Annual Report 2010 – THE NETHERLANDS
(Detailing the state of completion of the aims set at the time of the
drawing-up the National programme for the Data Collection
Framework)
by
Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation, Directorate of Agriculture,
Fisheries, and Agribusiness
IMARES (Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies)
LEI (Institute of Agricultural Economics)
submitted 31 May 2011
version 1
Document1
Version control
Version 1:
Annual_Report_2010_NL_v1.docx is the original version of the report submitted
at May 31, 2011.
The corresponding standard tables are submitted in an Excel file:
Annual_Report_2010_NL_Standard_Tables_v1.xlsx
The corresponding cost statement is submitted in an Excel file:
Annual_Report_2010_NL_CostStatement_v1.xlsx
Version 2:
Annual_Report_2010_NL_v1.docx is an amended version containing the
response to the comments by the Commission as provided to The Netherlands
on October 28, 2011
The corresponding standard tables are submitted in an Excel file:
Annual_Report_2010_NL_Standard_Tables_v2.xlsx
The corresponding cost statement is submitted in an Excel file:
Annual_Report_2010_NL_CostStatement_v2.xlsx
Page 2 of 92
Document1
Table of contents
I.
General framework .................................................................................................................. 6
II.
Organisation of the National Programme .............................................................................. 7
II.A.
II.B.
III.
National correspondent and participating institutes ......................................................... 7
Regional and International coordination................................................................................. 9
II B 1
Attendance of International meetings ......................................................................... 9
II B 2
Follow-up of regional and international recommendations .............................. 9
Module of evaluation of the fishing sector ........................................................................... 11
III.A.
General Description of the fishing sector.............................................................................. 11
III.B.
Economic variables (Supra region ICES and NAFO areas) ............................................ 13
III.B.1
Achieved Sampling: results and deviation from NP proposal ........................ 13
III.B.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ..................................... 14
III.B.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .......................... 17
III.B.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls .............................................................................................. 17
III.B.
Economic variables (Other regions) ....................................................................................... 19
III.B.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 19
III.B.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ..................................... 19
III.B.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .......................... 19
III.B.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls .............................................................................................. 19
III.C.
Biological - Métier-related variables (North Sea) ............................................................. 20
III.C.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 20
III.C.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 21
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .......................... 21
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls .............................................................................................. 24
III.C.
Biological - métier-related variables (North Atlantic) .................................................... 25
III.C.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 25
III.C.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 25
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .......................... 25
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls .............................................................................................. 30
III.C.
Biological - métier-related variables (Other regions) ..................................................... 31
III.C.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 31
III.C.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 31
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .......................... 31
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls .............................................................................................. 31
III.D.
Biological - Recreational fisheries (North Sea) .................................................................. 32
III.D.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 32
III.D.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 32
III.D.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .......................... 33
III.D.4.
Actions to avoid shortfalls .............................................................................................. 34
III.E.
Biological - stock-related variables (North Sea) ................................................................ 35
III.E.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 35
III.E.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 36
III.E.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .......................... 36
III.E.4.
Actions to avoid shortfall ................................................................................................ 36
III.E.
Biological - stock-related variables (North Atlantic) ....................................................... 38
III.E.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 38
III.E.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 38
Page 3 of 92
Document1
III.E.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations...........................38
III.E.4.
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..............................................................................................38
III.E.
Biological - stock-related variables (Other Regions) .......................................................39
III.E.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................39
III.E.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal .......................................39
III.E.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations...........................39
III.E.4.
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..............................................................................................39
III.F.
Transversal variables .....................................................................................................................40
III.F.1.
Capacity ...................................................................................................................................40
III.F.2
Effort .........................................................................................................................................40
III.F.3
Landings ..................................................................................................................................41
III.G
Research surveys at sea ................................................................................................................42
III.G.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................42
III.G.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal .......................................42
III.G.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations...........................42
III.G.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..............................................................................................42
IV
Module of the evaluation of the economic situation of the aquaculture and
processing industry ............................................................................................................................... 44
IV.A.
Collection of economic data for the aquaculture ...............................................................44
IV.A.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................44
IV.A.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal .......................................45
IV.A.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations...........................45
IV.A.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..............................................................................................45
IV.B.
Collection of data concerning the processing industry ...................................................46
IV.B.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................46
IV.B.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal .......................................47
IV.B.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations...........................47
V.
Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem........... 48
V.1.
V.2.
VI.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ................................................48
Actions to avoid shortfalls ............................................................................................................48
Module for management and use of the data ....................................................................... 49
VI.1.
VI.2.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ................................................49
Actions to avoid shortfalls ............................................................................................................50
VII Follow-up of STECF recommendations ...................................................................................... 51
VIII.
List of acronyms and abbreviations ...................................................................................... 61
IX.
Comments, suggestions and reflections ................................................................................ 63
Comments to the financial forms: ......................................................................................................63
Comments to the tables: ........................................................................................................................63
X.
References ............................................................................................................................... 64
Page 4 of 92
Document1
XI
Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 65
Annex 1 Set of survey maps ................................................................................................................. 66
Annex 2 Bilateral Agreements ............................................................................................................. 75
Annex 3 Subcontracts ........................................................................................................................... 78
Annex 4 Costs and Earnings taken into account in the different parameters as set out in
appendix VI of the DCF. ...................................................................................................................... 80
Annex 5 Evaluation representativity of the Dutch panel ................................................................... 82
Annex 6 Methodology for estimating the precision of estimates based on market sampling
data
................................................................................................................................ 89
Annex 7 Minutes of National Coordination Meetings ....................................................................... 90
Page 5 of 92
Document1
I.
General framework
In May 2008, the Netherlands submitted a proposal for a National Programme for the
years 2009-2010 for the collection of biological and economic data of the fishing
sector and commercial exploited fish stocks. In this report, this national data collection
programme will be further referred to as the National Programme (NP). The basis for
this NP was a suite of renewed regulations 1 introduced by the European Commission
(EC) for the collection of biological and economic data in the period 2009-2013.
These regulations oblige Member States (MS) to collect data, needed to support the
Common Fishery Policy (CFP). This Framework of Data Collection Regulations (DCF)
contains procedures, guidelines, and both qualitative as well as quantitative criteria,
on which and how much data has to be collected. Further, the EC has established
provisions to facilitate the cooperation between MS.
In October 2009 a revision of the NP 2009-2010 was submitted with details for the
work to be carried out in 2010. A final version was submitted in March 2010. This
version includes the requested changes in the comments of the Commission on the
NP submitted for 2010 made on 15 March 2010.
This report is an Annual Report of Activity (AR) of the work which was carried out in
2010 in the Netherlands with reference to the aims described in the proposal and the
requirements listed in the DCF. The lay out of the report follows closely the guidance
template submitted by the Commission to the MS for this purpose in 2009 2. Most of
the required information is given in the tables (grey fields) which are distributed
separately in an Excel document.
1
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the
implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 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
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
COMMISSION DECISION (2008/949/EC) adopting a multi annual Community programme pursuant to Council
Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing 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
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards to the expenditure incurred by Member States for
the Collection and management of the basic fisheries data
2
Guidelines for the submission of Technical Report on the National Data Collection Programmes under Council
Regulation (EC) 199/2008, Commission Regulation (EC) 665/2008 and Commission Decision 2008/949/EC Version
2009
Page 6 of 92
Document1
II.
Organisation of the National Programme
II.A.
National correspondent and participating institutes
The Dutch National Correspondent in 2010 was ir D.J. van der Stelt. He is employed
by the Dutch Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation in the department
Directorate of Agriculture, Fisheries and Agribusiness.
The NP in the Netherlands was carried out by 3 partners in 2010:
1) The Dutch Directorate of Agriculture, Fisheries and Agribusiness (EL&I-AKV).
This is a section in the Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation and
performs control and authority exercises at the commercial fisheries and the
recreational and game fisheries. This partner also acted as coordinator for
the execution of the National Programme in 2010;
2) LEI (Institute of Agricultural Economics). This institute is a private research
institution, part of Wageningen University and Research Centre. LEI B.V. is
responsible for collection of agricultural and fisheries economics statistics in
The Netherlands; Within the programme, LEI is responsible for the evaluation
of the fishing sector; transversal variables; the evaluation of the economic
situation of the aquaculture and the collection of data concerning the
processing industry.
3) IMARES (Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies). This
institution is a private research institution, as part of Wageningen University
and Research Centre. IMARES is responsible for the biological part of the
data collection programme, including stock- and metierrelated variables;
recreational fisheries and research surveys at sea.
Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature and Food Quality
Netherlands Institute
for Agricultural
Economics (LEI)
Institute for Marine
Resources & Ecosystem
Studies (IMARES)
Bezuidenhoutseweg 73
Post-box 20401
2500 EK The Hague Netherlands
Phone: +31 70 3793911
Fax: + 31 70 3786153
web:
www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/el
eni
Alexanderveld 5
Post-box 29703
2502 LS The Hague
Netherlands
Phone: +31 70 3358330
Fax: +31 70 3615624
web: www.lei.nl
Haringkade 1
Post-box 68
1970 AB IJmuiden
Netherlands
Phone: +31 317 480900
Fax: +31 317 487362
web: www.imares.nl
Contact: Dirk-Jan van der Stelt
Phone: + 31 70 3784891
E-mail: d.j.van.der.stelt@minlnv.nl
Contact: Hans van
Oostenbrugge
Phone: + 31 70
3358239
E-mail:
hans.vanoostenbrugge
@wur.nl
Contact: Sieto Verver
Phone: + 31 317 487045
E-mail: sieto.verver@wur.nl
In 2010, two dedicated one day coordination meetings were organized to coordinate
the work carried out in The Netherlands. The main subjects were:
-
Coordination of the production of the Annual Report over 2009 and the
National Program for 2011-2013
Preparation for the financial formats
mechanisms to finance the execution of the NP in the future
production of transversal variable
Page 7 of 92
Document1
The meetings were held on February 18 and March 29 (minutes included in Annex 7).
Further work was co-ordinated during the various RCM meetings.
Page 8 of 92
Document1
II.B.
Regional and International coordination
II B 1
Attendance of International meetings
Table II.B.1 list the meeting which have been attended by the MS in 2010. MS
participated in all meetings which were planned in the NP.
In 2010 NL has provided chairs for the RCM NS&EA and the following ICES expert
groups: WKMSSPDF, WKARP, WGEGGS, WGBEAM, WGNEW, WGOOFE,
WKANSARNS, WKPELECO, SGSIPS and SGBYC.
II B 2
Follow-up of regional and international recommendations
This section lists the recommendation from all relevant RCM meetings in 2009 which
are not dealt with a specific section of the report. These recommendations are
endorsed by the Liaison Committee. The following recommendations have been
selected:
Topic: Naming convention
RCM NS&EA 2009
Recommendation
The RCM-NA recommends that all MS should follow
strictly the naming conventions for reporting the sampling
and statistics information. To that aim, MS are invited to
investigate closely on the mesh size range actually used.
The SGRN Guidelines for NP proposals should be
revised in order to ensure unambiguous coding of the
métiers and fishing grounds and to stress the
importance to adhere to these rules
RCM Med&BS 2009
Recommendation
Follow-up actions
needed
Responsible
persons for followup actions
The RCM-Med&BS recommends that all MS should
follow strictly the naming conventions for reporting the
sampling and statistics information. The SGRN
Guidelines for NP proposals should be revised in order to
ensure unambiguous coding of the métiers and fishing
grounds and to stress the importance to adhere to
these rules.

Revision of the Guidelines
and templates for NP proposals

Careful attention to the
naming of the métiers

STECF-SGRN

All Member States
Time frame
(Deadline)
2009
LM comment
LM endorses RCM recommendations
MS response
MS has included in its NP for 2011-2013 comprehensive
descriptions of all metiers which qualified in the ranking
procedure
Page 9 of 92
Document1
Topic : COST tools hands-on workshop
RCM NS&EA 2008
Recommendation
The RCM Baltic recommends that a hands-on workshop
on the COST project tools should be planned. For the
preparation of this workshop, MS should prepare their
data in a specified exchange format and gain first
experience with the analysis tools
Follow-up actions needed
Setting up COST hands-on workshop.
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
ICES PGCCDBS, PGMED
Time frame (Deadline) March 2009
LM comment
LM endorses the recommendation for addressing this
issue during the forthcoming PGCCDBS and PGMED
meetings. Moreover, LM recommends PGs to address
the issue of the maintenance of the software.
MS response
NL has sent 2 participants to the Cost Workshop which
was held in Nantes in April 2010. It appeared that for a
number of countries the COST software is of limited use.
Operating the software requires people which are expert
in several expertise fields. Also within the MS, many
sampling systems are in use which cannot be dealt with
by the present COST application.
Page 10 of 92
Document1
III.
Module of evaluation of the fishing sector
III.A.
General Description of the fishing sector
The Dutch fishing sector in marine waters can be split up in three major sectors: the
demersal fishery in the North Sea, the pelagic fishery in European and international
waters and coastal fisheries for bivalves. Table III.A.1 gives an overview of the areas
where Dutch fisheries are active.
A major change in the fishery is a reduction of the demersal fleet from 345 vessels in
2008 to 308 vessels in 2009. The reduction is a result of (inter)national measures to
reduce fishing effort in the demersal fisheries.
Composition of Dutch fleet (at the end of the year)
Fishing fleet
Demersal fisheries
Pelagic fisheries
Other sea fisheries
Aquaculture
Non active
Total Dutch fleet
No. of vessels
2009
No. of vessels
2010
308
14
217
76
177
792
308
14
193
75
145
735
source: Visserij in cijfers 2009 and 2010
Demersal fisheries
The major demersal fishery in the Netherlands is the beam trawl fishery directed to
flatfish in the North Sea. These fisheries are mixed fisheries taking also non target
species and discards and operate all year round. Three métiers have been
distinguished within the beam trawl fleet: beam trawlers <300 HP and two métiers of
beam trawlers >300 HP. The first group exist of relative small vessels, operating in
coastal areas3 which are by regulation not accessible to the larger beam trawlers.
Within the second group, two métiers can be distinguished, those fishing with a
minimum mesh size of 80-99 mm for a mixture of plaice and sole, mainly fishing in
Division IVc and part of Division IVb and those fishing for plaice with 100 mm mesh
size and larger in Division IVb. The number of vessels and effort of the beam trawl
fleet has decreased considerable in recent years due to decommissioning schemes.
Due to new regulations and economic incentives, the beam trawl fleet shows large
developments into new fishing methods. In the most recent years beam trawling using
electric gears has developed fast. Also alternatives for the beam itself, such as a
flywings have been introduced. The catch composition with these “new gears” is
different from the traditional beam trawl. However, in the logbooks fishing operations
using the new gear cannot be distinguished from traditional beam trawling. Also, a
gradual switch towards other fishing methods can be observed in recent years, such
as twin trawling and shrimping.
Small fleet segments, which have recently developed in the Netherlands, are twin
trawlers, fishing in the southern North Sea for a mixture of plaice, roundfish and nonquota species such as mullets and gurnards. Also a fishery directed to Norway
lobster, mainly with twin trawls and beam trawls has developed in the past decades.
3
fishing in the 12 miles coastal zone and plaice box
Page 11 of 92
Document1
The fishery for brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) is carried out within the 6 mile zone
along the continental coast extending from Sylt to the Dutch-Belgian border, including
the Wadden Sea and other estuaries. This fishery is regulated by licenses
The Netherlands have some small quota for demersal species in the Gulf of Biscay
(VIIIc) and the Irish Sea (VIIa). Traditionally these quotas are exchanged with other
countries and no fishing of Dutch vessels is assumed to take place in these areas in
2010.
Pelagic fisheries
Dutch pelagic trawlers fish for pelagic species using pelagic or semi-pelagic trawls in
North East Atlantic, North African and Pacific waters. The fishing operations of the
pelagic fisheries are by nature directed to single species which are taken with relative
few discards. Major target species in Atlantic waters are herring, mackerel, horse
mackerel and blue whiting. In African waters the target species are sardinella and
horse mackerel and west of Chile and Peru the target is jack mackerel (Trachurus
murphyi). The landings from African and Pacific waters are mainly landed abroad,
partly outside the EU. The fisheries for the various pelagic species occur in different
seasons and are generally not of a mixed nature. All fish is landed frozen and used
for human consumption.
Other Sea fisheries including inactive vessels
This part of the Dutch fleet (338 vessels in 2010) comprises vessels involved in gill
net fishing and various other sea fishing as well as non-active vessels. In total, 193
vessels are considered active and 145 vessels are inactive. Of the active small scale
fishery fleet, 59 vessels took part in gill net fishing and 134 vessels took part in other
seas fishery such as shellfish fishing on the North Sea, fishing with static vessels for
lobster and eel in the coastal and delta zone, and smelt fishing with seines. The nonactive fleet consisted of vessels which had not made any (registered) fishing trip.
Aquaculture and coastal fisheries for bivalves
In the Wadden Sea and Easter Scheldt Estuary, mussels are cultured by a fleet
mainly operating from Yerseke. Small (wild) mussels are collected and transported to
locations where better conditions for growth are expected and harvested 1-2 years
later. The fishery for mussels is a form of aquaculture and is regulated by extensive
national regulations.
The fishery for cockles is carried out by hand in the Wadden Sea and Scheldt
Estuary. A major mechanical cockle fishery in coastal waters has been terminated in
2005.
In the Scheldt Estuary native (Ostrea edulus) and Pacific Crassostrea gigas) oysters
are cultured. Only a few companies are involved in the oyster culture.
On a smaller scale, a fishery for shellfish (molluscs) takes place in coastal waters.
The fishery is directed to either spisula (Spisula subtruncata, Spisula solida) or to
American jackknife clams (Ensis americanus). The latter species is an alien species
which has expanded considerable in recent years. The fishery is regulated by
licenses.
Page 12 of 92
Document1
III.B.
Economic variables (Supra region ICES and NAFO areas)
Supra Region Baltic Sea (ICES area II b-d), North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId)
and Eastern Arctic (ICES areas I and II), and North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV) and
NAFO areas.
III.B.1
Achieved Sampling: results and deviation from NP proposal
In the Dutch fishing fleet two large groups of vessels can be distinguished besides the
fleet segmentation of the DCF; commercially active and less active vessels (including
those which are non-active). These two groups of vessels differ in cost structure and
income and thus are considered separated target populations. Commercially active
vessels carry out the fishery on a commercial basis add more than 95% to the
commercial catches. The less active vessels participate occasionally or never in the
sea fishery. A large part of these vessels merely exist because of administrative
reasons (e.g. to store licences, capacity, sea days, ITQ). In order to distinguish
between economically less active and active vessels we use a lower threshold for
economic active vessels of 50,000 Euro on gross revenue.
The commercially active vessels are concentrated in the following segments:







Beam trawl: 12-18 m
Beam trawl: 18-24 m
Beam trawl: 24-40 m
Beam trawl : 40- m
Demersal trawls and seiners : 18-24 m
Demersal trawls and seiners : 24-40 m
Pelagic trawls and seiners : 40- m
Data from commercially active vessels was gathered directly by copying fishermen’s
accounts by three full time accountants who have access to the full accounting of the
firms (all individual bills and invoices. The data of individual vessels is elaborated by
week (trip) and fishery. This data was collected during the reference year. So data
from 2010 has been collected during 2010. Final validated data will only become
available 10 months after the reference year.
The commercially less-active vessels are mainly concentrated in the following
segments



Passive gear: 0-10 m
Demersal trawls: 0-10 m
Polyvalent gear: 12-18 m
Data from commercially less-active vessels has been collected indirectly by means of
a paper questionnaire
Annual economic data for the small scale fisheries has been collected by a survey
send out one year after the reference year, so data from 2009 for the small scale
fisheries has been collected in 2010 and final validated data for these segments was
available mid-2010, one year after the reference year.
LEI panel: target population
Detailed economic data have been collected in 2010 from 91 cutters and 14 industrial
vessels, as specified in the national programme (Netherlands Directorate of Fisheries,
2002). A special segment is the fleet segment of pelagic trawlers over 40 m, covering
the Dutch pelagic trawler fleet. As this segment consists of only 3 companies,
complete economic and catch information has been gathered.
The current panel consists of 91 vessels (approximately 30% of the total
commercially active cutter fleet) and is stratified according to gear type and length. As
discussed in SCEGA 09-02, the panel selection meets the requirements of a
Page 13 of 92
Document1
Probability Sample Survey as the participants of the panel has been selected
randomly and replacements of participants dropping out of the panel are also
selected randomly. For each of the vessels economic data are collected on effort,
catches, revenues, variable and fixed costs and financial position. The revenues and
costs are collected for nine types of fishery in which the vessels can be involved.
These types of fishery are: (1) pair trawling for herring, (2) otter trawl, (3) beam trawl,
(4) pair trawl for demersal round fish, (5) shrimp trawl, (6) fishery for Nephrops, (7) gill
net, (8) Danish seine, (9) twin rig and (10) others. Annex 5 shows that the panel
stratification is representative for the Dutch fleet.
The segment of beam trawl vessel between 24 and 40 metres is highly
heterogeneous, both in technical characteristics as well as in economic and fishing
performance. This is mainly because 16 vessels longer than 24 metres are in fact
euro cutters and thus hardly comparable to the other vessels in this segment.
Therefore variability in this segment is large as Annex 5 shows and the segment is
stratified further based on the engine power as specified in the extended program,
according to appendix IV of the EC regulation. The number of vessels in each of the
two sub segments and the number of vessels included in the panel are given in the
table below.
Number of commercially active vessels in the beam trawl segment from 24-40 from which economic
information is gathered, together with population numbers
Length (m) Fishing technique
Hp
Population Panel
24-40
24-40
<301
>300
16
16
Beam trawl
Beam trawl
5
4
There were no deviations from the planned sample rate for the commercially active
fleet.
Paper Questionnaire: target population
Information of the vessels that are not included in the population for the LEI panel
(both less important fisheries and vessels which earn less than 50.000 euro per year)
is gathered by sending out a questionnaire.
The results of the questionnaire showed that within the group of vessels categorised
as less active, 122 vessels were non-active. The other vessels could be categorised
in 5 segments, of which the small vessels using passive gears was by far the most
important. The number of small pelagic vessels was too small to report on and
grouped with the demersal vessels as their cost structure is far more comparable with
demersal vessels than with the larger pelagic trawlers.
Table III.A.1 shows that in 6 of the total of 9 identified segments coverage of the
active vessels in the sample is > 20%. In case of the other segments, dredges and
polyvalent gears 18-24m data coverage is poor.
As planned the questionnaire was send out to all less active and inactive vessels.
Thus there were no deviations from the planned sample rated. As the questionnaire is
voluntary the response rate is still not as high as optimal. Therefor a model to better
estimate the economic results of this segment is being developed.
III.B.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Different variables are collected from different sources and the data quality checks
differed per source.
Information on catches and effort were retrieved from the official catch database
(VIRIS). In order to obtain detailed data on landings according to market category,
contact has been made with the different auctions and they have agreed to deliver
detailed data on landings and prices per market category. Detailed data are available
per market category from 2004 onwards.
Page 14 of 92
Document1
Technical information on vessel size, engine power etc. was retrieved from the official
vessel register. This is a complete census of the Dutch fleet and thus no estimations
are necessary for the capacity indicators.
Like stated before, economic data is collected either directly from the fishermen’s
accounts or by paper questionnaires. The data quality differs between these two
collection methods. As the fishing area of the Dutch vessels exceeds the borders of
the regions specified in the EU regulation (level 3), even within one trip, data on the
economic variables (income from subsidies, production costs, fixed costs, interest
and the number of vessels) are not available on this aggregation level. Information on
effort and catches is available on this aggregation level. Thus, the values of the
required economic variables are estimated, based on the total value in the group and
the relative amount of effort in each of the regions for both the commercially active
and the commercially less active vessels.
LEI panel: data collected
From the vessels within the LEI panel information of over 200 highly detailed costs
and income categories is collected. The table below gives an overview of these costs
and incomes categories and shows how they are used to calculate the parameters
defined in appendix XVIII of the DCF. Besides these, information on income from
fisheries is gathered by species and all purchases of tangible assets are registered,
classified in more than 50 different categories. All economic data are available
electronically at this highly detailed level, so that changes in the DCF can be easily
applied on both current and formerly collected data. Annex 4 shows the costs and
earnings taken into account in the different parameters as set out in appendix VI of
the DCF.
Investments are valuated, based on the actual purchase price whenever possible. In
case the purchase price is not known insurance value is used as a proxy of the
replacement value. If the insurance value is also unavailable, the value of the
investment is estimated based on standards or expert knowledge. This last possibility,
however, is only seldom used.
Leasing of equipment is highly uncommon in the Dutch fishing fleet. Over the last
years none of the panel members leased any equipment. Therefore, the invested
capital of leased equipment is not applicable to this fleet.
The engine and the hull of the vessel are written down exponentially, whereas all
other assets are written down linearly. Based on this, depreciation is calculated.
For the calculation of the employment, full time employees are defined as employees
who are normally joining the fishing operation (>70% of the fishing trips). In some
instances the number of crew members is larger than the number of people working
on board the vessel at any given trip, so that crewmembers get some days of. All of
these crew members are defined as full-time employees.
Results representativeness sample
This year the representativeness and the reliability of the sample was extensively
tested using 2008 data. The research showed that the current fleet sample is reliable
and representative when stratification is made in both fishing gear and vessel length.
The 2008 panel that was used consisted of 87 vessels (29% of the total commercially
cutter fleet). The vessel length groups are defined as: 12-18 meters, 18-24 meters,
24-40 meters and >40 meters. The fishing gear groups after rearranging (groups with
less than 10 vessels in it were combined) were: Beam trawl and Demersal trawl and
Seiners.
The reliability of the sample was tested using the standard error. The relative
standard error of most of the target variables is less than 10 %.
Page 15 of 92
Document1
For the representativeness the mean of the population was compared with the mean
of the panel and p-values were given. In all cases no significance difference (p<0.05)
was found between the fleet population and the sample.
The same calculations were done for an adjusted classification. Because the beam
trawl boats 24-40 meters is a heterogenic group this segment was further stratified.
The old group 24-40 meters is split in a 24-30 meters group and a 30-40 meters
group. The quality of the new setup is compared with the original setup and showed
that it was even more representative and reliable. More information from the research
can be found in Turenhout et al (forthcoming)
There was no deviation of the national program for the data gathered by the panel in
2010, either in sampling or in the variables collected. The precision levels of the
variables were good to acceptable in all cases.
Paper Questionnaire: data collected
For the vessels not included in the population for the LEI panel information was
gathered by means of paper questionnaires. As the information could only be
gathered after the end of the year, data were gathered from 2009. These data were
available for the data requests by the commission in February 2011.
Data gathered with the paper questionnaires is less extensive than data gathered
through the LEI panel. Variables gathered included various costs (energy cost
repairment cost, fixed cost, employment cost, other variable cost and fishing right
cost) and income, investment and effort.
Because previous years resulted in a high level of non-response, questionnaires were
sent out to the owners of all commercially less active vessels (in total approx. 360).
In general the overall response to the questionnaire was good (around 30%) and for
all segments defined economic parameters could be estimated. However the targeted
precision levels could not be attained. This had mainly two reasons:

response was low for some of the specific requested parameters.

due to the high variability in the answers, (mainly caused by high variability
within the segments), the targeted precision levels could not be attained even
in cases where coverage was more than 50%.
Because the variability within the segments for this part of the fleet is very high,
higher precision levels were tried to be obtained by increasing the stratification level
of the largest segment: passive gear 0-10m, This segment passive gear was further
stratified in vessels fishing with gillnets and vessels fishing with other passive gear.
The assumption was that the vessels fishing with gillnets would be active for a larger
part of the year and thus provide a more homogenous group. These vessel owners
were specifically targeted and send a specific questionnaire, furthermore the
producers group of gillnet fishermen was involved to motivate members to return the
questionnaire. The response rate in this specific group was about 22%. The
variability in this segment however was still quite high. Effort varied between 3 days at
sea per vessel to 115 days at sea per vessel, making it impossible to attain the target
precision levels even with this increased stratification.
To improve the low quality of the data collection for the paper questionnaire, it was
tested whether a model could be used to calculate the total cost and income in these
fleet segments. Based on 2008 and 2009 data two models were developed. One
model estimates the economic variables of these fleet segments based on results of
similar vessels in the LEI survey. The second model estimates the economic results
based on logbook data combined with averages from the questionnaire results. Next
year both models will be tested with further questionnaire results to see which one is
most suitable to estimate the economic results of these fleet segments.
Page 16 of 92
Document1
III.B.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
The following recommendations apply
Economic variables: sampling strategy for the collection of economic
variables
RCM NS&EA 2009
Recommendation
The RCM NS &EA recommends the following:
1. the inclusion of a methodology report, as
proposed by SGECA, would provide significant
benefits
2. there would be merit in reviewing the SGRN
guidelines as proposed by SGECA
Follow-up actions
needed
On 1: Inclusion of a methodology report in NPs
On 2: Review of the SGRN guidelines
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
1. Commission and MS
Time frame
(Deadline)
1. March 2010
2. SGECA Working Group, i.e. SGECA/DCF
2. June 2010
LM comment
LM notes that SGRN 09-03 has taken care of this
recommendation by including a methodology report in
the new DCF guidelines.
MS comment
MS supports recommendation and has included
methodology report in the Annual Report 2010
Economic variables: common methods
comparability of all economic variables
to
ensure
consistency
and
RCM NS&EA 2009
Recommendation
The RCM NS &EA recommends that MS perform
checks on the quality of their data and that further work
be undertaken to help RCMs prepare for the
recommended comparability checks within regions.
Follow-up actions
needed
Guidance to be issued to RCMs on the comparability
checks that they would be expected to undertake
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
RCM Liaison Group and SGECA Working Group, i.e.
SGECA/DCF
Time frame
(Deadline)
December 2009
LM comment
SGRN/ECA meeting on evaluation of TR2009 to check
inconsistencies
MS comment
MS fully supports this and incorporates checks in
current procedures
No initiatives have been taken to coordinate the national programme with other MS.
III.B.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
The low precision levels of data collected by questionnaires will be addressed by
using a model to estimate the total economic results for the fleet segments in
question.
Two models have been developed to assess the passive gear fisheries business
results. One of these models assesses the business results using the 2008 and 2009
Page 17 of 92
Document1
mean questionnaire variables per day at sea. A weighted mean is found and can be
multiplied with the logbook days at sea data in the following year. External factors are
not included in this model, because this model is based on historical data. The future
external factors should be integrated to optimize the assessed business results. The
second model assesses the business results using the stratification group
horsepower class 1 of the commercially active fisheries group. The cost variables per
day at sea in the group of coming year multiplied with a measured factor gives a good
estimation about the passive gear cost variables in that same year. In this case
external factors are included, because these factors are integrated in the used
commercial fisheries data.
Because the models so far are only based on the 2008 and 2009 questionnaire data
it’s not very reliable. Both models will be tested with survey results from 2010. The
results will be published in a LEI report (forthcoming 2012).
Page 18 of 92
Document1
III.B.
Economic variables (Other regions)
Only one large pelagic vessel spent the majority of its time at sea outside the supra
region of ICES and NAFO areas (in African waters), two vessels spend part of their
time fishing in these waters. Due to the small number of vessels fishing in the supra
region ‘Other Regions’ it is not possible to report on any economic results for this
region due to confidentiality agreements.
III.B.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
Data from all pelagic vessels was collected including the vessels fishing in other
regions. Results are however attributed to the North Sea supra-region due to
confidentiality agreements. This is in accordance with the NP.
III.B.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
See description of the data quality for the supra region of ICES and NAFO areas.
III.B.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
Under current circumstances publication of the data will not be possible unless
economic results are combined with results of other countries. This will be discussed
in the regional coordination meeting.
The following recommendations apply
Economic variables: Clustering of fishing fleet
RCM Med&BS
Recommendation
The RCM-Med&BS recommends that all MS in the
Supra-region follow the methodology to cluster only
length classes in order to compare economic variables,
and so doing, give justification on the basis of statistical
analysis, as required by the regulation
Follow-up actions
needed
Updating of 2009 NP, at last implementation of the 2010
NP
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
MS, SGRN
Time frame
(Deadline)
LM comment
MS comment
III.B.4
MS recommends to follow the guidelines as discussed
in SGECA 09-02 and base clustering on particular
characteristics of the fleet.
Actions to avoid shortfalls
There are no actions planned
Page 19 of 92
Document1
III.C.
Biological - Métier-related variables (North Sea)
North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) and eastern Arctic (ICES areas I and II)
III.C.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
Tables III.C.3, III.C.4, III.C.5 and III.C.6 provide the sampling plan for the métier
related variables and the realised results in 2010.
Several sampling systems are used in NL to obtain length and age compositions of
the catches. The length sampling of demersal landings is based on measurements in
the fish auctions by species and size grades. These measurements can be used for
all métiers with landings of these species and size grades for which information of the
landings is available. In addition discards programmes with observers and selfsampling programmes are used to estimate discards for a number of métiers.
A self-sampling programme for discards has been introduced in 2009 and was
continued in 2010. In this programme, samples of the discard fraction of the catch are
taken by the crew of vessels operating in the commercial fishery. The samples are
processed ashore by IMARES. The sampling system consists of a number of
reference fleets representative to métiers as defined in the DCF. The vessel
participating in the reference fleet get a financial compensation for the samples they
bring ashore
The conclusions on the self-sampling programme are positive. The industry is
cooperating well. In addition to the self-sampling programme a number of observer
trips have been carried out to check whether there is bias in the self-sampling.
The métier TBB_CRU_16-31_0_0 is the shrimp fishery for Crangon. In this métier
only 7 of the 8 planned observer trips were carried out.
The fishery with beam trawls is represented in metiers TBB_DEF_70-99_0_0 and
TBB_DEF_100_119_0_0. The proposed sampling of TBB_DEF_70-99_0_0 was
almost realised. All observer trips were carried out and 95 of the 100 planned selfsamples were realised. In metier TBB_DEF_100_119_0_0 12 of the 20 planned selfsamples were realised. The activity of this metier has declined considerably in recent
years and samples are difficult to obtain.
The fishery for Nephrops is carried out in metier OTB_CRU_79-99_0_0. All planned
samples (at sea and self-sampling) were obtained. The metier OTB_DEF_0-0_0_0 is
a mixture of different gears, mostly twin-trawls with different mesh sizes. From the 20
planned self-samples, 15 were realised.
In general most of the planned sampling at sea has been realised: 17 observer trips
realised compared to 18 planned and 143 self-sampling events compared to 160
planned.
The planned number of trips to be sampled in the auction was overshot with double
the amount of planned numbers (112%). The planned number of trips is based on
estimates of the number of species that can be sampled from a trip. Often, less
species can be sampled due to procedural restrictions in the auction. Sampling more
trips doesn’t imply more trips to the auction. During the same visit, several vessels
are sampled, thus overshooting the number of trips doesn’t result in higher costs, but
does result in a wider spread over the sampling frame.
Eels were sampled at fresh water landing sites from IJsselmeer, Markermeer,
Friesian Lakes (10 locations) and the rivers (9 locations). The sampling of eel in 2009
and 2010 was carried out as a pilot project aiming at defining optimal sampling size.
The sampling was hampered by a closure of the fishery at the end of the season
(OCT-NOV in 2009; SEP-NOV in 2010). Therefore the planned number of temporal
samples was reduced. This closure was part of a national eel management plan to
recover the eel stock. In addition to defining the optimal sampling size, the pilot
project also provided insight in spatial difference in growth.
Page 20 of 92
Document1
The number of trips for eel metier FYK_CAT_0_0_0 are unknown. This also applies
to the sampling trips of this metier. When measuring fish at (fresh water) landing
sites, the samples mostly consists of a fish originating from mixture of trips. So, in
principle one measurement is representative for several trips. In total, the length
distribution of 124 samples was measured in 2010.
The pelagic fishery is carried out with large freezer vessel operating in several areas
during one trip. The description of the sampling of the pelagic métier is included in the
section North Atlantic.
III.C.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Within the métier using beam trawls, mainly TBB_DEF_70-99_0_0, new
developments have occurred. The number of vessels using electric beam trawls and
sumwings (hydro-dynamic replacement of the beam) is increasing fast in recent
years. These innovations have led to a reduction in fuel (costs) and also intend to
reduce the impact on the bottom structure and fauna. However also the catch
composition (species and length composition) differs from the traditional beam trawl.
Also the level of discard is much lower. Samples of the catch taken by the new type of
gear mostly absent in the self-sampling programme. Also, this specific gear has the
same code as traditional beam trawls in the log-books and cannot be recognised.
This means that total effort of the TBB fleet includes different types of gear with
different catch characteristics. In combination with the metier sampling programme,
which contains only samples from traditional beam trawls. This is expected to lead to
bias in the catch composition and an overestimation of discard rates,
National software has been adjusted in order to calculate precision using
methodology developed in COST. The software has been tested will be further
expanded in order to produce the estimates in the future in routine analyses. At the
time of the production of the TR it was not possible to calculate the required precision
estimates on the métier parameters. The data for 2009 have become available during
the first half year of 2010 and priority has been given to the preparation of data to
ICES working groups, which meet in this period.
Table III.C.5 is inconsistent and unclear. The table could not be provided. For details
see the comments in section IX.
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
The following recommendations apply:
Page 21 of 92
Document1
Métier variables: Tasks prior to the RCM NS&EA 2010
RCM NS&EA 2009
Recommendation
For the purposes of ranking metiers to sample, national
data on effort, landings and value by metier and fishing
ground should be compiled regionally in advance of the
next meeting. To enable this, participants from MS
should strictly respect the agreed naming conventions
of fishing ground, metiers and units of the variables as
well as the deadline for submission of the national data.
The Chair is responsible for requesting the data and
compiling it on a regional level
Follow-up actions
needed
Preparation of exchange data for task-sharing.
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
RCM Chair and RCM participants
Time frame
(Deadline)
until May 2010
LM comment
LM endorses this recommendation
MS response
The recommended procedure has been applied by the
MS participants to the RCM
Topic: Fishing activities & sampling coverage – North Sea and Eastern
Channel
RCM NS&EA 2008
Recommendation
OTM_SPF_32-69_0_0 & PTM_SPF_32-69_0_0: The
RCM NS&EA recommends that France and The
Netherlands should formalise a bilateral agreement for
sampling the landings, as the majority of French
catches is taken by Dutch crews operating on French
flag vessels and landing in The Netherlands.
Follow-up actions
needed
Establish a bilateral agreement to be provided to SGRN.
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
France and Netherlands
Time frame
(Deadline)
January 2009
LM comment
LM endorses all recommendations.
MS response
NL has a bilateral agreement with France and will
sample the French boats (also for discards). The
sampling will be implemented from 2011 onwards
Page 22 of 92
Document1
Métier variables: Tasks prior to the RCM NS&EA 2010
RCM NS&EA 2009
Recommendation
For the purposes of understanding the heterogeneity of
metiers and the consequences for task sharing and
discard sampling, national descriptions of the regionally
ranked metiers should be compiled using the format in
Annex 9. To enable this, participants from the MS should
strictly respect the agreed naming conventions of fishing
ground and metiers as well as the deadline for
submission of the information. Appointed persons are
responsible for requesting the data and compiling it on a
regional level
Follow-up actions
needed
Preparation of exchange data for task-sharing.
Responsible
persons for followup actions
Appointed persons (1 person per fishing ground) and
RCM participants
Time frame
(Deadline)
until May 2010
LM comment
LM endorses this recommendation. Mediterranean MS
should use the metier description template from the RCM
Med&BS. The RCM NA template is to be followed by MS
for the Baltic, NS&EA and NA regions.
MS response
MS has included in its NP for 2011-2013 comprehensive
descriptions of all metiers which qualified in the ranking
procedure
Métier related variables: Reference period for NP 2011-2013
RCM NS&EA 2009
Recommendation
RCM NS&EA recommends MS to use the average
landing figures over the years 2007-2008 as the basis for
ranking métiers within the NP 2011-2013
Follow-up actions
needed
Implementation
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
All MS
Time frame
(Deadline)
March 31, 2010
LM comment
The reference period for the NP 2011-2013 should be
2007-2008, and the inclusion of 2009 should be optional
(with explanation by MS on the relevance of using these
data).
MS response
Page 23 of 92
The ranking of the metiers in the NP 2011-2013 is based
on the average of the recommended years. NL is not
happy with the recommended procedure. By the present
method, the sampling metiers in 2013 will be based on
the fishery in 2007 and 2008. Because the fishery is
changing and developing fast, responding to catch
opportunities, economic situation and new regulations,
the time lag between these is too large and sampling of
new important metiers starts too late while it becomes
problematic to sample declining metiers
Document1
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
No action for shortfalls needs to be taken for metier TBB_DEF_100_119_0_0. This
metier has declined considerable mainly due to management regulations directed at
cod. In the ranking of metiers in the NP 2011-2013 this metier no longer qualifies for
sampling.
In order to solve the bias in the catch composition of the métier
TBB_DEF_70_99_0_0 several types of action can be taken. One possibility is to
extend the sampling frame in this metier to all type of gears used in this metier. A
problem would be that there is no good information on the composition of the gears in
the metier to construct a representative sampling fleet. This applies as well to the selfsampling programme as the samples taken in the fish market. Another problem would
be that cpue time series could no long be used because of the different gear
composition in the last years.
Another option to eliminate this source of bias would be to split sampling in the
different gear categories. This would not be a problem, but for processing the data
and use in assessments also effort estimates of the different gears would be required.
This can only be correctly obtained by an adjustment of the log-book regulation. NL
has repeatedly raised the problem with the gear coding in the log-books but no action
has been taken so far. An alternative could be to introduce, on a temporary basis, a
shadow administration of effort of the specific gears listed a beam trawls in the log–
books based on external information and expert judgement.
NL will propose an adjustment for 2012 in the NP 2011-2013 to eliminate the bias in
metier TBB_DEF_70_99_0_0 by introducing one of the two procedures described in
the paragraphs above. The adjustment has mainly consequences for the selfsampling programme.
The pilot programme for eel was completed in 2010 and is replaced by a regular
national sampling programme in 2011. However, this sampling programme is
hampered by the closure of the commercial fishery for eel in the most important
period. We will refrain from sampling in the period of closure. This means that the
planned number of samples will probably not be taken. No action is required
Page 24 of 92
Document1
III.C.
Biological - métier-related variables (North Atlantic)
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas)
III.C.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
Tables III.C.3, III.C.4, III.C.5 and III.C.6 provide the sampling plan for the métier
related variables and the realised results in 2010.
The sampling programme in the North Atlantic exists of an observer programme at
sea on board of pelagic freezer trawlers fishing in European waters and a selfsampling programme carried out by this fleet. The Dutch fishing activity in this region
is entirely directed to a restricted number of pelagic species: mackerel, horse
mackerel, blue whiting and herring which are caught in large quantities. Also a small
amount of argentines (deep see) is caught by this fleet. The fishing trips of this fleet
are not restricted to a specific region or fishing ground but are following the
distribution of the stocks covering several regions and fishing grounds including those
in the North Sea and the Eastern English Channel.
During the trips covered by observers, concurrent samples of landings and discards
for all species are taken on each fishing ground. Further, by-catches of cetaceans are
recorded during the trips in order to comply with EU legislation 4.
In addition a self-sampling programme is providing frozen samples of the catch from
different fishing grounds. The samples are collected and processed by IMARES. The
self-sampling programme includes (Dutch owned) vessels with the German and UK
flag and from 2010 onwards also with the French flag.
Note that the fleet is targeting species which are widely distributed over a number of
fishing grounds. Therefore the sampling frame chosen for sampling is not the metiers
as ranked by fishing ground but a combination of métiers. In fact the sampling frame
is the fleet of freezer trawlers. The fleet is including 1 pair trawl combination, fishing
for the same species in the same areas with similar gear characteristics as the
midwater otter trawl. Therefore the pair trawl métiers have been merged with the
midwater otter trawl.
The total number of observer trips was not realized. Only 7 of the 10 planned
observer trips were carried out. For a number of different reasons, access of
observers to part of the vessels was denied. Also a large part of the métier was
operating outside EU waters during most time of the year.
NL has a small quota for Atlantic Scandian herring. The quota is taken in a few trips,
mainly in the 3th quarter of the year. Samples are obtained by self-sampling.
Unfortunately, the quota in 2010 was taken by vessels which are not part of the selfsampling fleet. Therefore no samples were purchased.
The programme proposed in the NP of 2010 was not fully realised.
III.C.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
See comments in section III.C.2 in the NS&EA
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
The following recommendation apply
4
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 of 26 April 2004 laying down measures concerning
incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98.
Page 25 of 92
Document1
Topic: Small pelagic fisheries – All areas
RCM NA 2008
Recommendation
The RCM-NA recommends that intersessional work be
carried out in order to address the issue of coordination
of the sampling of small pelagic fisheries as these are
operating in different fishing grounds during the same
trip.
Follow-up actions
needed
Full description of the fisheries, seasonal and spatial
distribution and means of coordinating the sampling
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
France, UK and Netherlands to provide information
Time frame
(Deadline)
Autumn 2009, for next RCM-NEA
LM comment
MS response
This recommendation reflects to Dutch owned freezer
trawlers flying different nations flags. NL has agreed
through bilateral agreements with UK and FR to include
sampling of these vessels in its national métier.
Topic: Métier variables: Tasks prior to the RCM NA 2010
RCM
NA
2009
Recommendation
For the purposes of ranking metiers to sample, National
data on effort, landings and value by metier and fishing
ground should be compiled regionally in advance of the
next meeting. To enable this, participants from MS should
strictly respect the agreed naming conventions of fishing
ground, metiers and units of the variables as well as the
deadline for submission of the national data. The Chair is
responsible for compiling it on a regional level.
RCM NA recommends the use the average of the reference
period 2007 – 2008 for the ranking.
Follow-up actions
needed
Preparation of exchange data for task-sharing.
Responsible
persons for followup actions
RCM participants to ensure that the Chair of RCM NA
receives the relevant information. RCM Chair to arrange
for compilation of regional ranking.
Time
(Deadline)
Until April 2010
MS response
Page 26 of 92
frame
The requested information was provided
Document1
Métier variables: Tasks prior to the RCM NA 2010
RCM
NA
2009
Recommendation
For the purposes of understanding the heterogeneity of
metiers and the consequences for task sharing and discard
sampling, national descriptions of the regionally ranked
metiers should be compiled using the metier description
template Annex XII. To enable this, participants from the
MS should strictly respect the agreed naming conventions
of fishing ground and metiers as well as the deadline for
submission of the information. Appointed persons are
responsible for requesting the data and compiling it on a
regional level
Follow-up actions
needed
Preparation of exchange data for task-sharing.
Responsible
persons for followup actions
Appointed persons (1 person per fishing ground) and RCM
participants
Time
(Deadline)
until April 2010
frame
MS response
(see table above)
The requested information was provided
Métier variables: Description of metiers to be sampled in National Programme
RCM
NA
2009
Recommendation
In compiling the National Programmes 2011-2013, MS should
ensure that the information provided in describing the
metiers to be sampled relates directly to the information
provided to the RCM NA in the metier section.
Follow-up
needed
National Correspondent (or person completing fleet / metier
descriptions) to liaise with RCM participants responsible for
compiling metier description templates for the RCM NA.
actions
Responsible
persons for followup actions
National Correspondents and RCM participants.
Time
(Deadline)
March 2010
MS response
Page 27 of 92
frame
The requested information was provided where necessary
Document1
Métier variables: merging fleet segments and metiers for sampling and analysis
RCM
NA
2009
Recommendation
To ensure that all Member States’ National Programmes for 2011-13
take account of the outcomes from WKMERGE, RCM NA 2009
recommends that all MS contribute to the workshop and ensure that
their participants are able to carry out the required preparatory work.
Follow-up
needed
Member States to identify appropriate participants who are involved
in the statistical design of national fleet-based biological sampling
programmes, and to advise the WKMERGE chairs of the names of
participants in sufficient time to allow preparatory work. The chairs
will also seek participation of people with particular skill sets.
Participants will be asked to prepare the following material for the
meeting:
actions
1
All Member States participants to provide a Working Document
describing the basis for national metier definition and merging
in 2009&2010;
2
Identified participants to prepare European case studies for
examining applications of metier-merging methods. The
PGCCDBS will liaise with RCMs to identify suitable case studies.
The data for these case studies are to be available at the
Workshop in the COST format.
Responsible
persons for followup actions
All Member States (RCM members and National Correspondents)
Time
(Deadline)
End 2009.
MS response
Page 28 of 92
frame
MS participated in WKMERGE with a suitable participant.
Document1
Métier variables: Inclusion of bilateral and RCM agreements in NP
RCM
NA
2009
Recommendation
National Programmes to include appropriate reference to RCM NA
report in relation to sampling agreement at metier level.
National Programmes to include in annex formal bilateral
agreements, using the template in annex XI.
Follow-up
needed
actions
National Correspondents to ensure that National Programme
includes appropriate reference to RCM and bilateral agreements
in relation to sampling activities as referred to in the RCM NA
report
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
National Correspondents
Time frame (Deadline)
March 2010
MS response
All bilateral agreements were included in the National
Programme.
Recreational fisheries : Best practise
RCM NA 2009
Recommendation
RCM NA recommends MS to prepare their NP Proposal 2011-2013
on recreational fisheries based on the DCF requirements, using
their own knowledge of the fisheries, without waiting for the
outcomes of the PGRFS.
RCM NA recommends also MS to consider the recommendations
of the ICES WGEEL.
Follow-up actions
needed
Drafting MS NP proposals 2011-2013
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
All MS
Time frame (Deadline)
March 2010
MS response
Sampling of recreational fisheries is included in the NP 2011,
taking the above recommendations into account.
Page 29 of 92
Document1
Stock related variables: Maturity sampling
RCM NA 2009 Recommendation
The RCM NA recommends MS to refer to the table in Annex X of
this report for elaborating maturity sampling programmes,
when drafting their National Programme proposals 2011-2013
Follow-up actions needed
STECF/SGRN and the European Commission when evaluating
the National Programme proposals 2011-2013.
Responsible persons for follow-up Member states, STECF/SGRN, European Commission.
actions
III.C.4
Time frame (Deadline)
Early 2010
MS response
Annex X was taken into consideration, but no changes to the
already set practice was necessary.
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Several actions were taken in 2011 to compensate for the shortfalls in realizing the
NP in 2010. In a trilateral discussions between scientist, industry and Ministry, an
agreement was reached to allow observers on board of freezer trawlers. With the
different companies a planning was made for the trips to be carried out in 2011. In the
programme of 2011, three extra trips are planned, in order to compensate for the
three trips which were not carried out in 2010.
NL will contact the pelagic sector and will ask them to indicate in which period and by
which vessels the quota for Atlantic Scandian herring will be taken in 2011. NL will try
to make a special agreement with these vessel to purchase samples.
The same problem was expected to happen for blue whiting in 2011. Due to a drastic
reduction in the TAC for blue whiting, the fishing season in 2011 on this stock was
very short and only a few trips were made. From these trips NL purchased the
required number of samples.
Page 30 of 92
Document1
III.C.
Biological - métier-related variables (Other regions)
Other regions where fisheries are operated by EU vessel and managed by RFMO’s to
which the Community is contracting party of observer (e.g. ICCAT, IOTC, CECAF…)
III.C.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
No data collection programme has been proposed by the Netherlands in the NP for
2010 and 2011. Consequently no data has been collected.
In 2010, Dutch freezer trawlers operated in distant waters of Mauritania fishing for
sardinella and in the Pacific fishing for jack mackerel. The Netherlands has obtained a
derogation for sampling these fishing activities in 2010 and 2011.
III.C.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
not relevant
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
The following recommendation applies
Métier variables: Fishing activities and sampling coverage
RCM LDF 2010
Recommendation
All MS involved in industrial small pelagic fishery in
“From Morocco to Guinea Bissau” fishing ground to
ensure adequate sampling coverage for the landings and
discards.
Follow-up actions
needed
All MS involved in fishery to draft one agreement to
share tasks.
Responsible
persons for followup actions
National Correspondents from all MS involved in fishery.
The Netherlands will take initiative.
Time frame
(Deadline)
Before the next RCM LDF, to be approved and signed at
that RCM.
LM 2010 comment
LM endorses this recommendation.
MS response
A proposal for a coordinated sampling programme for the
small pelagic fishing in the waters “From Morocco to
Guinea Bissau” has been submitted to RCM LDF 2011.
The proposal has been adjusted and adopted by the MS
involved in the fishery in this area. An observer sampling
scheme, based on Mauritanian observers trips, will be
implemented in 2012 and covers the sampling of metier
and biological parameters.
During the meeting of the RCM_LDF in 2011 the possibility of implementing an
international observer programme on the EU fleet fishing in the Pacific was
discussed. Due to drastic cuts in the TAC in 2011 and 2012, the continuation of the
fishery by EU vessels in the Pacific is uncertain. Therefore, no international sampling
programme was proposed.
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
not relevant
Page 31 of 92
Document1
III.D.
Biological - Recreational fisheries (North Sea)
North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) and eastern Arctic ICES areas I and II)
III.D.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
In the original NP programme submitted for 2009-2010, NL asked for a derogation to
sample recreational fisheries for cod in the North Sea. However, the derogation was
not approved and NL was asked to include the sampling of recreational cod fisheries
in its NP from 2009 onwards.
As a consequence, NL has set up a multiannual sampling programme covering part
of 2009 and the whole of 2010. As there is no licence system from which recreational
fishermen can be identified, a screening survey was held in December 2009 under 52
thousand randomly selected households. These households were questioned on their
participation in recreational fishery as part of a screening survey. This survey was
subcontracted to TNS NIPO. Based on the results of this screening survey about
2000 recreational fishermen have been selected to provide information on their
recreational catches, motivation and spending in a diary survey. The diary survey will
be continued until March 2011 and will also make use of logbooks.
Preliminary results from the screening survey show that at present there are 1.69
million recreational fishermen in The Netherlands, of which 1.05 million fish only in
fresh water, 0.44 million fish in fresh and in salt water and 0.2 million fish only in salt
water.
The preliminary estimates of recreational catches of eel, cod, sea bass and pikeperch
are presented in the table below. Surprising is the high tonnage of landed eel
because it is forbidden to retain eel as a recreational fisher since 2009. The
recreation catch for all four species is rather significant (25-40%) in relation to the
commercial catch. In comparison, the recreational catch of sole is <1% of the
commercial catch.
Overview of recreational catches in the Netherlands in 2010. Note that these are preliminary estimates
(uncorrected data; these data should not be reproduced without consultation with IMARES).
Caught
(t)
Retained
(t)
Release
Rate (%)
%
Commercial
Catch
Eel (Anguilla anguilla)
214
120
44%
~25%
Cod (Gadus morhua)
840
795
5%
~40%
Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax)
165
124
24%
~30%
Pikeperch
lucioperca)
993
168
83%
~30%*
Species
(Stizostedion
*expert judgement, assuming the same ratio in pikeperch catches between Lake IJsselmeer and other
inland waters as for eel catches.
The sampling programme, as it has been set up now, may also provide estimates of
the recreational catch of other species in marine waters and fresh water.
III.D.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Based on discussions the survey design in the Netherlands need to address the
following potential bias issues:
Page 32 of 92
Document1
1)
Determine if the TNS-NIPO database is representative for the
general population in the Netherlands. In December 2012, the Netherlands will have
to conduct a screening survey using random digit dialling (phone) parallel to the
online screening survey.
2)
Improve the onsite surveys. A closer look at the lengths of the fish
recorded by the logbook holders seemed to show that many logbook holders might
not actually measure the fish accurately. The lengths recorded were strongly biased
towards 0s and 5s (e.g. 30, 35, 40 etc) and comparison with onsite data also
suggests some overestimation of the sizes. The Netherlands will conduct a pilot study
in 2011-2012 to improve the onsite surveys to collect data on length of landed fish.
III.D.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
Based on discussions within the PGRFS it was recommended that during the next
Diary Survey in 2013 information on both fishing trips in the Netherlands as fishing
trips abroad will be recorded. An indication of the number of fishing trips abroad may
also be collected during the Screening Survey in December 2012
In 2010, NL participated in the ICES Planning Group on Recreational Fishery Surveys
(PGRFS). This is a new planning group, presently mainly dealing with exchanging
expertise between different countries but also aims to harmonize the methodology
used in the different countries.
Recreational fisheries: Best practise
RCM NA 2010
Recommendation
RCM NA recommends MS not to wait for the outcomes of
the PGRFS to revise current (when relevant) and prepare
future NP Proposal on recreational fisheries, but base their
planning on the DCF requirements and their own
knowledge of the fisheries. RCM NA also recommends to
consider the recommendations of WKSMRF, WGEEL, and
the future recommendations of PGRFS.
Follow-up actions
needed
Revising MS NP proposals 2011-2013 and drafting new
NP’s.
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
All MS.
Time frame
(Deadline)
October 2011
LM comment
LM recommends that SGRN 10-01 takes this
recommendation and the RCM-NA 2009 recommendation
(which was not taken into consideration) into account when
evaluating MS plans for recreational fisheries sampling.
MS response
The recommendation had no consequences for the
proposed sampling of the recreational fisheries in the
Netherlands
Page 33 of 92
Document1
Biological variables: Sampling of recreational eel fishery in fresh water
III.D.4.
RCM NA 2009
Recommendation
The RCM NS&EA is presently not in the position to give
advice on the sampling of recreational eel catches in fresh
water systems. However, the RCM identified a
discrepancy in the sampling of eel between fresh waters
and marine waters. The sampling in marine waters is
covered under the DCF, but as the majority of the
recreational fisheries takes place in inland waters,
coordination should also be done with the sampling of the
inland waters, therefore RCM NS&EA recommends MS to
provide an overview of their inland sampling of the
recreational fishery on eel.
Follow-up actions
needed
Provide overview of inland sampling (temporal, spatial
distribution, sampling intensities, involved institutes) to
RCM NS&EA 2010
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
MS
Time frame
(Deadline)
Prior to RCM 2010
LM comment
Refer to SGRN to re-consider sampling of eels in the light
of the poor stock status; COM supports a study on
monitoring (MARE/2008/11 Lot 2: Pilot projects to
estimate potential and actual escapement of silver eel);
COM have made clear that no additional funding for
obligations under Reg. 1100/2007 will be available.
MS response
MS has provided an overview of its recreational fisheries
to WKSMRF including the fishery for eel. The sampling
programme of the recreational fisheries in the Netherlands
include all recreational fisheries
Actions to avoid shortfalls
No actions are needed
Page 34 of 92
Document1
III.E.
Biological - stock-related variables (North Sea)
North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) and eastern Arctic ICES areas I and II)
III.E.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
The sampling targets and achievements of the biological stock related variables are
presented in table III.E.3. The columns in this table, reflecting achievements on
regional level, are not relevant, since there has been no regional coordination of the
sampling of biological parameters. Also, achievements of other MS are unknown at
the time of reporting.
In the NP, the number of planned biological observations by species was based on
the samples obtained from fish market or self-sampling. These were listed in the NP
for 2010. In addition biological observation is obtained during surveys and discard
trips. The number of observations from these sources is difficult to plan and was not
included in the NP. However, these observations are sometimes more relevant and
supplementary to those obtained in the fish market. Although there was no planning
in table III.E.3 for this information, the observations from the additional sources are
now included in this table and sorted by stock.
In general, the sampling targets set in the NP proposal of the Netherlands were met
within the boundaries of 59-200% achievement of the planned numbers. In some
cases, under or oversampling occurred. As sampling for length, weight, sex &
maturity at age usually is performed on the same individual, the mentioned deviations
are applicable to all these parameters, except if stated otherwise.
The target set for Clupea harengus in area I, II, V was not met. No samples were
obtained from Atlanto-Scandian herring in this area. This is explained in the sections
III.C.1 and III.C.4. The achieved sampling for Clupea harengus in area IV, VIId, IIIa
was overshot by 20%. These deviations are due to the nature of the pelagic fisheries.
Sampling of this métier completely relies on samples taken during on-board sampling
as the samples cannot be obtained from auctions. The sampling therefore follows the
fishery, resulting in a shift of effort from one area to the other compared to the
scheduled sampling scheme. However, if the targets for the Region (I, II, V and IV,
VIId, IIIa) are combined, the target is met (100%). Other herring samples were taken
in region North Atlantic and are described in the appropriate section of the report.
When these samples are taken into account the target for Clupea harengus was met
at exactly 100%.
For both Dicentrachus labrax as well as for Mullus surmuletus, the targets set in the
NP were overshot, respectively with 70 and 88%. Due to temporary shifts in market
categories, more fish were sampled to get a complete coverage of the length
distribution landed in these categories. Despite the relative high surplus taken, in
absolute terms, the total number of additional fish processed is low within the total
programme.
The targets set for Psetta maxima and Scopthalmus rhombus were overshot as well,
respectively with 23 and 10% due to a few extra fish taken per sample adding up to
overshooting the target. Extra fish are usually sampled for better coverage of the
length range.
The target set for Nephrops norvegicus was not met as sampling reached 59%
completion. As last year, due to changes in processing of Nephrops on board fishing
vessels, one market category was not landed during a large part of the year. Despite
this change, the number of individuals sampled per category remained unchanged,
resulting in a lower number of individuals per sample, ultimately resulting in the
shortfall.
For Pleuronectus platessa, Solea solea, Limanda limanda, Platichtys flesus, Gadus
morhua , the targets set in the NP were exactly met.
Page 35 of 92
Document1
For the determination of length, maturity, gender, weight and age of Anguilla anguilla,
fish samples are obtained aiming to meet the planned numbers in table III.E.3.
However, not all samples will be further processed. Only a small part of the otoliths
will be aged as soon as validated methodology has become available. This means
that the numbers of parameters length@age, weight@age and maturity@age will be
correspond with the number of aged fish. This is lower than indicated in the table.
However the achieved numbers will correspond with the parameters weight@length
and maturity@length.
Due to the inclusion of the samples from the Eel Pilot without adapting the target set
for the number of eel to sample, the target was overshot with 23%. The original target
was set without inclusion of the Eel Pilot as at that time, the Eel Pilot was still
unknown.
III.E.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Table III.E.3 also list some values of the accuracy indicators for the following
biological parameters as estimated from auction samples: weight at age, length at
age, sex-ratio and maturity at age. A coefficient of Variation (CV; the standard error
divided by the mean) has been computed for each of the biological parameters as the
average over the most abundant age groups. As sampling for most species has not
covered the entire stock, the parameters are more representative to the national
catch. In general, precision appears to increase rapidly with increasing sample size
up to approximately 1000 fish. Lengths-at-age are generally estimated with much
higher precision than weights-at-age. The precision estimates of maturity-at-age are
difficult to interpret and are poorly defined, since for most species 100% of all
sampled individuals of older ages are mature. For the estimated mean length-at-age,
the precision targets have been met for all species. For the estimated mean weightsat-age, the precision targets have been met only for 3 intensively sampled species
(Solea solea, Clupea harengus Micromesistius poutassou).
For estimated sex-ratios precision targets were met for none of the species. It must
be noted that the precision requirements are set arbitrarily and are set the same for
all species. In general it is difficult to obtain unbiased precision estimates for
biological parameters which are representative to the stock. Mostly the problem is
insufficient coverage of the population by sampling. In many cases, the catches from
where the samples are taken cannot be assumed to give a representative sample of
the entire population, Some of these problems could be overcome by a regional
coordination of sampling. Others can only be solved by specific, sometimes
expensive sampling programmes.
Further, in order to be able to calculate biological parameters, there is often also
external information needed which is not included in the sampling. For instance ratios
of abundance in different areas to weight the observations. This information is often
not available or available from other sources. The calculation of the precision will then
have to take account of the quality of the external information.
III.E.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No specific recommendation apply:
III.E.4.
Actions to avoid shortfall
For Clupea harengus, sampling completely relies on samples brought ashore by the
trawlers. The sampling follows the main activities of the fleet and as a result, sampling
intensity may shift from area to area without adhering to the proposed sampling area.
The most import issue is however to cover the actual fishing areas, which is done
through this strategy. For 2011, additional effort will be made to collect samples from
area IIa by special requests to vessel owners.
For Nephrops, no changes will be made to the sampling strategy, as current
procedures cover the remaining categories sufficiently.
Page 36 of 92
Document1
For Mullus surmuletus, no changes are necessary as sampling is taken over
completely by France since 2011, following the bilateral agreement between France
and The Netherlands.
Dicentrachus labrax will not be sampled again until 2013 as this species has to be
sampled only every three years. By 2013, the category composition will be evaluated
again.
Page 37 of 92
Document1
III.E.
Biological - stock-related variables (North Atlantic)
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas)
III.E.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
In general, the sampling targets set in the NP proposal were except for the target set
for Clupea harengus in area VIa, reaching at 89% of the set target. As for the North
Sea this deviation is due to the nature of the pelagic fisheries. Sampling of this métier
is completely relies on samples taken during on-board sampling and as the samples
cannot be obtained from auctions. The sampling therefore follows the fishery,
resulting in a shift of effort from one area to the other, or even from region to region,
compared to the scheduled sampling scheme.
However, if the targets for area I, II, V and IV, VIId, IIIa and VIa are combined, then
the sampling is completed at exactly 100%. Therefore, the shift in areas had no
financial implications.
The sampling targets for Argentina spp, Micromesistius poutassou, Scomber
scombrus and Trachurus trachurus were exactly met.
III.E.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
The sampling targets and achievements of the biological stock related variables are
presented in table III.E.3. The columns in this table, which reflect to achievements on
regional level, are not relevant, since there has been no regional coordination of the
sampling of biological parameters. Also achievements of other MS are unknown at
the time of this reporting.
In general, the sampling targets set in the NP proposal of the Netherlands were met
within the boundaries close to 100%. An exception was the target set for AtlantoScandian herring in area I, II, V which was not met. An explanation is given in section
III.E.2 of the Region North Sea and Eastern Atlantic.
For some of the parameters, precision estimates (CV) have been calculated.
Comments given in section III.E.2 of the Region North Sea and Eastern Atlantic are
also valid for this region.
III.E.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No specific recommendation applies to this section of the report.
III.E.4.
Actions to avoid shortfalls
As for the North Sea region, sampling of Clupea harengus completely relies on
samples brought ashore by the trawlers. The sampling follows the main activities of
the fleet and as a result, sampling intensity may shift from area to area without
adhering to the proposed sampling area. The most import issue is however to cover
the actual fishing areas, which is done through this strategy.
Page 38 of 92
Document1
III.E.
Biological - stock-related variables (Other Regions)
Other regions where fisheries are operated by EU vessel and managed by RFMO’s to
which the Community is contracting party of observer (e.g. ICCAT, IOTC, CECAF…)
III.E.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
No sampling programme has been included in the NP proposal for 2010 and 2011
III.E.2.
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Not relevant
III.E.3.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
Not relevant
III.E.4.
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Not relevant
Page 39 of 92
Document1
III.F.
Transversal variables
III.F.1.
Capacity
III.F.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
Data on capacity was available from the fleet register and has been solely obtained
from this data source. Data was available for the entire Dutch fleet so no estimation
was required. Data collection was according to the national program and there were
no deviation from the national programme.
III.F.1
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Full information on capacity indicators was available through the fleet register.
Therefore only this information source has been used. The fleet registry covered the
entire fleet. There were no deviations from the national program.
III.F.1
Actions to avoid shortfalls
There are no shortfalls
III.F.2
Effort
III.F.2
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
Effort data are available through the VIRIS logbook database. In addition to the EC
regulation on logbooks, all vessels below 10m have to register all fishing trips and
landings (also <50 kg) in their logbooks. Therefore the VIRIS logbook database
covers the complete Dutch fleet and effort does not need to be estimated.
The following effort variables were however not available as these are not mentioned
on the logbook:





Number of rigs
Number of nets and length
Number of hooks and number of lines
Number of traps
Soaking time
For the commercial fleet these variables were not collected. For the non-commercial
fleet some questions where added to the paper questionnaire about these variables.
The results however were not representative for the entire sector and therefore not
reported on. This however was not a deviation from the NP as derogation was
requested and granted for these variables.
III.F.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Effort data is based on exhaustive information and quality checks on the data were
done by the General Inspection Service. There were no deviations from the NP.
III.F.2
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No initiatives have been taken to coordinate the national programme with other MS.
III.F.2
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Data was not checked for missing vessels <15m. Aggregated totals on métier level
should be checked for consistency on national level In case of inconsistencies, effort
will be taken to estimate the missing data on métier level.
Page 40 of 92
Document1
III.F.3
Landings
III.F.3
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
Landings data are available at the trip level through the VIRIS logbook database. In
addition to the EC regulation on logbooks, all vessels below 10m have to register all
fishing trips and landings (also <50 kg) in their logbooks. Therefore the VIRIS logbook
database covers the complete Dutch fleet.
The data on landings are checked in the VIRIS data system. Data on prices are
obtained directly from fish auctions and are checked with company accounts.
III.F.3
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Price and value data are available at a trip level from sales notes for almost all fishing
trips. In case complete data on landings are available from logbooks, the total value
of the landings is simply calculated by adding up the landings for all trips in one
metier and for one fleet segment. In case price and value data of a specific
metier/segment combination is not available for all trips, total value of landings will be
estimated based on the total landings and the average price per species and month in
this metier/segment combination. Thus it will be assumed that the average price of
the fish is the same for trips with and without price information.
Average annual prices will be based on weighted averages of all landings.
Conversion factors are given in table III.F.3.2 and will be updated in case of
modifications.
III.F.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No recommendations were done at the RCM’s with regard to the landings indicators.
No initiatives have been taken to coordinate the national programme with other MS.
III.F.3
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Data was not checked for missing vessels <15m. Aggregated totals on métier level
should be checked for consistency on national level In case of inconsistencies, effort
will be taken to estimate the missing data on métier level.
Page 41 of 92
Document1
III.G
Research surveys at sea
III.G.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
The technical achievements of the research surveys at sea are given in table III.G.1
and III.E.3. All surveys listed in the NP were carried out. Most surveys planned in
2010 have been carried without major problems. The station grids (figures 1-8) are
presented in Annex 1.
The Beam Trawl Survey was the only survey that faced major problems as one of the
two research vessels (RV Isis) encountered serious technical issues. The priority
stations were fished by RV Tridens to ensure the index area was covered. RV Tridens
sailed 2 extra days to cover these stations. Due to the breakdown of the Isis
combined with severe weather conditions throughout the survey, the second priority
stations of RV Isis and a number of stations outside the index area of RV Tridens
could not be fished.
The breakdown of the Isis also affected the Sole Net Survey (SNS). The SNS was
carried out by FV Jakoriwi (a charter) instead without problems.
The plankton sampling during the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) was not
carried out as planned because the MIK gear was lost. The remainder of the plankton
sampling was carried out with an alternative gear.
The international acoustic survey on blue whiting, carried out by RV Tridens, was
interrupted by very poor weather conditions. In combination with the fact that the
Russian vessel deviated from the survey planning, this lead to an incomplete
coverage of the planned station grid (1 transect missing).
The number of plankton stations taken by Tridens in the International Mackerel and
Horse Mackerel egg survey was 234. The planned number of stations was 238 and
was estimated from the areas allocated to Tridens by WGMEGS. The number of
planned stations of 310 in table III.G.1 is an error.
The number of trawl hauls carried out by Tridens during the acoustic herring survey in
the North Sea was 15. The planned number of trawl hauls was 25. The number of
hauls is related to the distribution of herring as indicated by the acoustic equipment
and the mixing of herring with other species in the water column. The hauls are taken
for biological samples of herring and to verify the species composition associated with
the acoustic signals. The planned number of trawl hauls is therefore indicative. The
number of 15 hauls was considered sufficient for these purposes.
III.G.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
The deviation of the planned programme had minor to no influence on the quality of
the survey indices of 2010 is expected. See also III.G.1-Achievements.
Because of the incomplete coverage of the blue whiting spawning grounds, the
results of the survey have been questioned by the industry.
III.G.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
There are no recent recommendations to list.
III.G.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Dealing with weather conditions is part of research at sea. The planning of the
sampling is always based on an ‘average’ year. During ‘good’ years it is important to
communicate (inter)nationally if other ships need extra sampling to cover their
programme. In ‘bad’ years it is highly recommended to communicate as soon as
possible on the potential shortfalls that will occur. Since on all Dutch vessels internet
is available, communication is easy.
Page 42 of 92
Document1
The international acoustic survey on blue whiting is carried out in an area and in a
period when poor weather conditions can be expected. In order to reduce the risk that
areas may not be surveys, the survey design has been adjusted by PGNAPES.
Further actions are not necessary
Page 43 of 92
Document1
IV
Module of the evaluation of the economic situation of the
aquaculture and processing industry
IV.A.
Collection of economic data for the aquaculture
IV.A.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
The aquaculture sector in the Netherlands consists of three main components:
The mussel sector
The oyster sector
The land based aquaculture sector.
For each of these sectors economic data is collected.
For the mussel and oyster sector data is collected through a panel which covers
about 25% of all the firms in the sector. There were no deviations from the NP
proposal for these sectors. The collection of data for the land-based aquaculture was
more problematic.
In contrary to the fisheries sector, the aquaculture sector is relatively data poor. Only
for the mussel culture, reliable data exists on the total production from the mussel
auction in Yerseke. Data on the total production of land based aquaculture is
available from Eurostat, based on figures provided by Statistics Netherlands and the
Ministry of Agriculture Nature conservation and Food safety. However these data
show quite some inconsistencies. From this comparison it seems that the Eurostat
definition under NACE Code 05.02: “Fish Farming” does not include all aquaculture
firms. Thus the data collection of these sectors solely depends on data collection from
firms. LEI started to collect data about the aquaculture sector in the year 2005.
Through contacts within this relatively small sector and its product organisations (PO
mussel culture, Dutch Oyster Association, Dutch Fish Farmers Association NEVEVI,
Dutch Fish Product Board), since that time LEI knows fairly accurately how many
firms are operating in the sector.
In order to attain economic information from the aquaculture sector LEI makes use of
a panel of companies from which the annual financial accounts are analysed. This is
mainly because of high non-response of previous questionnaires in this sector.
Especially land based aquaculture in the Netherlands is a relatively small,
fragmented, highly competitive and dynamic sector. As a result firms are reluctant to
provide data on their economic position. All economic variables stated in the
regulation can be obtained from the financial accounts of the firms.
As the majority of the segments of the land based aquaculture sector consist of very
few firms (i.e. 1-3 firms) the target of the data collection is to obtain full coverage of
these segments. However participation in the data collection is voluntary and despite
numerous attempts to get new firms to join the panel response continues to be low.
Combined with the fact that in 2010 the decrease in production from 2009 proceeded
it proved impossible to get a representative sample for the land based aquaculture
sector in 2010. Remaining land based trout farms only produced trout for recreational
fisheries and are thus no longer included in the data collection.
Over the last year LEI has set up an additional collection program for macro data.
This includes the number of companies (by species), production and annual revenue.
Contact information of fish farms was gathered from official sources (Statistics
Netherlands, Dutch Fish Product Board) and complemented with expert knowledge
and a web-scrapping exercise. All known fish farmers were contacted and
approached for a telephone questionnaire. Because of the approach and the limited
Page 44 of 92
Document1
amount of data asked for most of the respondents reacted positive to the requests
and gave their data.
Because the data are based on financial accounts, data collection is delayed by
almost a year. Therefore the 2009-10 program will cover 2007 and 2008 data and
final validated data will only become available 18 months after the reference year.
The shellfish sector is a special case because the financial year covers the period
from July –June. As the majority of the production (> 80%) takes place from JulyDecember, the economic results of the 2009-2010 season will be presented as the
2009 data.
IV.A.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
The total value of the economic variables is estimated through different aggregation
procedures for each of these sectors:
IV.A.3

Mussel segment: as the total production is available here gross value of
production and variable production costs are aggregated according to the
production. Fixed costs are aggregated based on the number of vessels.

Oyster segment: as opposed to the mussel segment there does not exist a
statutory duty of sale by auction for oysters. However the Fish Marketing Board
request the oyster producers to submit an annual statement of supplied oysters.
Furthermore LEI makes use of a panel of oyster companies from which the
annual financial accounts are analysed

Land based fish farming segment: LEI makes use of a panel of fish farming
companies from which annual accounts are analysed. In principle all variables
would be aggregated by species based on the number of companies, but also
production data gathered during the telephone interviews will be used. However
since all panels in the sub-segment exist of too few firms it proved impossible to
reliably aggregate the results for the entire segment.
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No recommendations were done at the North Sea RCM with regard to the economic
data collection of the fishing fleet. No initiatives have been taken to coordinate the
national programme with other MS.
IV.A.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
No actions were necessary.
Page 45 of 92
Document1
IV.B.
Collection of data concerning the processing industry
Data on fish processing was compiled by LEI from a number of sources. The
European Commission requested data from only fish processing and no data
collection on fish wholesaling.
IV.B.1
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
LEI Collects data from several resources: LEI survey, SN business statistics,
Business statistics collected by Chamber of Commerce, landings statistics, statistics
of international trade. The financial account provided by the Chamber of Commerce
and the SN database have been directly used to estimate the variables. Other data
sources have been used to cross check the results.
LEI collects data on employment and economic performance of the processing sector
and fish wholesaling by means of a 5-annual survey (questionnaire). This survey was
conducted in 2010.
There were no deviations from the national program.
SN Business statistics
Economic data on fish processing and wholesaling businesses is available in a
structural business statistics database kept by the national statistical office Statistic
Netherlands (SN). The database is updated annually. Definitions of variables comply
broadly with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2700/98. LEI has access to a set of
anonymous micro-data. The SN database contains, among others, data on the
following variables:
Income (Turnover):
Turnover comprises the totals invoiced by units in the sector during the reference
period, and this corresponds to market sales of goods or services supplied to third
parties. Turnover includes all duties and taxes on the goods or services invoiced with
the exception of the VAT invoiced by the unit vis-à-vis its customer and other similar
deductible taxes directly linked to turnover.
Production costs include:
-
Personnel costs: defined as the total remuneration, in cash or in kind,
payable by an employer to an employee (regular and temporary employees
as well as home workers) in return for work done by the latter during the
reference period. Personnel costs also include taxes and employees' social
security contributions retained by processing units as well as the employer's
compulsory and voluntary social contributions.
-
Purchases of goods and services include the value of all goods and services
purchased during the accounting period for resale or consumption in the
production process. This includes:
o Raw materials (including purchases for resale, changes of stocks)
o Energy
o Packaging
-
Other running costs include:
o Payments for agency workers
o Costs of selling
o Other operating costs: e.g.: postal and telecom, consultancy payments.
-
Fixed costs include operating costs linked to buildings and equipment
(payments for maintenance and repair, leasing payments).
Page 46 of 92
Document1
-
Employment (number of persons employed and FTEs)
Business statistics collected by Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber of Commerce provides a Register of individual business. The register
includes data on financial position (share of own capital) and investment (asset), for
businesses having over 50 employees.
Landing statistics
Data of landings at national auctions (by vessel, trip, and market category) is
collected and kept in a database kept by LEI. The database can be updated at a
monthly basis, is based on sales notes and covers all recorded landings at all national
auctions. The data set provides data on volume, value and prices of raw materials
purchased from all domestic landings of fresh fish. Data on landings and landings
value of sea frozen fish is collected by LEI from vessel owners.
Statistics of international trade
Data on international trade (volume, value and prices) of raw materials and final
products is provided by SN and Eurostat. LEI has access to a dataset at Standard
International Trade Classification (SITC) rev.3 8-digit level. This dataset allows e.g.
estimation of volume of raw materials imported and of prices of final products
produced from TAC related species.
All indicators as set out in Appendix XIX of the DCR can be submitted but with one
year delay as micro-data of SN are not sooner made available.
Sample rate and precision achieved vary by indicator and depend on the secondary
source. The sample rate of all indicators collected from business statistics database
of SN amounts to 25%.
IV.B.2
Data quality: results and deviation from NP proposal
Data checks were provided by the Central Bureau of Statistics Netherlands. To
ensure data quality figures used were also checked with official published data on
Statline.
There were no deviations from the national program.
IV.B.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No recommendations were done at the North Sea RCM with regard to the economic
data collection of the processing industry. No initiatives have been taken to
coordinate the national programme with other MS.
IV.B.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
There are no shortfalls
Page 47 of 92
Document1
V.
Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on
the marine ecosystem
V.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
No specific activities have been carried out in the DCF directed to this module. The
data required are collected in other modules or are available from other sources.
Table V.1 lists the information collected during the sampling year.
VMS positions are available for all vessels which are subject to the obligation of
having VMS equipment on board. With regard to the confidentiality of the VMS data
there is a conflict between national legislation and DCF legislation.
Catch composition of the landings are available for all métiers. Discard data are
available for all métiers which are subject to discard sampling. These include all major
métiers operating under the flag of the Netherlands.
The data collection through the LEI panel allows for the direct calculation fuel costs
per quarter and métier. Estimation of the total costs for fuel in each métier are based
on total effort (from logbooks) and fuel costs per sea day (from panel data).
Numerous activities, regarding the analyses of data collected under the DCF, have
been carried out in 2010. However, most of these activities have been carried out in
projects partly funded by the EU. These activities are not eligible.
Due to personal circumstances, there was no participation in the ICES Working
Group: WGECO. Participation was planned in the NP 2009-2010.
V.2.
Actions to avoid shortfalls
There are no shortfalls. Action has been taken to streamline national legislation and
DCF legislation.
Page 48 of 92
Document1
VI.
Module for management and use of the data
VI.1.
Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal
Management of the data
Databases
Three relational databases are maintained for storing fishery related data, VISSTAT,
FRISBE and ARTIS. VISSTAT and FRISBE are based at IMARES. ARTIS is
operated at LEI. The data bases contain only primary data. No aggregated data are
kept in these databases, but aggregations can be made from this primary data.
The standard procedures for operating these databases have been maintained in
2010. These procedures are described in the NP 2009-2010. There were no major
technical problems with the data bases
VISSTAT contains information of the fishery, mainly obtained from external sources
(log-books, sale slips, VMS etc.). Data in this database have been regularly
supplemented with actual information for the year 2010. There is often a few months
delay between the collection of the data and the submission to VISSTAT. The
database is relatively new (a few years). Action has been undertaken to build up a
historical time series by including data from earlier years.
FRISBE contains biological information from the métier sampling, biological
parameters, and survey and discard data. Data from 2010 sampling activities have
been collected and entered off line using standardised input software. Updated
versions of this software “Billie Turf’” have been developed in order to be able to cope
with new data requirements, format revisions and bugs. All data is quality checked
before date is submitted to FRISBE.
Length samples in the auction used to be registered on paper, requiring data entry in
Billie Turf once back at the institute. This data entry step was relative time consuming
and as every data entry step error prone. This step was eliminated by introducing
direct digital input using dedicated laptops. These laptops are suitable for use in
harsh environments such as fish auctions. A “light” version of the standard data entry
program Billie was developed in 2009 and refined in 2010. By the end of 2010, the
program (named Libbie) was used in almost every length sampling activity in the
auction.
All economic data are held in databases at LEI. The data of the active vessels are
stored in a central object orientated database (ARTIS). ARTIS was developed at LEI
for the collection and analysis of all its economic data. Data for the less active and
inactive vessels are stored in SPSS data files. Data from the following years will be
added routinely to ARTIS. All aggregated data for the DRC are stored in an ACCESS
database which is accessible for the commission by means of a system of web
services.
Online meta information on the biological data stored in VISSTAT and FRISBE is
presently available on a dedicated, password protected website
(http://sepia.wur.nl/imaStat). Passwords can be obtained through IMARES (see
section IIA for contact details)
Data requests by end-users are administrated in a separate database “FIDAREQ”
which became operational in 2009.
Regional Data Bases
Following an initiative of SGRN in 2009 to revive the process of establishing Regional
Data Bases (RDB), the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark started a pilot project to
test FishFrame as a candidate framework for a regional database. The pilot was
Page 49 of 92
Document1
completed early 2010 and the results indicate that a database like FishFrame would
be suitable for a RDB.
In 2010, progress was made in the process to establish Regional Data Bases (RDB)
in the North Sea and East Atlantic and the North Atlantic Region. Support was given
to an expert meeting organised by the EC in March 2010 in Brussels. The
conclusions of this group were discussed in the RCM meetings. In the RCM it was
agreed between the MS (except Spain and Mediterranean MS) to continue the
establishment of the RDB’s and actions were planned for 2010 and 2011.
Use of the data
Table VI.1 gives a summary of the information transmitted to major data users in
2010 (ICES and STECF working and study groups). It mostly concerns fisheries and
fish stock data from 2009 and survey data from 2009 and 2010.
This table is incomplete as it does not include data transmission from secondary
sources such as ICES InterCatch and DATRAS to other users. Most of the data has
been aggregated and exchanged in the format defined by the user.
Survey data are also kept in RDBs together with the survey data from other countries
hosted at ICES or various national institutes. In some cases these RDBs hold primary
data. In other cases they contain aggregated data. Data for all surveys, for which an
international database exist, have been transmitted to these RDBs. The routine
transmission of survey data to RDB are is included in the table VI-1.
VI.2.
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Two shortfalls have been identified which are dealt with as follows

The conflict between EU and national legislation on the confidentially of VMS
data still persist. In the past the approach was taken that VMS data will be
made available prevailing EU law above national law.

However, in 2011, the EU introduced a new control regulation. The control
regulation conflicts with the DCF in the area of confidentiality of certain data,
in particular VMS data
Page 50 of 92
Document1
VII Follow-up of STECF recommendations
The following recommendations were selected from an overview of STECF and
STECF expert group recommendations made in 2009, which were sent to the MS by
JRC to be included in the AR for 2010. The selection contains the recommendation
which are considered relevant to the Netherlands. For the purpose of standardisation,
we have brought these recommendations in a standard format (comparable to the
Liaison recommendations).
Topic: economic variables
STECF PLEN 09-02
Recommendation
STECF recommends that MS indicate the data collection
category that is to be applied for each fleet segment and
for each economic variable as listed in Appendix VI of
Council Decision 949/08. SGECA 09-02 identified three
different categories of data collection scheme that covers
all the possible typologies of data collection :
A. Census, which attempts to collect data from all
members of a population.
B. Probability Sample Survey, in which data are
collected from a sample of a population members
randomly selected
C. Non-Probability Sample Survey, in which data are
collected from a sample of population members
not randomly selected.
STECF notes that this classification will facilitate the
comparison of survey methodologies among MS.
STECF also recommends that MS:

include in their NPs for the period 2011-2013, a
methodological report to describe the sampling
strategies. STECF also recommends that MS
adhere to the guidelines for the preparation of the
methodological report given in Table 4.1.1 below
(adapted from the report of the STECF-SGECA
09-02).

include in their annual Technical Reports, the data
quality indicators given in Table 4.2.2 (discussed
under TOR 2 of STECF-SGECA 09-02
Follow-up actions neededinclusion of data quality indicators in Annual Report
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
MS
Time frame (Deadline)
every year
MS response
MS supports this recommendation and has included the
quality indicators
Page 51 of 92
Document1
Topic: balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities
STECF PLEN 09-03
Recommendation
STECF recommends that the Commission and MS take
the appropriate actions, namely:
1. The date of submission should be included in the
MS reports.
2. The requirement in the regulations to restrict MS
reports to 10 pages should be reconsidered.
3. Commission summaries of MS reports should
follow the template format as suggested so that
they contain the same information in the same
order. This would greatly assist STECF to
evaluate the Commission summaries should
STECF continue to be required to do so.
4. MS should complete the report summary template
suggested for their own report and include it at the
front of their reports.
5. In its summary report, the Commission should
make only factual observations regarding MS
conclusions on balance, rather than adding any
further interpretation to MS reports.
6. MS should be encouraged to provide suitable
alternative approaches to the technical indicator
for their passive or static gear fleet segments,
since days at sea is not appropriate in these
cases. It would be appropriate to update the
Guidelines accordingly.
7. MS may have to revise their timetable for data
collection in order to ensure the previous year is
reported on for the Technical indicator by the
required date in the current year.
8. Specific suggestions to individual MS in the
working group report regarding data availability
should be communicated by the Commission to
MS.
9. MS should reveal why indicators have not been
reported, this may help to resolve any underlying
problems and make it possible to report indicators
in subsequent years.
10. The suggested improvements to the Guidelines
on Balance Indicators contained in response to
ToR 5 in the WG report should be implemented.
STECF also recommends that the description of fleets
should follow the fleet segmentation proposed by the DCF
in order to be useful.
MS to comply with guidelines submitted by the
Follow-up actions needed
Commission
Responsible persons
MS
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
every year
MS response
MS has complied with actual guidelines applicable to year
of submission of the report
Page 52 of 92
Document1
Topic: participation in RCM LDF
STECF PLEN 09-03
Recommendation
SGRN/ECA requested clarification from STECF regarding
the remit of the RCM on Long-Distant Fisheries (and
corresponding participation of MS) and the species for
which economic data from aquaculture should be
collected. STECF recommends that at least Cyprus,
France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, The
Netherlands, Portugal and Spain should participate in the
RCM on Long-Distant Fisheries, considering their fisheries
in the CECAF area, South Pacific, Indian Ocean and
'other regions where fisheries are operated by EU vessels
and managed by RFMOs'.
Follow-up actions neededSend participant to RCM LDF
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
MS: Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania,
Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain
Time frame (Deadline)
every year
MS response
Netherlands had send a participant to the RCM LDF in
Madrid in 2010.
Topic: Experimental fisheries improving the knowledge on components of the
herring stock in ICES sub-divisions VIa(S) & VIIb,c
STECF PLEN 09-03
Recommendation
In terms of data collection, STECF recommends that
vessels should be required to keep a daily log of their
activity and catch, and record echo traces from their echosounders for potential further analyses. STECF further
recommends that participating vessels should be
required to accept scientific observers
Biological data are also required. STECF recommends
that catches should be sampled for length, age, sex and
maturity on a monthly basis. Additionally, otoliths should
also be collected for the purpose of otolith
microstructure/shape analysis to help determine the
spawning origin of the catch. STECF notes that biological
data from sentinel fisheries in operation in other parts are
often collected by the participating fishers. However, the
Marine Institute (Ireland) has volunteered to collect and
process samples in this case.
Follow-up actions neededadjust data collection
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
MS participating in the fishery
Time frame (Deadline)
MS response
Page 53 of 92
In 2010, there was no fishery directed at herring by the
Netherlands in these areas
Document1
Topic: economic variables
SGECA 09-02
Recommendation
SGECA-09-02 recommends that in case non-probability
sampling is applied, MS describe clearly in the
methodological reports the methods used to overcome
problems of bias and possible ways to assess the quality
of the estimates and their outcomes. Based on this
information, SGECA recommends to launch a call for a
study to harmonise quality reporting and propose
methodology in this specific situation. SGECA-09-02 also
recommends that the suggested study on quality
indicators for non-probability sampling should also
address the question of the impact of non-random non
response on the final estimates.
Follow-up actions neededMS to describe clearly in the methodological reports the
methods used to overcome problems of bias and possible
ways to assess the quality of the estimates and their
outcomes
Responsible persons
all MS
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
MS response
MS supports this recommendation
Topic: economic variables
SGECA 09-02
Recommendation
SGECA-09-02 recommends that MS should carefully
assess the impact of non-response, especially in the case
of census with low response rate.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
MS response
MS supports this recommendation and is working assing
the impact of non-response and limiting the impact by
estimating the economic results with the use of a model
Topic: economic variables
SGECA 09-02
Recommendation
Due to concerns raised over the implications for data time
series if clustering practices change over time, SGECA09-02 recommends MS to take this into account when
they segment the fleet in order to produce consistent time
series over time.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
MS response
Page 54 of 92
MS has done this
Document1
Topic: economic variables
SGECA 09-02
Recommendation
SGECA-09-02 recommends that MS assess the
comparability of economic variables over time, include the
results in the TR and discuss inconsistencies in trends.
Follow-up actions neededanalysis of comparability of economic variables over time
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
deadline Annual Report
MS response
Due to the use of panel data MS does not face the
problem of inconsistencies in time series data
Topic: fisheries conducted under a derogation regime
SGRN 09-01
Recommendation
Large differences in the amount of capital invested are
likely to exist between MS, in particular between those MS
who have tradable markets in quota and licences and
those who do not. A recent EU wide study1 focussed on
defining a common methodology for the calculation of
capital invested in tangible assets and capital costs
(Perpetual Inventory Method (PIM)), and it is
recommended that this methodology is followed by MS
when producing ROI estimates.
Follow-up actions neededapply recommended methodology
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
MS
Time frame (Deadline)
MS response
Page 55 of 92
MS complies with this recommendation
Document1
Topic: precision levels
SGECA/SGRN 09-02
Recommendation
“SGRN has repeatedly recommended every MS to
estimate the precision of the data obtained by sampling in
order to assess the quality of the associated estimates. In
SGRN opinion, the best way to explore data is to evaluate
the precision with the aim of optimising the sampling
design (see Section 7.2 in SGRN-06-03 report, Anon.
2006). More than the exact quantification of the level of
uncertainty, the objective of calculating precision levels
should be to improve the quality of the data that is
collected. In parallel, SGRN has supported the idea of
developing a common tool for assessing the accuracy and
precision of the biological parameters estimated through
sampling programmes. Such a tool has been granted
financial support by the Commission through the Call for
Service Contracts FISH/2006/15. (COST project) SGRN
will continue to request all MS to assess the quality of the
estimates even if the different methodologies used prevent
the direct comparisons of the results between MS.”
Follow-up actions neededprovide estimates of precision in Annual Report
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
deadline Annual Report
MS response
In most cases, the Netherlands has provided estimates of
precision in those tables where these are required and
when it is possible to calculate them. An exception is table
III_C_5 which, similar to last year, could not be filled in
due to inconsistencies with between the white and grey
columns. Using the COST software has been experienced
as problematic for the Dutch sampling schemes. For the
calculation of the precision parameters the methodology
developed in the COST project has been applied and
implemented in the national software.
Page 56 of 92
Document1
Topic: species landed as mixed categories
SGECA/SGRN 09-02
Recommendation
SGRN would like to stress the importance of providing
landings data by species, as required by the DCR (EC
1581/2004; EC 949/08), and not by group of species
(based also on the exercise “Sampling for mixture of
species in the landings” carried out in 2008). SGRN notes
that data collected for some species (e.g. Mullus spp,
Trachurus spp., Lophius spp., Raja spp., among others),
is aggregated at genus level. SGRN recommends that
species recorded under mixed categories should be
reported at species level and this requirement should be
enforced. The collection of such data is also important in
view of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)
Management, were data for example on sharks and rays
is required at the species level. MS should find solutions
for the next NP with respect to this problem either by
rectifying the reporting of landings in ports and markets or
by estimating the percentage contribution of the relative
species in the genera (see ICES PGCCDBS report 2009).
Follow-up actions neededprovide data by species rather than by group of species
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
always
MS response
The reporting of landings by species is regulated through
legislation applicable to the submission of log-books. This
legislation may not always be harmonised with the DCF
requirements. Also, the registrations may not always be in
accordance with this legislation and sometimes mixed
categories are reported or permitted. Reports on landings
by species can be given at the lowest level of aggregation
as available in national statistics. Biological data is always
submitted at the species level.
Topic: issues related to large pelagics
SGECA/SGRN 09-02
Recommendation
Due to many and various compliance problems in getting
the data at the RFMO level, SGRN recommend that data
on large pelagics must be transmitted by using the forms
and the formats adopted by each RFMO concerned.
Follow-up actions neededuse RFMO formats for transmitting data
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
always
MS response
Netherlands provided data in RFMO format
Page 57 of 92
Document1
Topic: regional data bases
SGECA/SGRN 09-02
Recommendation
The need for regional data bases has been discussed in
the past and endorsed by both STECF and the
Commission, but little progress has been made on the
issue. SGRN recommends that the various RCM
meetings in September and October deal with the issue of
regional data bases. SGRN recommends that lead MS
are identified to progress the issue of regional data bases
in partnership with other MS. This will ensure a shared
ownership of the regional database. SGRN recommends
that RCM’s agree a FISHFRAME compatible data base for
the regional data bases. SGRN recommends that the
work programme for developing the regional database
should be included in the NP for 2011 – 2013 under the
data base development.
Follow-up actions neededRCMs and lead MS
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
RCM
Time frame (Deadline)
RCM meeting 2010
MS response
In 2009 and 2010 NL participated in a pilot with Belgium
and Denmark to test the suitability of FishFrame as a
possible candidate for a RDB in the North Sea. Also,
Dutch experts participated in the meeting on the feasibility
of introducing RDB in the DCF which was held in Brussels
2010. NL has supported the establishment of a RDB in all
relevant RCMs.
Topic: Guidelines for the submission of National Programmes 2011-2013
SGECA/SGRN 09-02
Recommendation
Annex 5 of the report is de Guidelines for the submission
of National Programmes 2011-2013. The Guidelines
contain many recommendations dealing with instructions
on how to present the National Programme. These
recommendations are not listed separately
Follow-up actions neededtake account of recommendations in drawing up the
National Programme 2011-2013
Responsible persons
all MS
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
deadline submission NP
MS response
As far as aware, NL has followed all recommendations in
drawing up the NP 2011-2013.
Page 58 of 92
Document1
Topic: bi-lateral agreements
SGRN/SGECA 09-01
Recommendation
Reviewers of the NP neither found that while MS listed
their bi-lateral agreements in the annexes, they did not
refer to them in the report text (Section III B). SGRN
recommends MS to address this in future NP
submissions.
Follow-up actions neededtake account reference to bi-lateral agreements
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
deadline submission NP
MS response
MS has done so
Topic: fisheries conducted under a derogation regime
SGRN/SGECA 09-01
Recommendation
The Data Collection Regulation does not make any
specific mention to the fisheries acting under a derogation
regime (i.e. several Mediterranean fishing practices
allowed till 2010). This grey area is particularly relevant,
because the absence of a specific obligation to collect
data on these fishing activities will make it impossible to
evaluate the effects of the derogations. This can also
negatively affect the national management plans. SGRN
recommend that each fishery acting under a derogation
regime “should” be identified, included in the ranking
system and sampled if selected.
Follow-up actions neededtake account reference to bi-lateral agreements
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
deadline submission NP
MS response
NL has not identified fisheries under a derogation regime
when drawing up the NP 2011-2013
Page 59 of 92
Document1
Topic: fisheries activities using gears not listed amongst the recognised ones
SGRN/SGECA 09-01
Recommendation
If a fishing activity is carried out by a MS by using a gear
not officially listed and if this segment is relevant in term of
catches or to improve the data used for the stock
assessment of the target species concerned, than SGRN
recommends that the related sampling shall be properly
included in the NP, by using the general gear category
and appropriate codification. SGRN recommends that the
gear category to be used for the data transmission to the
RFMO concerned should use an appropriate codification
and encourage co-operation among relevant MS.
Follow-up actions neededMS to include unofficial metiers in NP
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
deadline revision submission NP 2011-2013
MS response
NL has identified fisheries using gear which is not officially
listed. These fisheries are developing fast. The main gears
are electric beam trawls and sumwings. These gears
replace the traditional beam trawls. NL was not aware of
this recommendation and therefore has not included these
in its NP. Since these fisheries have developed fast and
have different catch composition, NP will include these
gears as national metiers in an update of the NP for 2012
and 2013.
Topic: species list for distant water fisheries
SGRN/SGECA 09-01
Recommendation
During the evaluation process, it was evident that some
MS have fleets fishing in distant waters (i.e.: various
Pacific Ocean areas) and were asking for a full derogation
for certain target species because they did not appear on
appendix VII of the new DCR. Due to the relevance of the
quantities reported, SGRN recommends that MS
concerned shall detail by species their catches in distant
areas and submit these lists to STECF, with the purpose to
propose amendments and improvements of the current
appendix VII. SGRN point out those sampling stocks
providing relevant quantities of catches in distant waters is
an obligation of the EU MS, according to the Common
Fishery Policy.
Follow-up actions needed MS to provide species list
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
all MS
Time frame (Deadline)
not defined
MS response
MS has provided species lists to RCM-LD. By this way it
has been made available to STECF and the EC
Page 60 of 92
Document1
VIII.
List of acronyms and abbreviations
shortcut
ARTIS
CC
CECAF
CEFAS
CFP
COST
CTD
CV
DATRAS
DCR
DCF
EC
EU
EUROSTAT
FIDAREQ
FR
FRISBE
FTE
GER
GNS
HAWG
HP
IBTS
ICCAT
ICES
IHLS
IMARES
IOTC
IRL
ITQ
LEI
LNV
LNV-DVIS
LNV-AKV
MS
NACE
NAFO
NCM
Page 61 of 92
abbreviation of
Database with economic data maintained by LEI
Capital Cost
Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science
(Lowestoft UK)
Common Fishery Policy
Common Open Source Tool
instrument to measure water characteristics like salinity,
temperature, pressure, depth and density
Coefficient of variation
ICES Database with survey data
Data Collection Regulation
Data Collection Framework (successor of DCR from 2009
onwards)
European Commission
European Union
European Statistical Office
Database administrating data requests
France
Database with biological data maintained by IMARES
Full Time Equivalent
Germany
Gear code: Gill net
Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of
62ºN
engine power expressed in horse power
International Bottom Trawl Survey
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas
International Council for Exploration of the Sea
International Herring Larvae Survey in the North Sea
Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies,
Wageningen UR
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
Ireland
Individual Transferable Quota
Institute of Agricultural Economics
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Former Dutch Directorate of Fisheries situated at LNV
Dutch Directorate of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Agribusiness
Member State of the European Union
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
National Coordination Meeting
Document1
shortcut
NA
NL
NP
PGCCDBS
PGMED
PIM
RCM
RCM LDF
RCM NA
RCM NS&EA
RCM Med&BS
RCM Baltic
RDB
RFMO
ROI
SGECA
SGRN
SITC
SN
STECF
TAC
TBB
TBS
TR
UK
VAT
VIRIS
VISSTAT
VMS
vTI
WKSMRF
WGCRAN
WGMEGS
WGNAPES
Page 62 of 92
abbreviation of
North Atlantic
The Netherlands
National Data Collection Programme
ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and
Biological Sampling
Planning Group for the Mediterranean
Perpetual Inventory Method
Regional Coordination Meeting
RCM Long distance Fisheries
RCM North Atlantic
RCM North Sea and Eastern Arctic
RCM Mediterranean and Black Sea
RCM Baltic Sea
Regional Data Base
Regional Fisheries Management Organization
Return on Investment
STECF Sub-group on Economic Affairs (subgroup from
STECF)
Subgroup on Research Needs and Data Collection
(subgroup from STECF)
Standard International Trade Classification
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for
Fisheries
Total Allowable Catch
Twin Beam Trawl
Gear code: Beam Trawl Shrimp
Technical Report
United Kingdom
Value Added Tax
Visserij Registratie en Informatie Systeem (Database with
logbook entries in the Netherlands, maintained by DV)
Dutch data base with (non-biological) data on fisheries
Satellite based Vessel Monitoring System
Johann Heinrich von Thünen-institute, Germany
Workshop on Sampling Methods for Recreational
Fisheries
Working Group on Crangon Fisheries and Life History
Working Group on Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg
Surveys
Working Group on Northeast Atlantic Ecosystem Surveys;
previously PGNAPES
Document1
IX.
Comments, suggestions and reflections
Comments to the financial forms:

The format used for the cost statement is the same as the one used for the
calculation of the budget proposal for the NP 2011-2013. These formats were
provided by the Commission as Excel worksheets and contain errors in the
formulas. These errors have been corrected.

The labour rates in the cost statement are calculated for each employee
separately based on the eligible labour costs and a productivity of 210 days
(1512 hours) for full time employees. For employees which were not fully
employed in 2010 a proportionally reduced productivity was used.

In the NP 2010-2011, NL envisaged problems to specify labour at the activity
level requested in the financial format. This because the national time
declaration reporting systems do not fully support such a stratification. The
labour time listed in the financial forms is taken from the national time
declaring system. However, the stratification over activities is partly based on
expert judgement.

The daily rates of the research vessels have been recalculated based on the
real costs in 2010. The rates are lower than in the proposal, mainly because
maintenance costs were much lower than anticipated. The rates are higher
compared with those in 2009 mainly because an increase in fuel price.
Comments to the tables:

Table III.C.5 requires information on the sampling intensity for length
compositions of the metiers combined. However, the variables to be entered
in this table are confusing and the table does not have the correct lay out to
provide the variables. The requested precision estimates are required by
métier and cannot be given for métiers combined. The variable “number of
fish measured/aged” is unclear since the table supposed to deals with length
compositions. The associated precision would differ for age and length. The
column “Precision (CV) achieved on volume of discards” does not belong in
this table since volume is a métier related variable.

The mismatch between the NP and AR part of Table III.C.5 was mentioned in
last year’s Technical Report and brought to the attention of the Commission.
However, no changes in tables and guidelines have been provided. The table
could not be filled in.

Table III.C.6 suggest that information should be provided by métier and
species. However, it is not clear what information should be provided.
Reflections on data use

The conflict between EU and national legislation on the confidentially of VMS
data still persist. In the past the approach was taken that VMS data will be
made available prevailing EU law above national law. However, in 2011, the
EU introduced a new control regulation. The control regulation conflicts with
the DCF in the area of confidentiality of certain data, in particular VMS data
Page 63 of 92
Document1
X.
References
Anon 2006. Report of the 2nd Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the
Chair of SGRN and the European Commission. Brussels, 6-7 February 2006.
Anon 2006. Report of the 3rd Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the
Chair of SGRN and the European Commission. Brussels, 14-15 November
2006.
Anon 2008. Report of the 4th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the
chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the
Chair of SGRN and the European Commission. Brussels, 20-22 February
2008.
Anon 2009. Report of the 5th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the
chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the
Chair of SGRN and the European Commission. Brussels, 26-27 February 2009
Anon 2009. Report of the 6th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the
chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the
Chair of SGRN and the European Commission. Hamburg, 7-8 December 2009
(draft 1)
Anon 2009. Guidelines for the submission of National Programme Proposals on the
National Data Collection Programmes under Council Regulation (EC)
199/2008 Commission Regulation (EC) 665/2008 and Commission Decision
2008/949/EC (version 2009). Annex to SGRN 2009 report
Anon 2010. Report of the 7th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the
chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the
Chair of SGRN and the European Commission. ILVO Institute, Ostend,
Belgium, 3rd and 4th June 2010
Anon 2010. National Programme 2011-2013 – The Netherlands – (the drawing up of
the programme of the Data Collection Framework). Final version submitted
February 14, 2011
Anon 2010. National Programme 2009-2010 – The Netherlands – (the drawing up of
the programme of the Data Collection Regulation). Final version submitted
March 15, 2010
Taal, C., H. Bartelings, R. Beukers, A.J. van Duijn, A.J. Klok, J.A.E. van
Oostenbrugge en J.P.G. Smit. 2009. Visserij in Cijfers 2009. Rapport 2009070.
ISBN/EAN: 978-90-8615-376-3
Taal, C., H. Bartelings, R. Beukers, A.J. Klok en W.J. Strietman. 2009. Visserij in
Cijfers 2010. Rapport 2010-057. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-8615-458-6
Page 64 of 92
Document1
XI
Annexes
Page 65 of 92
Document1
Annex 1
Set of survey maps
Figure 1 IBTS station grid in 2010, for plankton (black) and fish (grey) sampling
Page 66 of 92
Document1
Figure 2 BTS Station grid fished by R.V. Tridens (grey) and R.V. Isis (black)
Page 67 of 92
Document1
Figure 3. Demersal Young Fish Survey. Station grid for R.V. Stern (Wadden Sea,
black), R.V. Schollevaar (Scheldt Estuary, light grey) and R.V. Isis (coastal zone, dark
grey)
Page 68 of 92
Document1
Figure 4 Sole Net Survey. Station grid for R.V. Isis (black) and FV Jakoriwi (grey)
Page 69 of 92
Document1
Figure 5 Herring Larvae survey station grid. The northern stations, covering the
Banks and Buchan components, are fished in September. The southern stations,
covering the Downs component, are fished in December.
Page 70 of 92
Document1
Figure 6 North Sea Herring Acoustic Survey. International station grid
Survey direction: north  south.
Blue line
Red dots
Page 71 of 92
= Tridens
= CTD stations for Tridens.
Document1
Figure 7 Blue whiting survey. Preliminary survey tracks for the International blue
whiting spawning stock survey. The survey grid or allocation to the participants in the
survey may be changed by WGNAPES
Page 72 of 92
Document1
Figure 8 International Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg survey. Dutch sampling grid.
Page 73 of 92
Document1
Figure 9 North Sea mackerel egg survey. Survey area expected to be covered by RV
TRIDENS in 2011. The survey tracks may be changed by WGMEGS
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
F0 F1
F2
F3
F4
F5 F6
F7
F8
F9 G0
G1
G2
52
51
61
50
49
60
48
47
59
Kirkwall
calibration
46
1
58
Fraserburgh
Peterhead
45
2
3
44
4
43
Aberdeen
57
Stonehaven
5
42
Montrose
Dundee
6
56
41
Leith
7
40
8
55
Newcastle
Sunderland
Seaham
Hartlepool
Middlesbrough
Whitby
39
9
38
10
Scarborough
37
54
36
Grimsby
35
53
34
33
52
32
31
51
30
29
50
28
27
-4
-3
Page 74 of 92
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Document1
Annex 2
Bilateral Agreements
Agreement between the UK (CEFAS) and Netherlands (Institute for Marine
Resources and Ecosystem Studies, IMARES) for the Collection of Length
Samples and Otoliths under the Minimum Programme of the Data Collection
Regulations 1639/2001and amending regulation 1581/2004
Under the Data Collection Regulation (DCR), the UK is required to sample species
where the proportion of the TAC exceeds 5% for length samples and 10% for age. In
the North Sea, the UK exceeds these thresholds for plaice, turbot, brill and horse
mackerel. However, the quantities of each species actually landed into the UK are
significantly lower than the UK’s proportion of the TAC. As a result the number of
samples specified under the Minimum Programme is at a level which does not make
it efficient or statistically meaningful for the UK to carry out sampling. The UK and the
Netherlands have therefore agreed that the small number of samples required will be
sampled as part of the National Programme of the Netherlands. The additional
sampling costs will be included in the Netherlands’ National Programme. This
agreement covers the period 2008 and confirms the practice which has been already
adopted and carried out by the Netherlands since 2000.
Description of sampling: The sampling will be for length and age and sampling will
be carried out in accordance with the National Programme of the Netherlands.
Sampling Intensity:
Plaice IV
Turbot IV
Brill IV
Horse mackerel IV
150 lengths
15 lengths
10 lengths
250 lengths
75 otoliths
15 otoliths
10 otoliths
125 otoliths
Data responsibility: The Netherlands is responsible for submitting the joint data to
the relevant ICES WG, and to the EC.
Contact persons:
In The Netherlands: Frans van Beek (frans.vanbeek@wur.nl) or Sieto Verver
(sieto.verver@wur)
In UK: Richard Millner (richard.millner@cefas.co.uk)
Signatures:
For CEFAS
For IMARES
……………………………
Carl O’Brien
Senior Fisheries Advisor
Research (CVO)
CEFAS
Page 75 of 92
Sieto Verver
Dpt. Head Centre for Fisheries
IMARES
Document1
Date: may 30, 2007
Page 76 of 92
Date: may 30, 2007
Document1
Page 77 of 92
Document1
Annex 3
Subcontracts
Copies of the subcontracts between IMARES and its subcontractors are available in
the Certificate of Expenditure.
Page 78 of 92
Document1
Page 79 of 92
Document1
Annex 4
Costs and Earnings taken into account in the
different parameters as set out in appendix VI of the DCF.
Parameter
Costs/Income included
Gross value of landings
Income per species and market category
Income from leasing out
quota or other fishing rights
Other income
Direct Subsidies
Rent from lease quota cod
Rent from lease quota mackerel
Rent from lease quota plaice
Rent from lease quota sole
Rent from lease quota whiting
Income from charter vessel by research
Income from towing other vessels
Settlement of income from fisheries in case of cooperation with other vessels
Compensation on contribution for auction in case of
closed areas
Compensation for voluntary stop of fishing during
certain part of the year
Production cost
Wages and salaries of crew
Imputed value of unpaid
labour
Energy costs
repair and maintenance.
Lease/rental payments for
quota or other fishing rights
Page 80 of 92
Part of the income from research activities that is
paid to the crew
Part of the subsidy that is paid as wage to the crew
Wage for the crew for maintenance of the vessel
Wage for the crew from income from fishing
Wage for the crew from income from towing other
vessels
Holiday pay
Social security payments
Imputed value for owners own labour on board
Kerosene
Maintenance catch processing equipment
Maintenance engine
Maintenance hull
Maintenance Ice machine, freezing equipment
Maintenance navigation equipment
Maintenance shrimp processing equipment
Fishing gear (netting)
Rent fish boxes
Rent quota cod
Rent quota mackerel
Rent quota plaice
Rent quota sole
Rent quota whiting
Document1
Parameter
Costs/Income included
Rents to external institutions
Costs agent in harbour
Auction levy
Clothing crew
Food costs for crew
Harbour fee
Ice
Levy on landed fish for compensation for fish that
was taken out of the market
Pay for landing armament
Plastic bags
Production rights (licences etc.)
Salt
Sorting/unloading
Transport costs fish
Travel expenses crew
Wage for safeguarding
Water
Bookkeeping
Contribution fisheries association
Costs of company car
Costs of company office
Costs of setting up the business
Electricity
Fines
Insurance
Lubrication oil
Other general expenses
Service costs auctions
Small tools
Subscription fisheries association
Subscription fisheries Product Organisation
Tax on waste production
Telephone
Depreciation
Opportunity costs to physical capital
Paid rents
Investment (asset)
Investments
Variable costs
Non-variable costs
Annual depreciation
Replacement value of hull
Value of physical capital:
depreciated replacement
value
Replacement value of engines
Revision of machinery
Replacement value of refrigeration/freezing
equipment
Replacement value of storage and lifting equipment
Depreciated historical value of hull
Value of physical capital:
depreciated historical value
Depreciated historical value of engines
Revision of machinery
Depreciated historical value of refrigeration/freezing
equipment
Depreciated historical value of storage and lifting
equipment
Page 81 of 92
Document1
Annex 5
Evaluation representativity of the Dutch panel
See also Turenhout et al (forthcoming)
The aim of this report was to find out if the current size of the panel sample is
sufficient to meet the wishes of the European Commission through assessing the
reliability and the representativeness of the sample. The results written above give an
answer to the research questions ‘What is the reliability and representativeness of the
current sample using the scheme according to the EU regulation?’ and ‘What
innovations are desirable in the fisheries sampling plan to make the new scheme
more reliable and more representative?’.
Table 1: Distribution sample and population with aggregating groups together
Vessel length
Population
Sample
Sample
percentage
Beam trawl
Beam trawl
Beam trawl
Beam trawl
12-18 m
18-24 m
24-40 m
>40 m
10
160
31
64
3
36
10
26
30
23
32
41
Demersal trawl and seiners
Demersal trawl and seiners
18-24 m
24-40 m
13
25
2
10
15
40
303
87
29
Fishing gear
Total
Table 1 gives the final clustering of the Dutch fleet according to the European
regulations. Only two types of fishing gears remain in this classification (beam trawls
and demersal trawls and seiners). Vessels with drift nets and fixed nets were lost by
aggregating groups together. This aggregation is done for confidentially reasons. No
strata may be presented with less than 10 vessels from the fleet population due to
confidentiality reasons (Website DCF, 2010; Oostenbrugge et al., 2003). The vessels
with dredges (four vessels in the population) cannot be combined with other vessels
in the fleet. Information from these vessels will be gathered by questionnaires.
Vessels not integrated in the panel are the vessels with pelagic trawls and seiners,
and all small scale fisheries. Information from the pelagic trawls and seiners is
gathered via census and the information from small scale fisheries are obtained by
questionnaires. As more and more small vessels (<12 meters) earning more than
50.000 euro it could be considered whether these vessels can be included in the
panel.
Table 2: Current and Neyman classification of the Dutch panel based on total gross revenues per day.
Fishing gear
Vessel length
Current
Neyman
Beam trawl
Beam trawl
Beam trawl
Beam trawl
12-18 m
18-24 m
24-40 m
>40 m
3
36
10
26
1
29
13
27
Demersal trawl and seiners
Demersal trawl and seiners
18-24 m
24-40 m
2
10
2
15
Page 82 of 92
Document1
The Neyman allocation is done for the sample size (table 2). A shift to the classes
beam trawl 24-40 meters, >40 meters and demersal trawl and seiners 24-40 meters
needs to be done to optimize the sample distribution. Too small vessels in a sample
group gives a risk of failure. Enough vessels needs to be inserted to have a safety
margin. This would result in more precise estimates of the total costs and benefits of
the Dutch fleet. However it should also be considered that the aim of the data
collection program is to have a reliable overview of all the different segments within
the fleet, regardless of their economic importance. Thus the allocation of panel units
must meet both conditions. Further analysis will be needed to fulfill this.
Table 3: Variance explained by variable. P-values are given. EC defined target variables are underlined.
Variable
Total revenue
Total costs
Total catch
Variable Cost
Repair and
Maintenance
costs
No Variable Cost
Crew Wage Cost
Annual
Deprecation Cost
Energy costs
Energy quantity
Fishing
gear
p
Vessel
length
p
Fishing gear
+ Vessel
length
p
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.963
0.775
0.472
0.791
0.74
0.79
0.68
0.72
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.74
0.79
0.68
0.72
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.011
0.046
0.139
0.46
0.64
0.50
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.52
0.67
0.52
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.207
0.137
0.122
0.47
0.77
0.77
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.48
0.80
0.80
0.000
0.000
0.000
The variance analysis in table 3 indicates that the factor main fishing gear explains a
minimal proportion of the variance (highest value 0.06 for the variable Repair and
Maintenance Cost). This is because most vessels in the two main segments (beam
trawls and demersal trawls and seiners) combine different types of gears and thus
difference between cost structures of fishing gears (see fig 1) are not detected by
comparing total cost structures for vessels.
Figure1: Cost structure per day at sea for five important fishing methods.
Page 83 of 92
Document1
The other types of fishing gears in the Netherlands are gathered through other ways
as written above and are therefore not part of the variance analysis. The factor vessel
length on the other hand explains a lot. Most of the target variables are for more than
50 percent explained by the factor vessel length. An analysis with vessel length is
therefore especially useful. The factors fishing gear and vessel length together say
not much more than vessel length alone.
For the accuracy of the different economic variables estimations the inclusion of the
stratification variable main fishing gear has little effect.
The European Commission does not have a maximum standard error percentage of
the mean for the reliability of the variable results. They do have a leveling scale from
level 0 (very bad reliability) to level 4 (100 percent reliable)(Website DCF, 2010). In
table 4 many target variables have a standard error much lower than 20 percent (level
1) of the total mean (most standard errors are below 12,5 percent (level 2)). The
variables other incomes, quota and Herring/Mackerel (yield) have a standard error
higher than 20 percent (36, 23 and 26 percent respectively). The reason of this high
standard error for other income is because only a small group of vessels (19 vessels
in 2007-2008) did have other incomes.
Table 4: Mean and standard error (stratified) for the whole population based on the LEI panel. EC defined
target variables are underlined.
Gross value of landing
Gasoil (costs)
Other income
Quota
Days at sea
Variable costs
Repair and Maintenance costs
Non Variable costs
Wages and salaries of crew
Annual depreciation
Energy costs
Herring/Mackerel (yield)
Cod (yield)
Other roundfish (yield)
Shrimps (yield)
Dab (yield)
Plaice (yield)
Turbot/Brill (yield)
Sole (yield)
Whiting (yield)
Total costs
Total revenue
Mean
Standard error
% mean
777038
265341
4688
-7668
144
55815
66922
85094
199990
68706
493011
1013
17553
80190
200873
11949
111897
67076
283878
2610
771665
774059
24934
10001
1687
1841
3
2220
2814
2847
7061
4583
18388
264
2084
12388
14129
1133
8442
4107
15726
439
23156
24642
3
4
36
-24
2
4
4
3
4
7
4
26
12
15
7
9
8
6
6
17
3
3
The reason for the high Herring/Mackerel (yield) standard error is that the vessels LEI
is looking at in the fleet don’t have this fish as target species. Most of the time this fish
was bycatch. This reason also applies for some other fish species (Whiting (yield)
with a standard error of 17 percent; Other roundfish (yield) with a standard error of 15
percent and Cod (yield) with a standard error of 12 percent). In table 5 the main target
species for the vessels are reliable but the bycatch is not. Target species for beam
Page 84 of 92
Document1
trawl and demersal trawl and seiners are flatfish and shrimps (Cochrane et al., 2002).
Beside other income also quota per strata is not reliable. The reason for this is that
the amount quota transfers between ships are limited. These exchanges are
independent for vessel lengths and fishing gears.
Table 5: standard error strata divided by the strata mean. EC defined target variables are underlined.
Fishing gear
Beam
trawl
Beam
trawl
Beam
trawl
Beam
trawl
Demersal
trawl and
seiner
Demersal
trawl and
seiner
Vessel length
12-18
18-24
24-40
>40
18-24
24-40
0.03
0.14
0.84
0.42
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.61
0.84
0.05
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.39
0.79
0.07
0.19
0.10
0.08
-0.53
0.01
0.06
0.18
0.14
0.89
0.03
0.33
0.18
0.11
0.61
-0.75
0.08
0.19
0.13
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.06
0.35
0.18
0.11
0.05
0.07
0.14
0.09
0.12
0.19
0.27
0.15
0.17
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.34
0.08
0.48
0.16
0.26
0.12
0.84
0.39
0.46
0.77
0.37
0.87
0.10
0.02
0.31
0.25
0.40
0.03
0.84
0.84
0.04
0.03
0.39
0.07
0.42
0.46
0.44
0.47
0.38
0.08
0.07
0.38
0.25
0.36
0.30
0.25
0.34
0.43
0.08
0.10
0.17
0.30
0.08
0.07
0.14
0.35
0.08
0.10
0.17
0.92
0.77
0.42
0.37
0.82
0.42
0.21
0.19
0.27
0.47
0.36
0.21
0.23
0.39
0.27
0.14
0.18
Gross value of
landing
Gasoil (costs)
Other income
Quota
Days at sea
Variable costs
Repair and
Maintenance costs
Non Variable costs
Wages and
salaries of crew
Annual
depreciation
Energy costs
Herring/Mackerel
(yield)
Cod (yield)
Other roundfish
(yield)
Shrimps (yield)
Dab (yield)
Plaice (yield)
Turbot/Brill (yield)
Sole (yield)
Whiting (yield)
Total costs
Total revenue
Table 6 shows the effect of stratification on the reduction in variance. Stratification
has a clear advantage for a lot of target variables. The most benefit is obtained for
variables from which the sample was established (vessel length and fishing gear).
Gross value of landings (0.41 times smaller) , gasoil (0.33 times smaller) total costs
(0.38 times smaller) and energy costs (0.32 times smaller) are strongly related to the
clustering variables.
Page 85 of 92
Document1
Table 6: Variance reduction through stratification assessor. EC defined target variables are underlined.
Gross value of landing
Gasoil (costs)
Other income
Quota
Days at sea
Variable costs
Repair
and
Maintenance
costs
Non Variable costs
Wages and salaries of crew
Annual depreciation
Energy costs
Herring/Mackerel (yield)
Cod (yield)
Other roundfish (yield)
Shrimps (yield)
Dab (yield)
Plaice (yield)
Turbot/Brill (yield)
Sole (yield)
Whiting (yield)
Total costs
Total revenue
Standard error (I)
with stratification
24934
10001
1687
1841
3
2220
Standard error (II)
without stratification
60705
29945
1551
2460
4
5073
(I/II)
0.41
0.33
1.09
0.75
0.83
0.44
2814
2847
7061
4583
18388
264
2084
12388
14129
1133
8442
4107
15726
439
23156
24642
5218
5247
11678
8577
56883
505
2272
23422
17094
1765
18190
10134
42656
777
61599
59121
0.54
0.54
0.60
0.53
0.32
0.52
0.92
0.53
0.83
0.64
0.46
0.41
0.37
0.56
0.38
0.42
The representativeness of the panel is in all cases (for technical characteristics, effort
and catch) good, which means that the characteristics of the sample do not differ
from the population.
The fact that vessels combine fishing with different gears with distinct cost structures
(fig 1) has important implications for the setup and size of the panel. First the
distribution of effort within the panel with regards to the different gears should
resemble the distribution in the population, to prevent possible bias. Also the size of
the panel should be large enough to cope with the variability resulting from both the
differences in cost structure between different gears, and in effort allocation. An
option to optimize the panel size could be to implement a system that would be based
on estimates of cost structure per day at sea, rather than per vessel. However, an
analysis of the variability in cost structure per day at sea of the different gears, and a
critical examination of the practical implication of such a system, will need to done to
be able to take such a step.
Page 86 of 92
Document1
a
b
Figure 2: a) Distribution beam trawl vessels in length category 24-40 meters. b) Distribution demersal trawl
and seiner vessels in length category 24-40 meters.
Figure 2 shows that in the category beam trawl 24-40 meters vessels are clustered
around 24 meters and around 40 meters. Generally the 24 meters vessels are
vessels fishing on shrimps and the 40 meters vessels are vessels fishing on flatfish
(Taal et al., 2009). For the Netherlands therefore it is better to rearrange this group,
beam trawl 24-40 meters, into two new groups (24-30 meters and 30-40 meters). The
Neyman allocation shows that especially the groups beam trawl 30-40 meters, >40
meters and demersal trawl and seiners 18-24 meters need extra vessels. The results
from variance analysis are increased (0.01 to 0.04) compared to the distribution
explained in paragraph 4.1 (table 4.2.3). On average the standard error declined for a
lot of the target variables
The representativeness for the beam trawl vessel distribution into 24-30 meters and
30-40 meters gives no significant situations. So also in the new distribution the
sample mean of the different variables does not significantly differ from the population
mean.
To conclude the current fleet sample is reliable and representative when stratification
is made in fishing gear and vessel length. Dividing beam trawl vessels in five length
categories makes the sample qualitatively better. In both cases vessels should be
introduced in de stratification groups beam trawl 12-18 meters and Demersal trawls
and seiners 18-24 meters to increase the result quality. Vessels smaller than 12
meter needs more attention in the future, because more and more of these vessels
earning more than 50.000 euro.
For the Netherlands a stratification in HP-classes gives a higher quality (See
Appendix B). This classification could be viewed for the EC member states in the
future. The future LEI panel should be set up in a way that it provides both reliable
estimates for cost structures of gear types, vessel segments and the Dutch fleet in an
efficient way. The cost structures for gear types are of particular importance since the
recent development of innovative ecosystem friendly fishing gears. Evaluation of the
costs and benefits of these gear types is not a priority of the EU, although there is
increasing attention for the combination of economic and biological data on the level
of fishing activities, which implies a need for such data. In a national perspective,
these data are regarded as being important for management and the innovation in the
sector.
References
DCF (Data Collection Framework)
<https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Website,
last
viewed
October
2010.
Cochrane, K.L. et al. A fishery manager’s guidebook –Management Measures and
their Application-, FAO Fisheries Technical paper T424, Rome 2002.
NP NLD 2011-2013, National Program 2011-2013 – The Netherlands. Written by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Netherlands (Directorate of
Page 87 of 92
Document1
Agriculture, Fisheries, and Agribusiness.), IMARES (Institute for Marine Resources &
Ecosystem Studies) and LEI (Institute of Agricultural Economics), 2010.
Oostenbrugge, J.A.E. van and H.C.J. Vrolijk, Evaluatie steekproef visserij. Report
1.03.03, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Hague, 2003.
Taal, C., H. Bartelings, R. Beukers, A.J. van Duijn, A.J. Klok, J.A.E. van
Oostenbrugge and J.P.G. Smit, Visserij en cijfers 2009. Report 2009-070, Agricultural
Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Hague, 2009.
Turenhout, M., H. Bartelings, J.A.E. van Oostenbrugge Evaluation sample fisheries.
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Hague, forthcoming.
Page 88 of 92
Document1
Annex 6
Methodology for estimating the precision of
estimates based on market sampling data
At IMARES a number of statistical procedures have been implemented to estimate
the precision of estimates of key biological parameters (weights-at-age, lengths-atage, maturity-at-age and numbers-at-length) in the landings, based on market
sampling data as required under the DCF. The statistical procedures that are used
depend upon the sampling methodology (Cochran 1977) and are described in the
manuals of the EU funded COST project and as documented in the reports from the
ICES workshops WKPRECISE and WKACCU (ICES 2008, 2009).
For each species, a description has been made of the sampling design, the target
population and the sampling frame (sampling frames have not yet been fully
evaluated for all species) (ICES 2008). A combination of design-based and modelbased methods are used to compute the precision estimates (ICES 2009). These
methods have been implemented in a number of custom made computing scripts in
the statistical programming language R (http://www.r-project.org/). The procedures
are essentially similar to the procedures as used in the COST package but are written
in such a way that they communicate directly with the VISSTAT and FRISBE
databases at IMARES which contain data on fisheries statistics and biological market
sampling.
For the species which are sampled primarily at market, a bootstrap is used in the
raising procedure, with resampling (with replacement) of trips from which fish have
been sampled. Thus, for these species, the fishing ‘trip’ is the primary sampling unit.
For the (mostly pelagic) species which are sampled at sea with several samples per
trip, the primary unit which is used in the bootstrap procedures is the sample. For the
precision estimation, the number of primary units that are used in the bootstrap in
each stratum is equal to the number of units in this stratum minus one as a correction
factor for too overoptimistic variance estimates due to small sample sizes per stratum
(Lahiri 2003, Efron 1987).
In addition to the bootstrap procedure, an analytical variance estimator based on the
delta method has been derived to estimate the precision of numbers-at-age (not
required under the DCF). This analytical method is only used for species which are
sampled in commercial size categories.
Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statisticsapplied.. J.W.a.sons. 413 pp
ICES WKPRECISE REPORT 2009. Report of the Workshop on methods to evaluate and estimate the
precision of fisheries data used.
ICES CM 2009/ACOM:40
ICES WKACCU REPORT 2008. Report of the Workshop on Methods to Evaluate and Estimate the
Accuracy of Fisheries Data used for Assessment (WKACCU). ICES CM 2008\ACOM:32
Lahiri, P. 2003. On the impact of bootstrap in survey sampling and small area estimation. Statistical
Science , Vol. 18, No. 2
EFRON, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals (with discussion). J. Amer Statist. Assoc. 82 171200.
Page 89 of 92
Document1
Annex 7
Minutes of National Coordination Meetings
notities overleg 18 feb 2010
aanwezig: Dirk Jan van der Stelt, Sieto Verver, Frans van Beek.






Overleg in IJmuiden n.a.v de RCM overige gebieden die vergadert van 3-5 maart
2010 in Madrid. De meeting is ongeveer een maand geleden door de Commissie
aangekondigd en dit levert door agendaproblemen problemen op voor
deelname
Frans zit in de eerste week van maart in Bergen Noorwegen voor WKHERMAT.
Hij heeft voor deze meeting met moeite een datum kunnen vaststellen om de
benchmark voor ASH af te krijgen. Hij kan zich nu niet afmelden
Sieto zit in dezelfde week in Kopenhagen in PGCCDBS samen met Edwin van
Helmond.
Dirk Jan zal naar de RCM in Madrid gaan en vraagt of er nog andere mogelijke
kandidaten voor deelname zijn. Frans heeft Niels Hintzen gepolst maar hij is
maart al grotendeels in het buitenland (HAWG, SGHERWAY). Er zijn geen
overige kandidaten
Korte discussie over de positie van NL in de RCM overige gebieden. De positie is
duidelijk verwoord in het verslag van de bilaterale meeting met Duitsland vorig
jaar en blijft ongewijzigd. In kort de volgende highlight
o RCM zou werkveld moeten inventariseren. Geen split up in subgroepen
nodig.
o Pacific bestanden waar NL op vist staan niet in Appendix VII. Er zijn
geen bemonsteringsverplichtingen
o Bemonstering in Pacific zou in overeenkomst moeten zijn met
behoeften RCM. Deze zijn ons niet bekend
o In bilaterale meeting werd over Pacific gezegd dat 10% monitoring van
effort gewenst zou zijn.
o Als tot bemonstering in Pacific moet worden overgaan hebben NL en
GER voorkeur voor gezamenlijke aanpak van Lidstaten. Dit komt
ongeveer overeen met 1 FTE bemonstering aan boord + database
behoeften.
o NL heeft geen acces to Mauritanie catches. Worden aangevoerd in Spain
en Mauritanie. MS waar vangst wordt aangevoerd is verantwoordelijk
voor vangsten. Beiden landen hebben een bemonstering van de vangst
(voor details zie verslag van bilaterale meeting met Duitsland). NL
verantwoordelijke voor biologische parameters (moet daarvoor een
bilaterale overeenkomst met ESP sluiten).
Korte discussie over voorbereiding NP
o Bij de metier bepaling is een probleem dat de vistuigcodes niet dekkend
zijn voor de vistuigen die gebruikt worden. NL zal pas actie
ondernemen wanneer Brussel daartoe verplicht. Actie, knelpunt in RCM
doorgeven aan de EC.
Page 90 of 92
Document1
notities overleg 29 mrt 2010
aanwezig: Dirk Jan van der Stelt, Sieto Verver, Frans van Beek, Hans van Oostenbrugge.
Het overleg vond plaats bij het LEI in den Haag. Hieronder een listing van de
belangrijkste punten die besproken zijn.







DJ is eerder deze maand naar de RCM Long Distance in Madrid geweest. Het was
de eerste vergadering van deze RCM. Hij geeft terugkoppling van de
belangrijkste zaken die voor NL van belang zijn. NL heeft toegezegd het
voortouw te nemen om voor de volgende vergadering van deze RCM met een
voorstel te komen voor bemonstering van de pelgafische visserij in Mauritanië.
Het streven is naar een gemeenschappelijk programma met de andere lidstaten
die in dit gebied vissen. Hij denkt aan de mogelijkheid om Ad Corten hierbij te
betrekken die connecties heeft met het visserijinstituut in Mauritanië. Een en
ander heeft consequenties voor NP in 2012. Mbt de pelagische visserij in de
Pacifiic (SPRFMO) is een aanzet voor een inventarisatie van de visserijen en
data-verplichtingen te maken. Dit zal bij de RCM in 2011 gecompleteerd worden
en ook hierover zullen dan gemeenschappelijke afspraken gemaakt worden in
licht van DCR, mogelijk met ingang van 2012.
Tijdens de RCM Long Distance heeft DJ contact gehad met de vertegenwoordiger
van ICCAT. Er is geen behoefte aan het verzamelen van biolgische parameters
van de bijvangsten van tonijn door Nederlandse trawlers. Deze gegevens
worden elders in voldoende hoeveelheid verzameld
DJ geeft aan niet naar de RCM NA te kunnen. Sieto zal er heen gaan. De RCM
is in Oostende. Vanaf dinsdag komen ook de economen daarheen. Hij zal wel
naar de RCM NS&EA gaan. Frans gaat ook mee naar de NS omdat Sieto voorzitter
is.
De afgelopen weken is hard gewerkt aan het NP 2011-2013. De deadline is deze
week De tekst is klaar tenzij er nog opmerkingen zijn. Die zijn er niet Ook de
tabellen zijn klaar. DJ zal er nog eens doorheen lopen voor ze worden
opgestuurd.
Frans merkt op dat er na de RCMs nog aanpassingen kunnen worden gemaakt
voor de evaluatie
Finforms
o Frans heeft geen inflatiecorrectie voor de forecasts voor 2011 en 2012
toegpast. De exacte budgetten worden ieder jaar opnieuw berekend met
recent informatie
o Sieto heeft de tarieven die gehanteerd moeten worden voor de schepen
nog niet van LNV gekregen.
o Frans heeft extra werk om de supraregionale kosten van de survey uit
de survey sheets te halen. Hij heeft per survey een nieuwe begroting
gemaakt waarin de scheiding is doorgevoerd.
o De scheepstarieven moeten worden aangepast. Er is nog steeds geen
info ontvangen van het ministerie. Het is ieder jaar hetzelfde. Als er
geen tijdige info komt stelt DJ voor de tarieven uit het NP 2010 te
hanteren (eventueel gecorrigeerd voor informatie Frans)
De deadline voor het TR over 2009 is 31 mei 2010. We hebben april en mei om
het rapport te maken. In de periode vallen ook nog 2 RCM vergaderingen. Er is
dus krap tijd. Frans streeft ernaar om het rapport 1 week voor de deadline af te
hebben. LEI zal voor die tijd hun bijdrage naar IMARES emailen. Laaste week is
voor correct. Sieto vraagt i.v.m. met calamiteiten streven naar vroegere
oplevering dan is nog wat speling. We doen ons best
Page 91 of 92
Document1
Page 92 of 92