks that some resources will be necessary for the establishment of an effective communication between both RCM and RFMO members.

5.2.3. Regional Database

A presentation by IRD regarding a Large Pelagic RDB proposal was made during the 2012 RCM Med&BS who formally recommended the implementation of a Large Pelagic RDB and the organization of a regional meeting for discussing the prototype prepared by IRD and drafting a multiannual plan 2014-2020. LM stresses that the number of databases should be limited and asked the Commission to specify the need for this database and states that if a new RDB is needed, a dedicated Large Pelagic RDB Steering Committee shall be established in close cooperation with

41

https://groupnet.ices.dk/rcm2013/LD2013/default.aspx


other Steering Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and systems between the different RDBs.

The Large Pelagic sub-group reiterates that there is a great need to progress in the direction of better exchange ability between fisheries information systems among UE fishing countries. Main objectives in this domain are:

Support expected improved regional coordination for data collection among MS

Provide MS data managers and end users with common tools for data call, automated reports, statistical analysis, DCF indicators production …

The LP sub-group underlines that this need is also required among countries fishing in areas of competence of all tuna RFMOs. Consequently, working in that direction will contribute enhancing collaboration between UE MS, between UE MS and tuna RFMOs and among third countries fishing in tunas RFMOs areas of competence.

Regarding the approach to a RDB, the members of the LP sub-group agree that a standardization of formats and tools at the MS level should be a first step. Level of data aggregation and localization of a physical RDB will have to be considered in a second step. If all members are using locally a common format then it is possible to apply common methodologies such as the COST tools or any R function script agreed among the members. The export functions of such a local and harmonized database should easily allow to output aggregated data at the level legally required by each country so that, if the MS agree, such data (which is public by definition since it must be available according to EU data accessibility regulations) can be incorporated into a regional database of common use.

LP sub-group agrees that a RDB Large Pelagic Steering Committee shall be established in close cooperation with other Steering Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and systems between LP RDB and other RDBs.

Suggestion 2013-5: RDB on Large Pelagics

RCM LDF 2013 Suggestion

(LP sub-group)

The Large Pelagic sub-group reiterates that there is a great need to progress in the direction of better exchange ability between fisheries information systems among UE fishing countries.

Regarding the approach to a RDB, the members of the Large Pelagic sub-group agree that a standardization of formats and tools at the MS level should be a first step. Level of data aggregation and localization of a physical RDB will have to be considered in a second step.

LP sub-group recommends that a RDB LP Steering Committee be established to work in close cooperation with other Steering Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and systems between Large

42



establishing the new RDB-LP Steering Committee or joining the existing RDB SCs ?


LP sub-group,


Next RCM meeting

5.2.4. Cooperation between member states

The LP sub-group identified some areas of studies that would benefit from the financial support which could be provided under the EMFF (article 85). These areas are the following:

Development of commons tools for data collection and data management

Contribute to the identification, development and dissemination of common tools for data introduction and management. For example, such tools as AVDTH, T3+ and ObServe are used for data introduction and validation, data management and analysis developed within French DCF national program for large pelagic species and now used by numerous tuna sampling scientists in EU MS but also in third countries (Senegal, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Seychelles, Madagascar, Mauritius). These commons tools greatly facilitate collaborations among teams.

Development of common tools for data exploration, selection, analysis… The foreseen improved capacity of exchanging data and data accessibility through RDB should be accompanied by the development of tools using open source language helping data managers and end users to work with DCF Data. The Cost R library project that ended in 2008 can serve as an example of extremely useful tools allowing statistical analysis and treatment of DCF data stored in a common exchange format.

Data collection innovations

Self-sampling and electronic monitoring systems should be explored and promoted as a complement to observers or as an alternative in places where observer can’t be taken onboard (e.g. lack of space or safety on board in the Indian Ocean)

Coordination meeting between MS

It should be foreseen that RCM and future RCG will need to have intersession activities like coordination working sub-groups dealing with particular aspects not being appropriately tackled during annual meeting of RCM. These activities should be supported by the program.

Tuna tagging program

As put forward since the first RCM LDF meeting in 2010, tagging programs are key elements in population dynamics and stock structure studies and should be fully supported. The sub-group highlighted the importance of these studies as these are almost the only tool giving fisheries independent information on tuna stocks unlike other species stocks, e.g. small pelagics or demersal species benefiting from scientific surveys. A recent tagging program took place in the IOTC area of competence with excellent results. A similar program in the ICCAT area is highly demanded by tuna scientists.

43


Aerial survey program

As noted by EWG 13-05, the sub-group reiterates the great interest to conduct independent aerial survey for Blue fin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea, involving France, Italy and Spain. These surveys are presently not eligible under the DCF but could be supported within EMFF funds.

5.2.5. Harmonization of Regional Sampling Schemes & Data Quality issues

A major change associated with the DC-MAP will be a revision of the roles and work programmes of the current Regional Coordination Meetings (to be re-designated as Regional Coordination Groups; RCGs). A series of previous STECF EWGs, including EWG 12-01, 12-07 and 12-15 proposed that the RCGs would develop regional work plans in which end-user priorities are ranked to ensure work plans operate within (limited) capital and human resources. Assuming that Member States develop statistically-sound schemes for sampling commercial fisheries, regional coordination would revolve around the stock/species-orientated sampling priorities based on regional assessment and advisory needs. A national catch-sampling scheme could be seen as comprising sampling frames and strata within the overall regional sampling activity, but with priorities and sampling levels coordinated at the regional level. Also, it is emphasized that it is essential that the quality of data is known when it is used for analysis by end-users, because management actions based on poor data should be avoided.

These proposals identify a need for: clear documentation and prioritizing by end-users of the estimates needed to support regional assessment and advisory needs; implementation of best practice in designing and running statistically-sound sampling schemes; and a need for some degree of optimization of sampling across countries to achieve the most cost-effective data collection supporting assessments and advice.

Thus, as a first step, for the correct coordination during the sampling it is important to have a detailed and clear knowledge of the end users’ needs of the data. In relation to large pelagic fisheries, there are some requirements made by the end users (e.g. ICCAT); for instance tasks I & II ICCAT or the recommendation of 10% observer coverage for the by-catch estimation. However nothing is said about how the sampling should be design, in order to be statistically sound sampling, or about minimum data quality requirements. It is essential that the quality of data is known when it is used for analysis by end-users, because management actions based on poor data should be avoided. For the moment, tuna related RFMOs do not provide any advice on these issues, so the guidelines provided by the ICES expert groups WKPICS (Workshop on Practical Implementation of Statistical Sound Catch Sampling Programs) and SGPIDS (Study Group on Practical implementation in Discard Sampling Program) were considered as a starting point for the RCM LDF participants.

Some good examples of coordination already exist (e.g. the Mediterranean throughout the PGMED or the coordination for the last decade between ES-FR on the tropical tuna surface fisheries sampling). However, issues mainly coordinated are related to the sampling onboard (onboard sampling protocols). Then, the target métier (PS targeting Large Pelagic), which is shared by both countries, is divided in national strata. At this step, there is a lack of cooperation/coordination between countries, and each of the countries tries to allocate their resources the best way for the sampling of their national vessels. This is not the case of the port sampling were a complete coordination exist throughout a bilateral agreement. In the case of

44


longline fisheries sampling, coordination among countries does not exist. RCM participants underline the need of this international cooperation. Even more, this coordination should be expanded to the other countries outside EU involved in the large pelagic fisheries.

WKPICS2 (ICES, 2013) has developed guidelines for “best practice” that apply to data collection methods and design, sampling intensity, data collection and data quality evaluation. Best practice can be defined as sampling designs, implementation and data analysis that lead to minimum bias and an accurate estimate of precision, and which make the most efficient use of sampling resources. For example, probability-based sampling with accurate control of the inclusion probabilities would be considered an example of best practice. However, if logistical, legal, and economic constraints dictate the use of a non-probability based scheme to select primary sampling units (for example legal requirements in the selection of a reference fleet), it is good practice if the selection is done in a way that ensures representative coverage of the target population and minimizes bias, and if this can be demonstrated with suitable diagnostics.

In order to apply this to Large Pelagics knowledge of the total fleet (Target population) operating in a geographic area (Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Mediterranean) should include all fleets but in practice only the EU flagged vessels are covered. This is a limitation that should be accounted for when a stock assessment is carried out.

Each of the different geographical areas should work on their harmonized and statistical sound catch sampling designs, in close collaboration with the different RFMOs. Each of these areas will deal with specific requirements, but some common difficulties arise in all of them, mainly the need of coordination between MS under the DC-MAP and non-EU states.

Some common “bad practices” were identified within the sampling designs that are in place among the different MS present in the RCM LDF (e.g. opportunistic vessel selection). As a first step, the LP sub-group suggests that each of the MS participating in Large Pelagic Fisheries identifies and, if possible, corrects these limitations by the next RCM LP meeting.

Thus, the RCM LP advises the members states, which are involved in Large Pelagic fisheries to validate their sampling programmes, with the guidelines of WKPICS2 and, where necessary, start developing/improving their sampling programmes in accordance with these guidelines.

5.2.6. Obligation to land all catches

The Large Pelagics sub-group recognizes that obligation of landings all catches may interfere with data collection approaches and protocols and in particular will impact observer programs which are designed for discard estimation. However it is underlined that:

It is unknown on how this obligation will effectively be set in place in the different RFMOs

It must be foreseen that some discards will still occur because:

o Some species are not authorized to be kept on board under RFMOs present regulation,

45


o Species without catch limits are not included in the discard ban so all these species would not be accounted for and, more generally, the discard ban will probably be set progressively on a species basis

o The discard ban may not be in place in certain EEZs.

Obligation of landings all catches will allow estimation of all species caught during port sampling (with the exception indicated above) but this will only be possible for the whole trip and not by fishing operation

Most RFMOs request data at a fine spatial scale (5x5 or 1x1 degree squares) which is not possible to perform if all discards are landed together

These constraints lead the Large Pelagics sub-group to consider that, at this time, observer programs will still be required to collect detailed scientific data on-board independently of captain declarations.

5.2.7. Ranking of metiers to find out whether changes are needed in for the 2014-2016 programme.

Ranking of métiers has not been performed by Large Pelagics sub-group since data from data call have only been partially received on catch, effort and value by métiers. Furthermore, it has been decided that the first task of the group should be to validate the list of métiers established according to DCF 2011-2013 national programs. This validation will be started by e-mail after this meeting since all countries concerned were not present (Cyprus and Ireland) with the objective to be completed for next RCM meeting. Data on catch, effort and value for 2010-2012 will then be compiled and serve as a basis for discussion on interest/necessity and modalities of ranking Large pelagic fisheries. Table with the list of métiers targeting Large Pelagics is provided in an Annex VI.

6. EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020

6.1. Provide feedback on the draft EU MAP 2014-2020

The EC representative made a presentation concerning the new EU Data Collection Multi-Annual Programme (EU DC-MAP) 2014-2020. The CFP reform proposal (specifically Articles 37&38) will repeal the existing DCF legislation. Details on data collection obligations will be laid down in a new EU Multi-Annual Programme, replacing Regulation 199/2008, while the financial basis for the new EU DC-MAP will be covered in the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The MS Operational Programme will include a chapter on data collection and additionally Annual Work Plans are proposed to be submitted. The objectives of the new EU DC-MAP are:

• A seven year, i.e. predictable framework for Data Collection for the period2014-2020

• Improving the flexibility of the legal framework and simplification

46


• Enhancing financial stability for the MS• Integration and harmonization with other EU legislation (e.g. avoid overlaps in

the collection of data, use EUROSTAT definitions where possible)• Improving quality and availability of data for ecosystem based management.

Options concerning important issues such as the kind of data to be collected, a simplification of rules and better flexibility in the legal framework, integration and harmonization with other EU legislation, simplification of data formats, better link of data collection with data needs were also presented.

The Group was informed on the recent meeting between the Commission and the National Correspondents that took place middle of July and that MS are invited to provide feedback and comments concerning the new EU MAP.It was agreed that at this moment it is too early to prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling programme.

Concerning the proposed EU discard ban in the proposal for the reform of the CFP, RCM Med&BS expressed its concern on the negative impact that it will probably have on the observer programmes. Fishermen may refuse to accept observers on board, as they may consider that they observe for control purposes. Furthermore, with a possible discard ban the need for implementing observer programmes may need to be re-evaluated, as well as the tasks of the observers.

The Group reviewed the progress achieved in previous RCM Med&BS, as well as recommendations made by STECF. Concerning the Workshop on transversal data collection (i.e. common understanding) and statistical methodologies to estimate/reevaluate them, with a special focus on the small scale fisheries, proposed by RCM Med&BS 2011 and eligible for 2012, the Group was informed that it will take place in the 4th quarter. The second relevant workshop that was proposed by the Group in 2011 and is eligible for 2012, the Workshop to develop guidelines to convert DCF biological, economic and transversal data to GFCM Task 1 is postponed until the finalization of the GFCM Task 1 amendments.

6.2. Prepare a roadmap for development of a regional sampling programme developing statistical sound harmonized sampling programmes

Proposed DCMAP framework for regional sampling programmes

A major change associated with the DC-MAP will be a revision of the roles and work programmes of the current Regional Coordination Meetings (to be re-designated as Regional Coordination Groups; RCGs). A series of previous STECF EWGs, including EWG 12-01, 12-07 and 12-15 proposed that the RCGs would develop regional work plans in which end-user priorities are ranked to ensure work plans operate within (limited) capital and human resources. Assuming that Member States develop statistically-sound schemes for sampling commercial fisheries, regional

47


coordination would revolve around the stock/species-orientated sampling priorities based on regional assessment and advisory needs. A national catch-sampling scheme could be seen as comprising sampling frames and strata within the overall regional sampling activity, but with priorities and sampling levels coordinated at the regional level. Also, it is emphasized that it is essential that the quality of data is known when it is used for analysis by end-users, because management actions based on poor data should be avoided.

These proposals identify a need for: clear documentation and prioritising by end-users of the estimates needed to support regional assessment and advisory needs; implementation of best practice in designing and running statistically-sound sampling schemes; and a need for some degree of optimisation of sampling across countries to achieve the most cost-effective data collection supporting assessments and advice.

The challenges of establishing a coherent regional sampling programme within a stronger system of regional coordination by RCGs was recognised by the ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS), which initiated a series of Workshops on the Practical Implementation of Statistical Sound Catch Sampling Programmes (WKPICS1, WKPICS2 and WKPICS3) providing an essential background for establishing and coordinating design-based sampling programmes at a regional scale.

Statistical sound sampling

WKPICS2 developed a guidelines for”best practice”, this covers design, implementation and analysis stages of catch sampling schemes. Best practice can be defined as sampling designs, implementation and data analysis that lead to minimum bias and an accurate estimate of precision, and which make the most efficient use of sampling resources. For example, probability-based sampling with accurate control of the inclusion probabilities would be considered an example of best practice. However, if logistical, legal, and economic constraints dictate the use of a non-probability based scheme to select primary sampling units (for example legal requirements in the selection of a reference fleet), it is good practice if the selection is done in a way that ensures representative coverage of the target population and minimises bias, and if this can be demonstrated with suitable diagnostics. Bad practice would be an ad-hoc, non-probability based sampling scheme, particularly where there are no census data to show how representative the samples are of the population or to re-weight the samples during analysis (WKPICS, 2012).

WKPICS2 provided a draft for “best practice” guidelines, which could be included in a repository (Master Reference Register; MRR) with best practice for the new DC-MAP. The participants agreed that the new development of the needs on respecting the requirements for this issue will be developed on the specific experts groups, such as: WKPICS2, PGMED, PGECON, etc. in order to achieve by each MS of the newest methods used at international level, regional coordinated in MEDIAS and MEDITS – for bio aspects on surveys at sea in the region, and to be included in the NPs.

For the purpose to improve quality in all aspects of data collection in the NPs, RCMmed&BS proposed the following study: “Provision of statistics assessing the quality of the data collected”. The details of this study are developed in the further

48


chapter.

7. Studies and pilot projects

RCMMed&BS 2013 propoese a list of studies and pilot projects to be included in the new list of DC MAP as follows:

1. Identification of stock boundary/unit of the turbot in the Black SeaObjective: Correct and efficient management of the turbot stock/stocks in the Black Sea Community watersActivity: Getting information on the Black Sea turbot population (distribution and migration) through research, monitoring and exchange of information.Involved countries: Romania and Bulgaria Collaborating countries for monitoring and exchange of information: Turkey and UkrainePeriod: 2-3 yearsIndicative costs: 350,000-400,000 Euros

2. Proposal for a multinational exercise in age determination methods in order to harmonize age readingObjective:Multilateral cooperation on age reading calibration and harmonization of otolith processing techniques for Merluccius merluccius in the Mediterranean Sea between Croatia, Italy and Slovenia. Activity: It is necessary to establish a common methodology for age determination in order to provide compatible age results for Merluccius merluccius which is a shared stock between these countries and the most important commercial species in trawl fisheries in the Adriatic and Mediterranean Sea. Furthermore, Merluccius merluccius is a G1 species according to Appendix VII of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, for which age determination is required. As Croatia has not been able to participate in the efforts made in the field of age determination it is necessary to ensure a multinational cooperation and coordination in order to harmonize age reading so as to provide relevant data for stock assessment.The cooperation would include:• Coordination meeting for the identification of age determination methods and experts from the specialized EU laboratories• Inviting/contracting experts• Multinational exchange of otolith samples • Multinational processing of samples for age determination and calibration of readings in order to harmonize age readingInvolved countries: Croatia, Italy and SloveniaPeriod: 1-2 yearsIndicative costs: 50.000,00 EUR

3. Structure of Mediterranean fish populations based on otolith shapeObjective: Assessing whether neighbouring countries exploit two populations of the same species or share the same one is of great ecological interest and has important applied consequences, particularly to achieve sound fish stock

49


assessments and efficient fisheries management under the CFP.Activity: In practice, this remains complex as adjacent populations are not separated by clear geographical barriers. For Mediterranean stocks, only little is known on that issue. Recent techniques make use of otolith shape as an efficient way to make distinctions between populations. Such an approach requires otolith sampling that could be implemented at the Mediterranean scale taking advantage of the scientific surveys that are already carried out for the DCF (MEDITS and MEDIAS surveys in the Mediterranean). A study could be carried for a pre-defined set of commercially important demersal and pelagic species, (e.g., hake, red mullet, sardine and anchovy). An emphasis could be put on methodological development around the processing of otolith images. By targeting several species, such a study would allow to investigate connectivity between stocks at a broader scale than more classical monospecific approaches, which complies with the ecosystem approach to fisheries. A pilot study between two neighbouring member states, such as France and Spain, focussing on two commercially important species, hake and red mullet, would allow to assess the feasibility and the performance of such an approach.Involved countries: France and Spain. However, depending on the funding available more member states could be involved for a wider-scale studyPeriod: over 18 monthsIndicative costs: 150.000 euros for 2 member states.

4. Tagging experiments for red mullet and striped red mulletObjective: The lack of validation for ageing is a major source of uncertainty, which directly affects the reliability of stock assessments a tag experiment, is needed.Activity: Several methods exist to validate age readings of calcified structures (i.e. otoliths), like the mark and re-capture method. So far, tagging experiments for Mullus spp. have neither been done in the Atlantic nor in the Mediterranean Sea. Within the framework of the WKCAM2, a recommendation to use validation methods independently from annual growth ring interpretation was made. The tagging experiments presently proposed could be carried out by France and Spain, two countries that cover both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean regions, as a first attempt to evaluate the suitability of tagging approaches for these species.Involved countries: France and Spain, two countries that cover both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean regions, as a first attempt to evaluate the suitability of tagging approaches for these speciesPeriod: over 18 monthsIndicative costs: 300,000 €

5. Inter-sessional work coordination between France and Spain for assessmentsObjective: France and Spain share the catch for several stocks in GSA 7, such as hake and red mulletActivity: In order to assess the state of these stocks as required by the EU, scientists from both countries have to meet for one week in order to exchange expertise, review available data and run stock assessment models. Such yearly meetings are necessary to meet stock assessment requirements and ultimately to achieve a sound and efficient management under the CFP. As no intersessional work has been considered as eligible for funding during the DCR and the DCF, these meetings have so far been funded by institutes from both countries, which has been a growing issue for this fruitful collaboration in the past few years.

50


Involved countries: France and SpainPeriod: 3 years (2014-2016)Indicative costs: 12,000 €

6. Pilot study of social variables to be included in the new DC-MAPObjective: STECF EWG 13/05 recommended such a study for MSsActivity: In order to assess the state of these data as required by the EU, scientists from the Med&BS countries (10) have to meet for one week in order to exchange expertise, review available data and evaluate information sources for different social variables collecting methods/assessment. Such yearly meetings are necessary to meet social assessment requirements and ultimately to assess and a sound and efficient method, way of collecting data could be harmonized in the under new CFP.Involved countries: all 10 MSs in Med&BS regionPeriod: 3 years (2014-2016)Indicative costs: 90,000 – 100,000 €

7. Provision of statistics assessing the quality of the data collected Objective: RCMMED&BS 2013 recommended such a study for MSs for the quality of data collectedActivity: In order to improve the quality of the assessing process of data collected MSs the scientists from the Med&BS countries (10) have to meet for one week in order to exchange expertise, review available data and evaluate information sources for different variables collecting methods/assessment and especially data quality level, as requested by the EC. Such yearly meetings are necessary to meet the requirements and ultimately to harmonize in an efficient way the methodologies of data quality evaluation in the NPs and AWPs. It is also to share the best practice/methods of quality evaluation.Involved countries: all 10 MSs in Med&BS regionPeriod: 3 years (2014-2016)Indicative costs: 100,000 – 120,000 €

8. Any other business

9. ReferencesAbella, A., Rátz, H-J., Charef, A. 2011. STECF EWG 11-05 Expert Working Group on Assessment Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 1. Ponza, Italy, 23-27 May 2011, 249pp.Cardinale, M., Rátz, H-J., Charef, A. 2011. STECF EWG 11-12 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 2. Larnaka, Cyprus, 26-30 September 2011, 608pp.

Cardinale, M., Rátz, H-J., Charef, A. 2012. STECF EWG 11-20 Expert Working Groupon Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 3. Madrid, Spain, 16-20 January 2012, 404 pp.

51


Daskalov, G., and Rátz, H-J. 2011. STECF EWG 11-16 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Black Sea Stocks. Sofia, Bulgaria, 10-14 October 2011, 213 pp.EC 2008a. Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community Framework for the collection, management and use of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy - OJ L60, 5.3.2008, p.1-12.EC 2008b. Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy - OJL 186, 15.7.2008, p.3-5.

EC 2008c. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 layingdown detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data - OJ L 295, 4.11.2008, p. 24-33.EU 2010. Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013- OJ L41, 16.2.2010, p.8-71.GFCM 2012a. Report of the 12th Session of the Sub-Committee on Statistics and Information (SCSI). FAO HQs, Rome, Italy, 23-26 January 2012, 20pp.

GFCM 2012b. Report of the 13th Session of the Sub-Committee on Stock Assessment(SCSA). FAO HQs, Rome, Italy, 23-26 January 2012, 44pp.GFCM 2012c. Report of the thirty-sixth session. Marrakech, Morocco, 14-19 May 2012. GFCM Report. No. 36. Rome, FAO. 2012. 71 pp.Liaison Meeting, 2011. Report of the 8th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the Chairs of STECF DCF EWG's and the European Commission. Brussels, Belgium, 4-5 October 2011, 117 pp.MEDIAS 2012. Report of 5th meeting for MEDIterranean Acoustic Surveys (MEDIAS) in the framework of European Data Collection Framework. Sliema, Malta,20-22 March 2012.MEDITS 2012a. MEDITS-Handbook. Revision n.6, April 2012, MEDITS Working group. 92pp.MEDITS 2012b. Report of the MEDITS Coordination Meeting (MediterraneanInternational Trawl Survey. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 6-8 March 2012, 79pp.PGMed 2010. Report of the 4th Meeting of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development (PGMed). Lisbon, 1-6 March 2010, 35 pp.PGMed 2012. Report of the 6th Meeting of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development (PGMed). Rome, 30 January -5 February 2012, 79 pp.RCM LDF, 2012. Report of the Third Regional Co-ordination Meeting for Long Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF). Madrid, Spain, 9-13 July 2012, 45 pp.

52


RCM Med&BS, 2009. Report of the 6th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med&BS). Venice, Italy, 13-16 October 2009,162pp.RCMMed&BS, 2010. Report of the 7th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS). Varna, 17-21 May, 2010, 96 pp.RCMMed&BS, 2011. Report of the 8th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS). Ljubljana, Slovenia, 10-13 May 2011, 79pp.Sabatella, E. and Virtanen, J. 2011. STECF - EWG 11-18 on Review of Economic Data collected in relation to the DCF and Harmonisation of Sampling Strategies. Salerno,Italy, 17-21 October 2011.

Sampson, D. B. 2010. STECF-SGRN 10-03 Review of needs related to surveys.Brussels, Belgium, 4-8 October 2010, 70pp.

10. Annexes

53

Annex I - List of participants

Name Country Institution Role email AttendanceBas Drukker NA European Commission DG MARE [email protected] part timeConstantin Stroie Romania National Agency for Fisheries and

AquacultureChair [email protected]

Beatriz Guijarro Spain Spanish Institute of Oceanography PGMED [email protected] Bonanno Italy Istituto per l’Ambiente Marina Costiero

UOS di Capo GranitaMEDIAS [email protected] part time

Gualtiero Basilone Italy Istituto per l’Ambiente Marina Costiero UOS di Capo Granita

MEDIAS part time

Christian Dintheer France Ifremer Scientist [email protected] Rouyer France Ifremer Scientist [email protected] Carpentieri Italy MIPAAF Biologist [email protected] part timeEvelina Sabatella Italy IREPA Economist [email protected] part timeMaria Gonzalez Spain Spanish Institute of Oceanography Biologist [email protected] Mifsud Malta Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture -

MCDECNational Correspondent [email protected]

Argyris Kallianiotis Greece Fisheries Research Institute Biologist [email protected] Svab Slovenia Ministry of Agriculture and Environment DCF National

[email protected]

Bojan Marceta Slovenia Fisheries Research Institute Biologist [email protected] Vukov Croatia Directorate of Fsheries Economist [email protected] Isajlovici Croatia Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries Biologist [email protected] Radu Romania NIMRD Constanta Biologist [email protected] Nenciu Romania NIMRD Constanta Economist [email protected] Galatchi Romania NIMRD Constanta Biologist [email protected]

54

mailto:[email protected]












Annex II - Terms of Reference for the 2013 RCM Med&BS

Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2012 RCM (follow-up of recommendations) and 9th Liaison Meeting report. Evaluate the outcomes of the RCMs that took place in 2012 & of any other RCMs that took place in 2013, pending availability of outcomes, in terms of complementarities and actions to be carried out by MS in the RCM region of competence.Review feedback and recommendations from data end users (STECF EWGs, ICES assessment WGs and benchmark meetings, GFCM Subcommittees and relevant WGs, and ICCAT assessment WGs) and PGECON.Regional coordinationRegional databases: update since RCMs 2012. Identify needs of the RCMs that could be addressed by the RDB SC and suggest any new features/reports to be developed.Make proposals for ways in which the work of RCMs could be expanded under the DC-MAP, to become Regional Coordination Groups (i.e. what new tasks to deal with at regional level, which tasks should take place during a meeting, which tasks could be carried out intersessionally)Proposals for cooperation activities between Member States that could be put forward for funding under the EMFF (Article 85).Data Quality issuesReview progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP proposals.EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020Provide feedback on the draft EU MAP2014-2020Prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling programme Studies and pilot projectsAny other businessAnalyse data from 2013 RCM data call (TBC).

55


Annex III - Mediterranean and Black Sea Regional DataBase (Med&BS-RDB): data policy document dealing with data confidentiality and data ownership issues.

1) GoalThe goal of this policy is to define how the data uploaded into the Mediterranean and Black Sea Regional DataBase (Med&BS-RDB) are stored and used in accordance with agreement made between the data submitters, data users and the “host”. For the European Union Member States, the basis for data policy rules should be the provisions of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 of 25 February 2008. Furthermore, to ensure that data can be made available for the coordination of establishing regional fisheries data sampling plans to serve and facilitate the production of advice and status reports by stating the conditions for data submission, access and usage rights.

2) ScopeThis policy applies to all data submitters and users of data uploaded into Med&BS-RDB and to activities for providing access to data.

3) Legal basis for EU Member StatesAccording to Articles 18 and 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008, Member States (MS) shall make detailed and aggregated data available to end users to support scientific analysis.

Member States shall ensure that relevant detailed and aggregated data to be sent on a regular basis is provided timely to the appropriate regional fisheries management organizations to which the Community is a contracting party or observer and relevant international scientific bodies in accordance with the international obligations of the Community and the Member States.According to Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008: MS shall ensure that the data is provided to end-users within two months from the receipt of the request for these data. MS have the right, under specific circumstances, to withhold data transmission to end users for a period of three years following the date of collection of the data.By submitting data to the regional database, MS grant permission for that data to be used by RCMMed&BS for coordination (e.g. harmonize sampling strategy….) and by EC, ONLY to provide scientific advice to the European Commission and its partners as per Article 18.1a of Council regulation (EC) No. 199/2008. Any requests for data under items b) and c) of Article 18 of the Council regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 or for other uses will be referred back to the MS.

MS may choose not to upload certain data to the Med&BS-RDB and will need to meet end users and commission data requests through their own internal mechanisms.

4) Management of the RDBThe regional database for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (Med&BS-RDB)

56


would be for internal use of EU members only in support of processing covered by the Data Collection Framework. Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS) is responsible for the content governance of the Med&BS-RDB. RCMMed&BS is in charge to decide data access and sharing policy. RCMMed&BS keeps under review the types of data to be included in the Med&BS-RDB, prioritize and develop road maps for data uploads as well as identify areas for development. The Med&BS-RDB is be managed by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will follow the guidance provide by RCMMed&BS. The Steering Committee is composed of members of each country appointed by the RCMMed&BS, plus the “host”, the Chairs of the surveys and a representative of the EC. RCMMed&BS is responsible for appointing members in the Steering Committee. It will be responsibility of the RCMMed&BS to appoint alternates (with appropriate user profile) if the first representative is not available.The Steering Committee is responsible for the technical governance, strategic planning, operational and financial issues. Steering Committee is also open for observers from countries, including non EU countries, that are presently not participating in the RDB but that want to gain knowledge.

The “host” would dispose human resources, technical expertise and IT infrastructure that can be up-scaled in order to provide database development, administration and security.

5) Data

The Med&BS-RDB can hold the following data types:Landing dataEffort data Value data All these data must be reported aggregated by GSA, by species, by year, by quarter, by métier and by segment.

Biological dataAll biological data related to sex, maturity, weight, age and length, deriving from sampling of commercial fisheries, collected through market, harbour or self- or sea sampling, must be reported by quarter, by species, by métier, by GSA.

According to Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008, detailed data are defined as data based on primary data in a form does not allow natural persons or legal entities to be identified directly or indirectly; aggregated data are defined as the output resulting from summarising the primary or detailed data for specific analytical purposes.

6) Data ownerships

57


The national data in Med&BS-RDB is owned by the individual MS. Med&BS-RDB contains copies/derived outputs from the national databases. Access to viewing and analysing other MS data in Med&BS-RDB does not entail permission to download, to copy or publish data, as defined in EU REG 199/2008, outside Med&BS-RDB. Such permissions can only be granted by each country. The focal point in each EU MS is the National Correspondent.

7) Access rightsAccess to Med&BS-RDB is restricted to persons who have a user name and a password, a user name is for the sole use of that individual. Each role defines the user’s access to functionality, applied to a given data context defined by the combination of data groups and the minimum aggregation level for those data. The “host” should be provided, by the national correspondent, with lists of scientists in the country and the role(s) assigned to their profiles. The list should be updated at least annually. National Correspondent or the person delegate by the NC (alternate) could have the possibility to read, upload, download and/or delete all the data of his country.EC could have the possibility to read or download all the data of all MS.When the user is logged in, the access to Med&BS-RDB data and functionality is role based. In the list of scientists of each country, a single user can have several roles assigned to his/her profile. New specific roles can be defined by the Steering Committee if and when such roles are needed.

8) Policy for Data ProvidersAlthough the “host” may perform some data quality/integrity control, the MS always retain complete responsibility for data quality and when necessary for updating.

When changes (new data and revisions) are made in the data source (the national database containing the primary data) MS are responsible to in a timely manner update and process their own data in the Med&BS-RDB.

It is the responsibility of the MS to make sure that data that cannot be identified to any individual vessel or legal entity or at a resolution violating confidentiality rules.

9) Policy for Use of DataOn request of the Steering Committee, the “host” will make data available in a timely way. This data provision will be made according to the access restrictions deriving from Reg. 199/2008 and in accordance with the limitations given by the owners of the data. Correct and appropriate data interpretation is solely the responsibility of data users.Data sources (MS) must be properly acknowledged.Data Users must respect any and all restrictions on the use or reproduction of data following the EU Regulations199/2008 and the associated restrictions.

58


Data Users are obliged to inform MS and keeping informed Steering Committee of any suspected problems in the data.

10) Data Quality at Regional LevelOn the basis of the recommendations made by the Steering Committee, the “host” could develop and apply quality assurance procedures as appropriate and feasible. The “host” may also receive reports on potentially erroneous data by Steering Committee. The “host” will inform Steering Committee of relevant quality issues.

59


Annex IV - Terms of Reference for PGMed 2014

ToR 1) Ranking system for the whole Mediterranean and for the Black Sea

ToR 2) Reviewing and update of the landing template for the Mediterranean and for the Black Sea

ToR 3) For the metier which are exploring a shared stock and selected by the ranking system, the number of sampling trips by metier at the GSA level can be determined.

ToR 4) Assess the CV for shared stocks both for the Mediterranean (GSA 7, GAS 15-16, GSA 17) and Black Sea.

ToR 5) To analyse the extension of the problem concerning the fishing performed in a different GSA than their original one

ToR 6) Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2013 for large pelagic species on sampling of length and stock related variables by using 2012 (or 2013) data

ToR 7) Assess the CV of large pelagic for length

ToR 8) Review WK on data quality carried out until now: state of guidelines of statistical sound sampling methodologies

ToR 9) Proposal of workshops and studies

ToR 10) Any other business

60


Annex V - March 2013The Commission decision on Large Pelagics and its background(extracts made by the chair of the RCM LDF)

The 2012 LM stressed that there is a need to resolve the issue of competence for Large Pelagics between the RCM Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med & BS) and the RCM Long Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF). An extensive e-mail exchanges took place on this issue over the past year(s). In 2012 these species were not reviewed by any RCM due to a lack of agreement. There is no perfect solution, which is why no agreement has been met despite so many discussions. A decision was needed to make the best of the situation, even if imperfect, so that 2013 does not once again result in Large Pelagics being left out of RCM discussions. Therefore the following approach was proposed, also in line with the recommendations of STECF EWG12-20 on this issue (extract below*): All large pelagic species are to be treated by the RCM LDF, except those dominantly exploited in the Mediterranean, which are to be treated by the RCM Med & BS. The Large Pelagics to be treated by the RCM Med & BS would then be species in the competence of ICCAT, including:- bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)- albacore ( Thunnus alalunga)- swordfish (Xiphias gladius)- Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda)- shark species 'taken in association' with tuna and tuna-like species as listed in Appendix VII of Commission Decision 93/2010 (Mediterranean and Black Sea section) The RCM Med&BS is responsible for dealing with data collection issues relating to these species in all geographical areas for which the fisheries takes place, and hence where data collection takes place, and not just data collection in the Mediterranean. Despite this split in competencies, for this year, the RCMs LD and RCM Med&BS will be hold together, in Constanta from 2-6 September, therefore a suggestion is made that a working group be formed to work on all large pelagics and that this working group write up the conclusions of their work and this section be included in both the reports of the RCM LD and the RCM Med&BS.

* STECF-EWG 12-20: Concerning the large pelagic coordination among RCMMed&BS and RCM LDF, EGW 12-20 refers to the LM 2009 recommendation and supports the decision that all the sampling activities for the large pelagic species, included in Appendix VII of Decision 2010/93/EU for the Mediterranean and Black Sea area (i.e. albacore (ALB), swordfish (SWO), bonito (BON) and bluefin tuna (BFT)), will be managed solely by the RCMMed&BS. RCMLDF will then deal with all other large pelagic species, operating outside the Mediterranean and/or third countries and in international waters, as

61


several tuna fleets operating in the Atlantic or the Indian Ocean and Pacific.

Annex VI – List of métiers targeting Large Pelagics

62

MSReference

years Region Fishing groundGear LVL4

Target Assemblage

LVL5Metier LVL6 Metier LVL7

code ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC & WCPFC

CYP ICCAT Mediterranean BIL 95 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLCYP ICCAT Mediterranean AL 35 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB) LLALBESP IATT C+WCPFC IATT C+WCPFC LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLESP IATT C+WCPFC IATT C+WCPFC PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_0_0_0 PS_LPF_0_0_0 (TROP) * PSESP ICCAT Atlantic BF 54 LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) BBESP ICCAT Atlantic BF 58 LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) BBESP ICCAT Atlantic BF 58 LHM Large pelagic fish LHM_LPF_0_0_0 LHM_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) HANDESP ICCAT Atlantic BF 58 FPO Large pelagic fish FPN_LPF_0_0_0 FPN_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) TRAPESP ICCAT Atlantic AL 31 LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB) BBESP ICCAT Atlantic AL 31 LHP Large pelagic fish LTL_LPF_0_0_0 LTL_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB) TROLESP ICCAT Atlantic BIL 94 A+B, BIL 96, BIL 97 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLESP ICCAT Atlantic ATL(CANA) LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (MSP) * BBESP ICCAT Atlantic ATL (ETRO) LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) * BBESP ICCAT Atlantic ATL (ETRO) PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_0_0_0 PS_LPF_0_0_0 (TROP) * PSESP ICCAT Mediterranean BF 59 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) LLJAPESP ICCAT Mediterranean AL 35 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB) LLALBESP ICCAT Mediterranean BIL 95 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLESP ICCAT Mediterranean BIL 95 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLESP ICCAT Mediterranean BF 59 PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_14_0_0 PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT) PSESP ICCAT Mediterranean MED FPN Large pelagic fish FPN_LPF_0_0_0 FPN_LPF_0_0_0 TRAPESP IOTC FAO 51+ 57 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLESP IOTC FAO 51+ 57 PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_0_0_0 PS_LPF_0_0_0 (TROP) * PSFRA ICCAT Atlantic AL31 PTM Large pelagic fish PTM_LPF_>=55_0_0 PTM_LPF_>=55_0_0 (ALB) MWTDFRA ICCAT Atlantic AL31 PTM Large pelagic fish PTM_LPF_100-119_0_0 PTM_LPF_100-119_0_0 (ALB) MWTDFRA ICCAT Atlantic BF54 LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) BBFRA ICCAT Atlantic AL31 PTM Large pelagic fish PTM_LPF_>=70_0_0 PTM_LPF_>=70_0_0 (ALB) MWTDFRA ICCAT Atlantic ATL (ETRO) LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) * BBFRA ICCAT Atlantic ATL (ETRO) PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_0_0_0 PS_LPF_0_0_0 (TROP) * PSFRA ICCAT Atlantic BIL 93 LHP/LLD Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) * BBFRA ICCAT Mediterranean BF59 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) LLBFTFRA ICCAT Mediterranean BF59 PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_14_0_0 PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT) PSFRA IOTC FAO 51+ 57 PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_0_0_0 PS_LPF_0_0_0 (TROP) * PSFRA IOTC FAO 51+ 58 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLGRE ICCAT Mediterranean BIL 95 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLGRE ICCAT Mediterranean BF 59 LLD Large pelagic fish LTL_LPF_0_0_0 LTL_LPF_0_0_0 TROLIRL ICCAT Atlantic North Atlantic PTM Large pelagic fish PTM_LPF_100-119_0_0 PTM_LPF_100-119_0_0 MWTDIT A ICCAT Mediterranean BF59 PS Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_14_0_0 PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT) PSIT A ICCAT Mediterranean AL35 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB) LLALBIT A ICCAT Mediterranean BF59 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) LLJAPIT A ICCAT Mediterranean BIL95 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLIT A ICCAT Mediterranean MED MISC Large pelagic fish MISC_LPF_0_0_0 MISC_LPF_0_0_0MLT ICCAT Mediterranean BIL95 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLMLT ICCAT Mediterranean BF59 LLD Large pelagic fish PS_LPF_14_0_0 PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT) PSMLT ICCAT Mediterranean BF59 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) LLJAPPRT ICCAT Atlantic BIL 94 A+B, BIL 96, BIL 97 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LLPRT ICCAT Atlantic BF 58 FPO Large pelagic fish FPN_LPF_0_0_0 FPN_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT) TRAPPRT ICCAT Atlantic AL 31 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB) LLALBPRT ICCAT Atlantic ATL(CANA) LHP Large pelagic fish LHP_LPF_0_0_0 LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (MSP) * BBPRT IOTC FAO 51+ 58 LLD Large pelagic fish LLD_LPF_0_0_0 LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO) LL

(*) MSP: Bluefin tuna, Albacore, Yellowfin, Skipjack and BigeyeTROP: Yellowfin, Skipjack and Bigeye


Annex VII

year meetingshort name of

recommendationrecommendation follow-up actions needed

follow-up responsabilities

time frame(deadline)

fulfilled by MSs?

2010 RCM Med&BS

Metier and stock related variables:Fishing activities and length - age sampling coverage

BUL and ROM propose in their NP to share tasks to perform biological sampling of landings of the main metiers identified in the BS. RCMMed&BS encourages these both countries to cooperate for optimizing the allocation of the available sampling effort to the different metiers and stocks by using exploratory analysis tools as COST and by estimating precision levels achieved at BS level. Other MS involved in shared metiers in a GSA are also asked to share data collected and carry out such an analysis (following the output of the RCMMed&BS 2009 and PGMed 2010).

BUL and ROM to review existing data or initiate a pilot study to assess precision levels achieved in the concerned metiers and to report to PGMed. Other MS to perform such analysis for shared fishing activities.

BUL and ROM, concerned Member States; RCM Med&BS; PGMed

PGMed 2011

NOexisting bilateral agreement BG-RO but only implemented during a short period in 2012, then stopped due to financial difficultuies, according to BG

2008-09 RCM Med&BSMetier and stock related variables - Large pelagic species

This agreement involves Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Greece nd Cyprus. Croatia could be concerned also as from 2014. It defines yearly sampling intensities for estimation of métiers and stocks variables for 5 LPF species and the numbers of specimens to be sampled by each MS according to their importance in these shared fisheries. Since 2009, PGMed is in charge to calculate yearly the allocation of sampling effort between MS on this Mediterranean-wide basis

MS to include sampling effort defined by PGMed in their NPs.

Member states, PGMedYearly updatesTo apply until further notice

Yes, since 2009. Will apply until further notice

2009 RCM Med&BS

Metier variables - Shared métier "Bottom otter trawl targeting mixed demersal and deep sea species in GSA 15"

Agreement implemented by both MS on voluntary basis

MT will sample CY trawlers when they land fish at the MT fish market.MT onboard observers are allowed to go on CY trawlers if onboard sampling is required.

Member statesTo apply until further notice

Yes, since 27/01/2009

RCM & LM recommendations on task sharing activities

microsoft word - rcm medbs 2012...

Documents