EU DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK (DCF), REG. 199/2008, 665/2008
and DECISION 2010/93/EU
Report of the
Regional Co-ordination Meeting
Mediterranean and Black Sea,
Pelagic Fisheries
Zagreb, Croatia
1/09/2014 - 5/09/2014
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Part I
Report of the
Regional Co-ordination Meeting
for
Mediterranean and Black Sea
Zagreb, Croatia
1/09/2014 - 5/09/2014
2
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... 4
1.
Executive summary .......................................................................................... 5
2.
Introduction .................................................................................................... 6
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
New CFP and new DCF ...................................................................................... 7
3.1
3.2
4.
Follow-up of recommendations from the 2013 Liaison meeting ..........................8
Data call ....................................................................................................... 11
Feedback from RFMOs ..................................................................................... 12
5.1
5.2
6.
New CFP .........................................................................................................7
3.1.1 Landings obligation ............................................................................. 7
3.1.2 NPs modification ................................................................................. 8
New DCF .........................................................................................................8
Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2013 RCM ................................ 8
4.1
4.2
5.
General ...........................................................................................................6
Terms of Reference .........................................................................................6
Participants and Agenda ..................................................................................7
Structure of the report .....................................................................................7
GFCM ............................................................................................................ 12
ICCAT ........................................................................................................... 13
Regional coordination ...................................................................................... 14
6.1
6.2
Regional Database Feasability Study .............................................................. 14
Progress towards Standard Data Exchange Format (SDEF) and Open Source
Tools (OST) for Large Pelagic Fisheries ........................................................... 14
6.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 14
6.2.2 Situation in the different countries regarding data production and
management, R and Cost tools skills ................................................. 15
6.2.3 Data export, exploration and analysis ................................................ 15
6.2.4 Discussion and recommendation ....................................................... 15
7.
Cooperation activities between Member States for funding under the EMFF ............. 17
8.
Data Quality issues ......................................................................................... 18
9.
LP subgroup recommendations to Liaison Meeting ............................................... 19
10.
Any other business ......................................................................................... 21
Time and venue of next meetings (RCM MED&BS-LP and PGMed).............................. 21
11.
Glossary ....................................................................................................... 22
12.
Annexes........................................................................................................ 23
Annex
Annex
Annex
Annex
1
2
3
4
– Agenda and workplan .............................................................................. 24
– Participants ............................................................................................. 25
- ToRs of PGMed(*) .................................................................................... 26
– Actualized list and description of métiers targeting Large Pelagics ............. 27
3
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... 4
1.
Executive summary .......................................................................................... 5
2.
Introduction .................................................................................................... 6
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
New CFP and new DCF ...................................................................................... 7
3.1
3.2
4.
Follow-up of recommendations from the 2013 Liaison meeting ..........................8
Data call ....................................................................................................... 11
Feedback from RFMOs ..................................................................................... 12
5.1
5.2
6.
New CFP .........................................................................................................7
3.1.1 Landings obligation ............................................................................. 7
3.1.2 NPs modification ................................................................................. 8
New DCF .........................................................................................................8
Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2013 RCM ................................ 8
4.1
4.2
5.
General ...........................................................................................................6
Terms of Reference .........................................................................................6
Participants and Agenda ..................................................................................7
Structure of the report .....................................................................................7
GFCM ............................................................................................................ 12
ICCAT ........................................................................................................... 13
Regional coordination ...................................................................................... 14
6.1
6.2
Regional Database Feasability Study .............................................................. 14
Progress towards Standard Data Exchange Format (SDEF) and Open Source
Tools (OST) for Large Pelagic Fisheries ........................................................... 14
6.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 14
6.2.2 Situation in the different countries regarding data production and
management, R and Cost tools skills ................................................. 15
6.2.3 Data export, exploration and analysis ................................................ 15
6.2.4 Discussion and recommendation ....................................................... 15
7.
Cooperation activities between Member States for funding under the EMFF ............. 17
8.
Data Quality issues ......................................................................................... 18
9.
LP subgroup recommendations to Liaison Meeting ............................................... 19
10.
Any other business ......................................................................................... 21
Time and venue of next meetings (RCM MED&BS-LP and PGMed).............................. 21
11.
Glossary ....................................................................................................... 22
12.
Annexes........................................................................................................ 23
Annex
Annex
Annex
Annex
1
2
3
4
– Agenda and workplan .............................................................................. 24
– Participants ............................................................................................. 25
- ToRs of PGMed(*) .................................................................................... 26
– Actualized list and description of métiers targeting Large Pelagics ............. 27
4
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
1. Executive summary
The 11th Regional Coordination Meeting for Mediterranean and Black Sea and subgroup for Large
Pelagics (RCMMED&BS-LP) was hosted by Croatia in Zagreb, 1–5 September 2014, according to the
decision of the 10th RCMMed&BS-LP endorsed by Liaison Meeting in 2013. The same decision
stipulates that the Planning Group for Mediterranean, including Black Sea (PGMed), will be organized
in the same time period in the first two days.
For the first time the meeting was attended by the experts of the EU countries covering the
Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and areas of competence of RCM LDF, NA, MED&BS dealing with all
large pelagic species and fisheries. The new RCM MED&BS-LP is therefore a joint RCM with two co
chairs, one for MED&BS and one for LP, as well as for PGMed.
According to the Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 5568 final, of 30.08.2013 the
programmes for the collection of primary biological, technical, environmental and socio-economic
data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013 were extended to the period 2014-2016. The
representative of the EU commission presented the revision of the DCF that has been prepared by the
Commission in consultation with stakeholders.
The Group reviewed the progress in regional coordination since 2013 and addressed 2013
recommendations from the RCM MED&BS, the RCM LDF (LP), PGMed, PGECON and the Liaison
Meeting, as well as feedback from the end-users, including GFCM and ICCAT. The works of the
experts have been held separately, one for RCMMed&BS (starting with the outputs of the experts
works in PGMed) and the second for LP, for the specific issues, and in plenary sessions for the
common ones. The actual Report comprises two parts, one for each group focusing on the specific
works, and including the common issues reflected in both parties of the Report.
Results of the data-call launched in 2013 were examined. Should be mentioned that for RCMmed&BS
no specific data call was launched, and the group benefited from the data call launched by PGMed,
getting advantages from their outputs, avoiding duplication on data call for the same purposes. The
content and format for the next call to be launched by RCMs co-chairs in March 2015 was defined. In
the PGMed decision data call will be launched, as per this year and enhancing this new approach, in
order to be used as outputs, for discussions of RCMMed&BS in 2015. The list of Large Pelagics
Fisheries was actualized and a description of a majority of them has been gathered in Annex 4
following a common template.
The both Groups discussed various aspects relative to regional coordination and particularly to data
exchange. The content from the study “Scientific data storage and transmission under the future
DCF” has been presented by the EC representative and the different scenarios have been commented.
During this meeting the LP subgroup dedicated a full day on the perspectives of a common data
exchange format between MS and the use of common tools in order to address expected questions
like ranking, data quality control, optimizing sampling programs at basin levels etc. The situation in
the different countries regarding data production and management, R and Cost tools skills was
discussed and a presentation based on French large pelagics dataset (2009-2013) was made
indicating: i) means to export national data stored in a national database to SDEF and ii) the use of R
scripts to explore, describe or calculate precision indicators (Delta, CVs…) on data imported. The
Group drew some recommendations in the short and medium term regarding terminology, data
exchange format, tools and RDB-LP. The Group discussed various studies and meetings that could
potentially be candidates for funding under EMFF and submitted one study. The RCMMed&BS group
addressed the same issues for its own needs and proposed ………………………
The issues of data quality and the importance of quality control and validation procedures were raised
in connection to several other ToRs during RCM Med&BS-LP 2014, particularly in relation to end user
feed-back (such as reports of missing or incomplete data submitted to ICCAT or the GFCM in ToR 2)
and the suitability of CVs, as currently implemented, during the review of PGMed 2014. Some
recommendations and ToRs were added to PGMed in that respect.
Finally both groups made their recommendations specified in the Report, RCMMed&BS made ……
recommendations, LP subgroup made 3 recommendations, all of them subject to 11 th Liaison Meeting
revision.
5
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
2. Introduction
2.1
General
The 11th Regional Coordination Meeting for Mediterranean and Black Sea, as subgroup I, of
RCMMED&BS-LP deployed its works of the experts from the countries of the competent area as
follows: Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and Spain (the only missing
country was Bulgaria, as in the 10th meeting in 2013 year). As above mentioned the experts from the
area countries, especially the biologists, participated to the PGMed meeting. The meeting was
attended by Chair of MEDIAS and EC-DG Mare representative. Despite the invitation launched to
MEDITS, RDB-SC, GFCM and ICCAT-as important end users, third countries (such Georgia, Ukraine,
Turkey, Russian Federation and Montenegro) no representative of its were present, as presented in
the Annex……
d by Croatia in Zagreb, 1–5 September 2014, according to the decision of the 10th RCMMed&BS-LP
endorsed by Liaison Meeting in 2013. The same decision stipulates that the Planning Group for
Mediterranean, including Black Sea (PGMed), will be organized in the same time period in the first two
days.
As decided by Liaison Meeting in 2013, a coordination group for Large Pelagics covering areas of
competence of RCM LDF, NA, Med&BS and dealing with all large pelagic species and fisheries was
created. This group has been associated with RCM MED&BS in order to limit the number of meetings
and allow Mediterranean experts on LP fisheries and stocks to participate in RCM LP subgroup while
also participating in RCM MED&BS. The new RCM MED&BS-LP is therefore a joint RCM with two cochairs, one for MED&BS and one for LP.
Some general ToRs are applicable to both groups and so would benefit from joint discussions; the
2014 meeting was therefore organized as a succession of plenary sessions and subgroup sessions. It
was decided to draft one single report for the whole RCM MED&BS-LP incorporating two different
parts: one dedicated for MED&BS subgroup and one for LP subgroup. Points of the agenda that were
discussed in common will be included in both parts as identical passages or with specific highlights if
required by one subgroup. This option was elected mainly to allow a LP oriented reader to focus
specifically on LP themes by reading corresponding part of the document.
2.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms of Reference
Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2013 RCM (follow-up of recommendations
and 10th Liaison Meeting report). Evaluate the outcomes of the RCMs that took place in 2013
& of any other RCMs that took place in 2014, pending availability of outcomes, in terms of
complementarities and actions to be carried out by MS in the RCM region of competence.
Review feedback and recommendations from data end users (STECF, ICES, GFCM, and
ICCAT).
Regional coordination
a. Review the reports from the RDB-steering Committee meeting.
b. Update on regional databases since RCMs 2013.
c. Structure of the regional databases and identify needs of the RCMs that could be
addressed by the RDB SC and suggest any new features/reports to be developed.
New CFP

Consider impact of the implementation of the landing obligation, the discard plans and
the programmes for monitoring of compliance of the discard ban for the data collection

Consider whether any of the NPs need to be modified for 2015
Review progress on quality control, validation etc. procedures and suggest any changes or
new procedures that may improve the data quality control. Consider processes how quality of
data can be evaluated before the are used by the end-user.
Revision of the DCF Regulation and development of a new EU Multiannual programme (EU
MAP) for data collection
6
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup

Provide feedback on the STECF reports since the last RCMs, focusing on aspects related
to regional coordination. Prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling
programme.

Consider how the future role of RCGs (preparing sampling, allocating tasks, quality
assessment at a regional level) can be achieved and what steps are required to get
there. What can already be done before adoption of revised DCF?
7. Direct management programme of EMFF

Recommend studies and pilot projects (EMFF Article 86(2)a)

Consider Direct management funding possibilities under the EMFF (Article 86(2)d on
research surveys under SFPAs

Explore interest of MS in participating in 'pilot RCG' projects funded under article 86(2)f
on regional cooperation.
8. Propose a model for cost sharing of joint surveys
9. Analyse data from 2014 RCM data call (TBC).
10. Any other business
2.3
Participants and Agenda
The agenda of the meeting and list of participants are included in Annex 1 and 2 respectively.
2.4
Structure of the report
All ToRs have been addressed by the RCM LP subgroup in the following sections of the report:
ToR 1 in section 4.1
ToR 2 in section 5
ToR 3 in section 6
ToR 4 in section 3.1
ToR 5 in section 8
ToR 6 in section 3.2
ToR 7 in section 7
ToR 8 not relevant for LP
ToR 9 in section 4.2
ToR 10 in section 9
3. New CFP and new DCF
3.1
New CFP
3.1.1 Landings obligation
The group recalls its comments made in its 2013 report on this point and does not have any new
comment on this subject. A document intitled "External dimension of the landing obligation,
consultation paper” was examined by the group. The group does not have any specific comment on
this document.
It is noted that on 01/2015, this measure will be effective for bigeye tuna in tropical areas that is the
only species under quota regulation. For this species it is recalled that great difficulties are
encountered by skippers to separate young yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna when caught. Statistics by
species are established after port sampling or by scientific observers. The feasibility of such a
measure is thus questionnable.
7
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
3.1.2 NPs modification
No specific modification for LP was identified.
3.2
New DCF
The presentation by the EC representative, Bas Drukker, was focused on the change of paradigm to
co-management and co-responsability. From a member state perspective, the future challenges are
focused on assuring data quality and improving data availability as well as end-user oriented
collection. There should also be a focus on improving regional cooperation in the sense of rationalizing
costs and effort. These recommendations do not particularly affect the Large Pelagics sub-group but
are further pointers that having common tools and common data formats would be a way of
rationalizing both costs and effort and a way to improve consistency and data quality.
Bass Drukker, representative of the EU Commission, presented the revision of the DCF that has been
drafted by the Commission. As Bass expressed, Regulation 199/2008 will continue to be the legal
base for data collection. However, even if this regulation will not be repealed, it will be amended
taking into account the principles established in article 25 of the basic CFP regulation. As expressed
by the commissioner, this will be a Co-decision process where the Parliament will participate, and it
could last still some time. A pre-proposal will be available by the end of 2014. For the moment
National Plans will be rolled over until 2016.
The revision is being done in consultation with stakeholder and directed to: a) adjust the scope of the
DCF to the new CFP, b) orienting data collection to end-user, c) improving data quality, d) improving
availability of data, e) simplifying and rationalizing the data collection, f) oriented for the regional
cooperation g) improving compliance and h) assessing fisheries impact on the ecosystem by
improving the availability and harmonisation of data.
This EU multiannual program will be less restrictive (on how to sample) and more flexible to future
new modifications.
The Group express its interest in defining which aspects of regional coordination should be covered by
the Regional Coordination Groups. Although some of the issues to be coordinated by the RCGs are
clear (for instance, the development of common guidelines and best practice as well as data quality
evaluation), others need further clarification. The development of regional sampling programmes is
clear for shared stocks, such as large pelagics or other stocks which are exploited by different MS in a
single GSA (both demersal and small pelagic). However, for the stocks exploited exclusively by a MS,
the importance of being included in a regional sampling programme is not still clear, as the sampling
rules should be already defined by the new Regulation. The Group also expressed its lack of
understanding of how these regional sampling programmes would affect the National Programmes
and the feasibility of being modified according to RCGs conclusions.
4. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2013 RCM
4.1
Follow-up of recommendations from the 2013 Liaison meeting
Recommendation 2013-3: Regional coordination on Large Pelagics
RCM LDF 2013
Recommendation
(LP sub-group)
The RCM LDF recommend the creation of a coordination group on Large Pelagics
covering areas of competence of RCM LDF, NA, Med&BS and dealing with all
large pelagic species and fisheries. In order to avoid the risk of duplication of
meetings for some scientists dealing with large pelagics in particular in the
Mediterranean and in Other areas (for example swordfish, bluefin tuna), it is
recommended to expand the RCM “Med&BS” to a RCM “Med&BS & Large
Pelagics”, which then would consist of two sub-groups (one dealing with the
MD&BS and other with LP issues)
8
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Follow-up actions needed
LM, STECF, DGMare
Responsible persons for
follow-up actions
Chairs of the RCM LDF and the RCM Med&BS
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the next RCM meeting in 2014
Comment : Following recommendation made in 2013 by RCMs MED&BS and RCM LDF, the decision to
enlarge RCM MED&BS to Large Pelagics with a co-chair was adopted during the 10th liaison meeting.
This was set in place for the first time in Zagreb and proved to be effective allowing participation of
large pelagic fishing countries like Malta and Croatia in Mediterranean sea to participate in LP
meetings. However, participation of Italian, Greek and Cypriot experts, the other countries having
significant large pelagic fisheries, was not possible because these countries either were not present
during the PGMed and LP subgroup workshop or, having only one representative, were not in position
to partipate in both subgroups.
It is therefore recommended that MS should manage to have LP experts participating to the meeting
in order to contribute to discussions and decisions regarding these stocks and fisheries.
15. Suggestion 2013-5: RDB on Large Pelagics
RCM LDF 2013 Suggestion
(LP sub-group)
The Large Pelagic sub-group reiterates that there is a great need to
progress in the direction of better exchange ability between fisheries
information systems among UE fishing countries.
Regarding the approach to a RDB, the members of the Large Pelagic
sub-group agree that a standardization of formats and tools at the MS
level should be a first step. Level of data aggregation and localization
of a physical RDB will have to be considered in a second step.
LP sub-group recommends that a RDB LP Steering Committee be
established to work in close cooperation with other Steering
Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and systems
between Large Pelagic RDB and other RDBs.
Follow-up actions needed
establishing the new RDB-LP Steering Committee or joining the
existing RDB SCs ?
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
LP sub-group,
Time frame (Deadline)
Next RCM meeting
Comment: In 2013, RCM LDF (LP subgroup) recognizing the interest in facilitating data availability to
ease provision of data to RCM, recommended the creation of a RDB SC for LP. The 10th Liaison
Meeting considered that duplication of RDB SC was not an appropriate option at this stage, and
recommended participation of LP subgroup in RDB SC. The LP group was then invited to participate to
RDB SC held in Copenhaguen in january 2014.
The establishment of RCM LP further imply that coordination is needed between the different RDBs to,
where possible, keep the exchange format and tools/algorithms for data processing harmonized in
order to avoid duplication of work. To achieve this, the RDB-SC 2014 has suggested the
establishment of a supra regional RDB “Format and tools’ governance group”. This group should
consist of representatives from the hosts, RCMs as well as the Commission (for information),
primarily working through WebEx and have the mandate to, in a transparent way, deal with
suggestions for exchange format changes as well as tools associated with the RDBs.
2. Data Calls PGMed and use of data
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation
The RCMMed&BS recommends that the Data Calls for
the PGMed would be launched by the chair of the RCM
Med&BS. It also recommends that, when necessary,
9
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
some specific data could be asked to the JRC, as
responsible of the Official Data Calls for the
Mediterranean and Black Sea, in order to be sure that
the most recent information is available.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
MSs, PGMed, RCMMed&BS, JRC, DGMARE
Starting in 2014
Comment:The Group expresses the need for a common and agreed format and structure of the data.
Data calls has to be launched well in advance with a concrete time frame for the reply and concrete
time frame for the data sets (see PGMed recommendations).
10
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
3. LM: Future of PGMed
RCM
Med&BS
Recommendation
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
2013
follow-up
The RCMMed&BS recommends maintaining the
PGMed as the methodological group as it is, keeping
the kind of work developed there, and still under the
RCMMed&BS umbrella. It also recommends to
constrain the work carried out by the PGMed in only
two days, meeting right before the RCMMed&BS,
even during the same week (PGMed: MondayTuesday and RCMMed&BS: Wednesday-Friday)
Liaison Meeting, DGMARE
Before 2014
Comments: This approach was implemented in 2014 and proved to be satisfactory.
LP subgroup worked half a day (Monday afternoon) with PGMed in order to interact on PGMed ToRs
dedicated to Large Pelagics. The group suggests enlarging the PGMed scope in 2015 to include LP
sugroup, thus enabling :
-
LP experts to participate in PGMed TORs 6 and 7
Answering new TORs more dedicated to LP (see § recommendation)
Strategic comments 2013-4: Cooperation with RMFOs
RCM LDF 2013
Strategic comment
(LP sub-group)
RCM LDF (LP sub-group) reiterates the need expressed by
RCM Med&BS 2012 on a joined meeting among tuna related
RFMOs (ICCAT and IOTC) representatives, scientists involved
in large pelagic data collection, as well as representatives
from RCM (LP sub-group). The aim of the meeting will be
harmonizing the biological sampling issues on large pelagic
and specifying additional data or modifications that should be
included in the future DCMAP, taking into account the ICCAT
/IOTC requirements for stock assessment, as well as providing
guidelines for best statistically sound sampling schemes and
data quality indicators.
Knowing that the LM didn’t endorse this recommendation as
they considered this as a task for the RCMs, RCM LP subgroup expresses the need for some guidelines in order to
know which are the exact steps to follow, with the aim to
invite ICCAT and IOTC representatives, and in particular
where corresponding funds should be foreseen under EMFF.
Follow-up actions needed
Guidelines from LM / Commission
Responsible persons for followup actions
EC, ICCAT/IOTC, RCM (LP sub-group), …??
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the next RCM meeting
Comment: Contact has been made with the secretariat of ICCAT and IOTC to have their feedback on
data submission and data quality. ICCAT responded and contributed with an extended presentation
that was presented and discussed during the meeting (see § 5.2).
4.2
Data call
A data call was launched by the RCM MED&BS chair on July 4th 2014. The data format and the
transmission method of the data call did not allow most MS to answer within the required timeframe.
11
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Finally, Mediterranean countries decided to use the previous 2013 data call format in order to address
PGMed ToRs (see below data transmitted for PGMed).
Data-transmission to PGMed:
PGMed ToRs
ToR 1 ToR 2 ToR 3 ToR 4 ToR 5
ToR 6*
ToR 7*
Bulgaria
Croatia
X
X
Cyprus
X
France
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Greece
Italy
X
X
X
X
X
X
Malta
X
X
X
X
X
X
Slovenia
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Spain
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Romania
*concern Large Pelagics stocks
France provided data on the 2014 data call format for purse seine tropical tunas and these data were
used to work on data exchange and tools (see § 6.2).
LP subgroup chair asked MS to contribute descriptions of their Large Pelagic Fisheries following a
common template. The actualized listed of Large Pelagic métiers and the decription received are
gathered in Annex 4.
5. Feedback from RFMOs
5.1
GFCM
RCM Med&BS - LP reviewed the outcomes of discussions between GFCM and DGMare representatives
regarding Task 1 data transmission to the GFCM. Based on the reply of the GFCM representatives on
core questions set by DGMare, the following are highlighted:
-
GFCM evaluation of MS transmission is currently not performed on the basis of quality but on
quantity / comprehensiveness (i.e. whether info was transmitted or not). A percentage
compliance is calculated based on the completed tables related to the different sub-tasks of
Task 1. In cases were sub-tasks are hierarchically built and interlinked, a failure in a certain
sub-task will automatically generate failures in further linked sub-tasks, thus decreasing the
percentage compliance. The deadline for submitting the required Task 1 data is not essential,
since the GFCM’s objective is to build solid historical time series/database for management
purposes. The transmission of Task 1.1 data is considered a priority, compared to the data of
the other sub-Tasks.
-
Data collected through Task 1 are not discussed in a dedicated Task 1 meeting but are stored
& analysed by GFCM secretariat. Real scientific information for stock assessment are provided
through stock assessment (SA) forms by MS and discussed in GFCM workshops on small
pelagics and on demersals; however, SA Forms do not currently represent a legal obligation
of Members (no recommendation) as for Task 1.
-
GFCM data submission is still in its infancy as regards to format and method.
-
Task 1 is a recent initiative and, as could be expected, many problems were encountered in
the beginning with the situation improving progressively over time.
-
GFCM has also noticed an increase in data received since last year thanks to compliance
procedures and exchange C3-MS with regards to the DCF.
12
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
-
In December, GFCM will present its Data Collection Reference Framework (DCRF) and also
proposals for automatizing the upload of data.
-
As a concluding remark, the following needs were identified: - exploration of ways for
broadening feedback from GFCM on different obligations/tasks beyond Task 1, and - the
establishment of more refined feedback to differentiate between serious failures (no data
whatsoever) and small ones.
Following the review, it was commented within the Group that the data required under Task 1 are
detailed, and that they have not been used so far by the GFCM, except for issuing the Task 1
Statistical Bulletin. Considering this, and the fact that a lot of effort is required for providing such data
to GFCM, the cost-effectiveness of providing the current Task 1 data to GFCM was questioned.
It was agreed that the development of the GFCM/DCRF will provide the possibility to reach as much
as possible a Collection Framework.
5.2
ICCAT
The European Union, as a member of ICCAT, must implement the ICCAT recommendations, including
the request on statistics. In accordance with Article IX (Annex II) of the Convention, the CPCs are
obliged to provide any available statistical, biological and other scientific information the Commission
may require in order to carry out the objectives of the ICCAT Convention.
LP subgroup Chairperson invited the ICCAT Sercretariat to participate in the meeting as
recommended by Liaison Meeting in 2013. As it was not possible that staff of ICCAT were present at
the meeting due to the heavy workload in the September period, the ICCAT secretariat sent to the
RCM-LP a presentation with information regarding its statistical requirements, the deadlines for the
submission of data, a list of the more frequent problems in the submission of data and its
consequences.
The validation of the ICCAT databases is an ongoing issue for the SCRS. Validation is particularly
important for data used in assessments such as Task II catch and effort and size data as well as
tagging data.
The validation procedures currently followed by the Secretariat are limited. ICCAT is mainly verifying
submission dimensions like format and delay. General data characteristics are also verified like units,
codes, minimum and maximum values, etc.). These verifications cannot guarantee the quality of
data. In this regard, the ICCAT secretariat underlined its interest in following the work of the RCM-LP
on data quality control and validation procedures. This work would be beneficial for the SCRS and an
explanatory document on this validation procedure would be welcomed by the SCRS.
Furthermore, ICCAT sent to the group forms used in the submission of Task I and Task II data and a
brief explanation of the catalogs used to identify gaps in the data submission by stocks and by
fleet/gear.
Following the review of the ICCAT presentation, it was commented within the Group that, according
to the presentation, data deficiency is high, even for stocks regularly sampled under DCF (e.g.
albacore Thunnus alalunga). Relevant Member States should review the data catalogs and identify the
stocks for which there are problems in data transmission, finding ways for improving the reporting.
It has already been indicated in previous RCM report that MS are collecting within DCF data that are
presently not asked for regular submission by ICCAT like age, weights and sex. These data can be
useful and it is suggested to discuss this point with ICCAT in order to examine ways to transmit this
information.
The group acknowledges the ICCAT secretariat for its valuable contribution to the improvement of
their data submission. The same requirement will be made to the other RFMOs for the next meeting
in 2015 and we will invite them to participate to the meeting as recommended by Liaison Meeting in
2013.
13
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
6. Regional coordination
6.1
Regional Database Feasability Study
Main contents from the study “Scientific data storage and transmission under the future DCF” has
been presented by the EC representative. This study proposes 4 scenarios with specific characteristics
relative to Geographic coverage, Regional and Thematic specialization, Integration of data domains,
Functional scope and Division of tasks. It examines the pros and cons of each option. These scenarios
are respectively named:
-
Sc 1 : Supra-regional database
-
Sc 2 : Regional nodes
-
Sc 3 : Network
-
Sc 4 : Fisheries data hub
The LP subgroup finds the document very interesting and wanted to contribute with the following
comments:
-
Interests of some options presented like Sc 2 and Sc 4 are difficult to appreciate due to a lack
of explanation regarding their exact nature
-
Sc2 description does not provide any explicit position of Large Pelagic Fisheries data which
are not even recognized
-
Regional approaches, like Sc 2, have to be given advantage in order to guarantee that data
users and data producers fully contribute to the quality of the maintenance and evolution of
the system
-
MS should not have to upload their fisheries data to the system twice and their physical
location should be transparent to the end-user
-
All the options presented will require some agreed data exchange fomat and present
experience in RCMs about SDEF should be taken in account
-
Options identified following these proposals have to be taken into account within document
supporting new DCMAP
6.2
Progress towards Standard Data Exchange Format (SDEF) and Open
Source Tools (OST) for Large Pelagic Fisheries
6.2.1 Introduction
During last year's meeting, the LP subgroup started to discuss the perspectives of a common data
exchange format between MS and the use of common tools in order to address expected questions
like ranking, data quality control, optimizing sampling programs at basin levels etc. During the
present meeting, the subgroup dedicated a full day on this theme. The objectives of the session was
to prepare technically the discussion on RDB-LP that will take place during RCM plenary sessions. It
was intended to :
-
First to demonstrate with a concrete dataset as example what it will possible to do if we
decide to use a Standard Data Exchange Format
-
Make a synthesis of data production and management by countries. If available import data
from countries into SDEF format and use OST
-
Discuss about RDB-LP perspectives
-
Draw recommendations regarding data exchange within the LP subgroup
14
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
6.2.2 Situation in the different countries regarding data production and
management, R and Cost tools skills
SPAIN. Two participants from Spain attend the meeting, representing two different institutes involved
in the Data Collection Framework; IEO (Instituto Español de Oceanografía) and AZTI-Tecnalia. The
first scientist is part of the tuna and tuna-like species team involved in data collection issues, and the
second is manager of the onboard sampling program in the tropical tuna purse seine fishery. Both
scientists were familiarized with the R software, and had basic knowledge of the tools developed
during European COST-project. Neither of them were frequent COST users; however other scientists
from the two Institutes participated in the project. The IEO and AZTI-Tecnalia are in charge of
biological data collection and the Secretaría General de Pesca (Spanish National Correspondent) is in
charge of landings and effort data collection (logbooks).
FRANCE. Fisheries data collection from France is performed for tropical areas by IRD who is in charge
of biological sampling and also of collection of logbooks (landings and effort). For European areas,
Ifremer is in charge of collecting biological data while logbook data are monitored by a centralized
administration named Fance Agrimer. IRD team participating to RCM LP are frequent users of R, some
being experts. All IRD fisheries databases are in the process to be converted to SDEF. COST library is
being used progressively.
MALTA. Fisheries data is administrated by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DFA) within
the Maltese Ministry for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate Change (MSDEC).
Presently, the national set-up for storing and managing the different categories of DCF data is via
separate spreadsheets. Quality checks are currently performed manually in MS Excel, using a system
of CVs. R is currently in use for specialised tasks; in the case of Medits data, ROME, a data validation
script written in R, is used as a validation tool.
PORTUGAL. The biologist from Portugal is responsible for preparing the biological data from the long
distance pelagic longline fleet and the fixed traps set off the Portuguese South coast for submission to
tuna RFMOs (ICCAT and IOTC) and to the National DCF. He has advanced experience with R and
Rstudio but is not a programmer. This was the first time installing and exploring the COST libraries.
CROATIA. Two biologists that attended the meeting represent the Institute of Oceanography and
Fisheries and are responsible for collecting the data for tuna purse seine fishery and tuna and
swordfish long line fishery in Adriatic sea. This data is collected and checked in MS Excel format and
subsequently administered to Ministry of Agriculture - Department of Fisheries where the
centralization of data is made. One of the scientists has basic knowledge of R software but have
never used COST tools.
It appears that, in general, national data collection programmes are supported by one or various
contributors for biological data and that transversal data on landings and effort are centralized by the
national administration in charge of fisheries. The Group then concluded that a first question is posed
regarding the capacity to access to the data and a second question is to be able to make the
conversion from national data file(s) format to SDEF.
6.2.3 Data export, exploration and analysis
A presentation was made based on French large pelagics dataset (2009-2013) indicating i) means to
export national data stored in a national database to SDEF and ii) use of R scripts to explore, describe
or calculate precision indicators (Delta, CVs…) on data imported. Participants were able to use the
document circulated in order to redo the examples presented on their computer once R software is
installed.
6.2.4 Discussion and recommendation
The LP subgroup established the necessity of using a common data exchange data format between
countries producing data on large pelagics in order to facilitate the balance of biological sampling by
fisheries and stocks across countries and coordinate/optimize sampling at the regional levels. LP
subgroup agrees that the format should be compatible with other RCM data format or, at the
minimum, develop bridges with other RCMs in order to guaranty coherence within DCF.
15
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
The SDEF format used in COST project (Jansen & al, 20091) that have been adopted for the RDB
implemented in RCMs Baltic, North Atlantic and North Sea and Eastern Arctic is considered as an
excellent base that is retained as exchange format by LP subgroup. Nevertheless SDEF should be
adapted in order to be fully used in LP context in particular for problems regarding data range
authorized and codelist (species, gears, areas.... ).
LP subgroup considers that adopting this format will bring efficiency at both national and regional
levels. This will allow the use of existing open source tools (COST-R project) and the development of
common tools facilitating exploration, analysis, and reporting to national administrations, RFMO, UE…
on fisheries data and their sampling. These tools would be used on national datasets imported in
SDEF and on datasets set in common within a specific ad hoc WG and/or in a potential Regional
Database.
The LP subgroup then decided to:
-
Use the term SDEF for “Standard Data Exchange Format” to precisely name the exchange
format which is the base of the exchange functions. This term avoids any confusion with the
existing Regional Database and computer application hosted by ICES named FishFrame and
dedicated to RCMs Baltic, Arctic and North Atlantic. Although these tools are based on SDEF,
they are lot more than a format. In the same way, COST refers to “Common Open Source
Tools” developed within the European COST project. These tools are based on SDEF but are
tools and not the format itself. Therefore, use of the term “SDEF” should be preferred when
precisely talking about the exchange format.
-
As proposed by RDB SC during its 2014 session, the Group supports the suggestion to
establish a supra-regional RDB “Format and tools’ governance group”. This group should
consist of representatives from the hosts, RCMs as well as the Commission (for information).
The supra-regional group will have the task to in a transparent way deal with suggestions for
exchange format changes as well as tools associated with the RDBs.
-
In the short term, the general objective is that MS are able to export their national data to
SDEF. The different tasks to get there identified are :
1. Define the Reference System for LP. Establish and agree on codelists for all SDEF
strategic variables (species, gears, areas, port…),
2. Identify specific questions (units, size and weight range, trip duration, type of
measurement …) that have to be established
3. Construct converters from national databases to SDEF that are maintained by national
experts.
IRD/Ifremer team based in Sète (France) will provide help on the technical aspects of
these tasks which will be conducted mainly by mail. The success of this phase will be
verified when MS will answer to the common datacall for RCM MED&BS-LP that will be
launched in march 2015 (cf §9).
-
In the medium term, the general objective is to define scientific data storage and
transmission under the future DCF. This second phase has the general objective to design a
durable Information System regarding scientific data produced with the new DCF. LP
subgroup considered that, from a technical point of view and regarding RCM ToRs, the first
phase allowing countries to exchange data and use common tools is the phase that is the
most important and will bring most gains in efficiency. The subgroup underlines that, by
nature, options regarding scientific data storage and transmission have to be conceived and
decided at the political and European levels. However LP subgroup contributes to some
technical points to this discussion in § 6.1.
1 Jansen T. & al. Definition of standard data-exchange format for sampling, landings, and effort data from commercial fisheries. Technical
report, ICES Cooperative Research, Report No. 296. 43pp, 2009.
16
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
7. Cooperation activities between Member States for funding
under the EMFF
The EMFF may support the provision of scientific deliverables, as per Article 86, particularly where
applied–research projects are directly linked to the provision of scientific and socio–economic opinions
and advice, for the purpose of sound and efficient fisheries management decisions under the CFP.
In particular, the following types of operations shall be eligible:
(a) studies and pilot projects needed for the implementation and development of the CFP,
including those on alternative types of sustainable fishing and aquaculture management techniques,
including within Advisory Councils;
(d) research surveys at sea, as referred to in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, in
areas where Union vessels operate under Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements as referred to
in Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013;
(f) cooperation activities between Member States in the field of data collection, including those
between the various regional stakeholders, and including the setting–up and running of regionalised
databases for the storage, management and use of data which will benefit regional cooperation and
improve data collection and management activities as well as improving scientific expertise in support
of fisheries management.
The RCM is enthusiastic about this programme. However, it is necessary that the Commission clarify
the process of submission, priorization and selection of proposals of research projects and, in
particular, to clarify the role of RCM.
Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify that RCM is not a legal entity and thus is unable to carry out
work under this programme. Proposals of projects or studies would then need to be developed by
consortia between MS at a national administration level or at the level of scientific entities where
stocks or fisheries are shared or related. Proposals have to be prioritized and endorsed by the
respective RCM and Liaison meeting to facilitate endorsement by DG MARE.
As the goal is to develop statistically sound sampling, Regional sampling programmes would be based
on species rather than metier to solve data gap issues due to differences in national plans programs.
Common themes in the sampling programmes of large pelagic species are clear, this would need to
be clarified for other fishery types (demersal, small pelagic species).
The Commission confirmed that proposals would be judged on their merits and applicability of
research proposals fielded by workers from any relevant disciplines would not be precluded.
In order to facilitate regional cooperation in data collection, two grants for pilot projects (each
€400,000) will be provided in 2014 with further funding opportunities being made available in 2015.
The two grants have identical scope and will cater for two different consortia. The outline is provided
in 2014 EMFF work programme, adopted on 4 July 2014. Since the grants are not strictly dedicated to
biological sampling projects, it was suggested that in the 2015 call for proposals, three grants be
given – two dedicated to biological proposals and one for socio-economic proposals.
It is noted that as the launch of the programme is to take place in autumn, the RCM will not be in a
position to provide advice on proposals and such work will have to be inter-sessional.
The aim of the 2014 direct management programme is to aid transition from Regional Coordination
Meetings (RCM) to Regional coordination Groups (RCG) and support inter-sessional work between
RCM meetings. This is to be achieved via the development of regional sampling programmes,
identification of guidelines and best practices, work on regional data quality evaluation, coordinated
trial collection of new variables.
The call for proposals is to be launched in the autumn 2014 with the funding of approved work at the
beginning of 2015.
Although several proposals were fielded during RCM MED&BS-LP, the Commission suggested that
some of these were more suitable for funding under shared management. Thus only one proposal on
Large Pelagic Fisheries is presented to EMFF funding:
17
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Title: Bluefin tuna aerial surveys in the Western and Central Mediterranean Sea
Max. Budget : 400.000 euros
Objectives and expected results : Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABFT) is a commercial fish of high value and
great importance for the European fisheries, especially France, Italy,Croatia and Spain. European
countries have a key responsibility in the conservation of this species that became over the last
decade an emblematic species of overexploitation. Since the implementation of the rebuilding plan in
the late 2000s, the stock status of ABFT greatly improved, but the speed and amplitude of the
recovery still remain uncertain and difficult to estimate. Indeed, stock assessments of large pelagics
fish, such as ABFT, mostly rest on fisheries statistics (i.e. catch,catch-at-age and CPUE) because of
the lack of adequate fisheries-independent information. Such a situation is challenging, especially to
estimate the performances of the ABFT rebuilding. Information from fisheries-independent surveys
may be particularly useful in such context becausescientific surveys are unaffected by management
regulations and are therefore more reliable todetect management-driven changes in abundance.
Aerial surveys have been used by France forseveral years and have proved to be efficient way to
provide fisheries-independent data and buildan index of abundance.Objectives For ABFT, aerial
surveys have been carried out in the Gulf of Lions, a well-knownfeeding ground where ABFT juveniles
used to concentrate, especially in summer and autumn. Thesurvey started in 2000 and has been
operated until 2003 and then since 2009. The protocol hasremained the same since 2000. This survey
is carried out over a key area, which is nonethelessrather restricted. To get a more representative
index of abundance of the population, it would benecessary to extend the spatial coverage of the
survey. Therefore, this study proposes to carry outaerial surveys on 3 other key feeding and
spawning grounds of ABFT juveniles in the MediterraneanSea, i.e. the Catalan Sea, the Ligurian Sea
and the Adriatic Sea.
Type of activity and types of bodies/organizations that could carry it out (pilot project, study,
collaboration between X MS):
This pilot project will be carried out in collaboration between France (Jean-Marc Fromentin,
jean.marc.fromentin@ifremer.fr, Sylvain Bonhommeau, sylvain.bonhommeau@ifremer.fr), Italy
(Fulvio Garibaldi), Croatia (Vjeko Ticina) and Spain (Josetchu Ortiz de Urbina).
Duration:
50 hours of flight for each of the four areas spread across 6 to 7 flights between August and October
Policy relevance/need this activity addresses/end users of outputs:
This activity will be relevant to all countries involved in Bluefin tuna fisheries as its main aim is to
derive an abundance index for this species, and of particular importance to bluefin tuna stock
assessments and therefore to ICCAT.
Is output needed by a certain time? No
Activity recommended by whom? RCM MED&BS-LP, PGMed
In reference to Large Pelagic species, some coordination already exists between MS, mainly France
and Spain, involved in tropical tuna sampling, both in the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. This
coordination is directed towards both the onboard and port sampling (developing sampling protocols,
sharing common exchange data formats, and sharing data analysis tools). France and Spain
participate in this meeting, but also other non EU members (Ghana, Seychelles, Ivory Coast,
Senegal). This coordination has never been funded under the DCF. The Group expresses its lack of
knowledge of how these meeting can be funded under EMFF. DGMare expresses that costs related to
these annual meetings for MS should be integrated into their annual programme within share funds.
Third countries are not eligible bodies within EMFF, however, as a general rule third countries may be
sub-contracted by an eligible body under certain limits.
8. Data Quality issues
The issues of data quality and the importance of quality control and validation procedures were raised
in connection to several other ToRs during RCM Med&BS-LP 2014, particularly in relation to end-user
feedback (such as reports of missing or incomplete data submitted to ICCAT or the GFCM in ToR 2)
and the suitability of CVs, as currently implemented, during the review of PGMed 2014.
In previous RCM Med&BS (2012, 2013), the usefulness of the calculation of CVs on length frequency
distributions as a measure of data quality was queried and recommendations to identify alternative
18
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
quality indicators were made. This was further discussed during the present RCM Med&BS-LP meeting
and it was qualified that method of CV calculation, as currently applied, was a poor measure of the
precision achieved as the different strata within the data at the level of data collection were not
explored. Hence, values of CV are not indicative of the high dimensionality within the data that may
confound results during aggregation. Documentation on the calculation of CVs for the purposes of DCMAP is poor and, in addition, results derived from this indicator had no bearing on identifying
improved statistically sound-sampling schemes. However, in lieu of clear and preferable alternatives,
it was suggested that applicability of CVs be explored through the stratification of data and reduction
of dimensionality. At this point, RCM Med&BS-LP 2014 participants agreed that the present system of
reporting data quality in DCF programmes is inappropriate (or incomplete at least), and that the
inclusion of new quality indicators is needed. On this context, a substantial work into the quality of
fisheries sampling programmes, has been conducted by the Planning Group on Commercial catches,
Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS) and by Planning Group on Economic Issues (PGECON),
and by workshops and study groups established by PGCCDBS.
Proposals and discussions concerning data quality control from the following workshops and planning
groups were raised during RCM Med&BS-LP 2014:
-
3rd Planning Group on Economic Issues (PGECON), 31 April - 4 May 2014. Compilation of a
list of end users of DCF fleet economic data and their requirements (Resolution, Quality).
Compare DCF fleet data properties with requirements and interpret the differences (what can
be achieved, which prerequisites?) (pgs.16-18)
-
Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling
(PGCCDBS), 17 – 21 February 2014
-
Workshops covering accuracy of sampling data (WKPRECISE: ICES 2009a; WKACCU: ICES
2008), and covering design of commercial fishery sampling schemes (WKPICS: ICES 2011,
2012, 2013; SGPIDS: ICES 2011, 2012, 2013)
-
Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling;
PGCCDBS 2013, 18 - 22 February 2013 Pages 59 – 70. ToR e - Report on the implementation
of the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) by ICES Expert Groups, and make
recommendations for further development of the QAF and procedures for ensuring its full
implementation in stock assessments and associated advice (pgs. 59-70)
Other relevant documents include:
-
Review of DC MAP – Part 1 (STECF-13-06), 8 - 12 April 2013. Data Quality, Handling and
Availability (pgs. 31-37)
-
Revision of DCF (STECF-14-02) February 2014. ToR 2c – Quality (pgs.23-24)
There are many common threads running through all these workshops and groups, which together
provide guidelines on fisheries sampling design and implementation, and Quality Assurance reports.
All these groups have the focus on helping countries designing sampling schemes to meet DCF
requirements. Thus it has been decided that, at next RCM MED&BS - LP, case studies on the
applicability of Quality Assurance reports for the recording of data treatment methods will be
presented. On the other hand, RCM MED&BS-LP considers that missing data is a data quality issue
and should be addressed as such.
Furthermore, it was agreed that the standardization of data treatment and analytical methods used
across member states would enhance confidence in the outcomes of studies utilizing shared data. For
this reason, RCM Med&BS welcomes the initiative to calibrate the recorded acoustic signals between
the vessels employed within the MEDIAS.
9. LP subgroup recommendations to Liaison Meeting
Recommandation 2014-1: Enlarge PGMed scope to Large Pelagics
19
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014
Recommandation
LP sub-group
Follow-up actions needed
Considering the new configuration taken in place in 2014 with LP
subgroup associated to RCM MED&BS within a RCM MED&BS-LP,
the LP subgroup recommend to enlarge PGMed ToRs to take into
account LP subgroup. The list of ToRs are annexed in this report
(annex 3)
LM
Responsible persons for follow- PGMed-LP, RCM MED&BS-LP
up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the next PGMed-LP meeting
LM 2014 comments
Recommandation 2014-2: Coordinated PGMed and LP data call
RCM Med & BS-LP 2014
Recommandation
LP sub-group
The data required each year by the PGMed should be collected
within the framework of a data-call defined by the following
elements :
Content: The content is defined according to the ToRs, which can
now include issues specifically dedicated to the Large Pelagics
subgroup or relevant to both groups.
Format: For generic ToRs the format of the data will be similar to
the format contained within the templates, spreadsheets and text
files, used until now. For the CV computations and investigation of
sampling consistency, the data will be collected to be consistent to
the Standard Data Exchange Format (SDEF) proposed by the Large
Pelagics subgroup, allowing to use the same tools and methodology
for a more thorough investigation of sampling stratification and
precision.
Dates: The start and end dates of the data-call are set-up so that
member states have time and flexibility for answering it, while
complying with the 6 months period after the end of data collection
during which data cannot be required. It has been agreed to
launch the data-call the 1st of March and to set the deadline
to the 15th of July.
Person in charge: The chairs of the RCM MED&BS-LP will be
responsible for launching the data-call.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible
persons
follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
RCM MED&BS-LP
for RCM MED&BS-LP co-chairs
Next year (2015) for the next PGMed meeting
20
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Recommandation 2014-3: PGMed data: terms of use
RCM Med & BS - LP 2014 The data collected each year by the PGMed should only be used
Recommandation
for the purposes of the PGMed analyses and not in any other
LP sub-group
context. It is therefore not stored in any form that would allow
external persons to access it for other purposes.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible
persons
follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
10.
for PGMed chair and participants
Applicable immediately
Any other business
Time and venue of next meetings (RCM MED&BS-LP and PGMed)
The co-organisation of RCM MED&BS and Large Pelagic subgroup experienced for the first time this
year appeared to be functional with a succession of plenary sessions for common discussions and
parallel sessions for specific ones. PGMed meeting had its meeting two days before RCM. It has been
decided to extend PGMed to LP themes next year. In order to give sufficient time to analyse results of
the datacall and prevent timetable clashes with planned experimental surveys, the beginning of
September was chosen as the most suitable meeting period.
The next RCM MED&BS-LP meeting will take place in Greece (place to be confirmed by MS) from 9th
to 11th of September 2015. PGMed will have its meeting in the same place the two preceeding days,
7th and 8th of September.
21
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
11. Glossary
AR
Annual Report (of activities carried out by MS under the DCF)
AWP
Annual Workplan
CFP
Common Fishery Policy (EU)
CR
Control Regulations (EU)
DCF
Data Collection Framework (follow up of DCR)
DC-MAP
Multi Annual Programme for Data Collection (follow up of DCF)
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
EMFF
European Maritime and Fisheries Funds
EWG
STECF Expert Working Group
FPA
Fishing Partnership Agreement
GFCM
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (FAO)
IATTC
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
ICCAT
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
ICES
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
IOTC
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
JSC
Joint Scientific Committees (of the FPA)
LDF
Long Distance Fishery
LM
Liaison Meeting
LP
Large Pelagic species
MS
Member State(s) (of the EU)
NA
North Atlantic
NP
National Programme (of activities carried out by MS under the DCF)
NS&EA
North Sea and Eastern Arctic
OP
Operational Programme
OST
Open Source Tools
PGCCDBS
Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling
PGECON
Planning Group on Economic Issues
PGMed
Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development
RCG
Regional Coordination Group
RCM
Regional Coordination Meeting
RDB
Regional Data Base (of the RCM)
RDB S.C.
Regional Data Base Steering Committee
RFMO
Regional Fisheries Management Organization
SCRS
Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (ICCAT)
SDEF
Standard Data Exchange Format
STECF
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
WCPFC
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
WKPICS
ICES Workshop on the Practical Implementation of Statistical Sound Catch
Sampling Programmes
22
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
12.
Annex
Annex
Annex
Annex
Annexes
1
2
3
4
– Agenda and workplan
– Participants
- ToRs of PGMed(*)
– Actualized list and description of métiers targeting Large Pelagics
23
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Annex 1 – Agenda and workplan
Monday, 1st September 2014
14.00-18.00 - PGMed meeting with participation fo LP subgroup
Tuesday, 2nd September 2014
09.00-13.00 – In sub-groups


PGMed meeting
LP Meeting on Standard Data Exchange Format (SDEF) and Open Source Tools (OST)
14.00-18.00 – Continue
Wednesday, 3rd September 2014
09.00-13.00 - Plenary
ToR1 - Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2013 RCM (follow-up of
recommendations) and 10th Liaison Meeting report. Evaluate the outcomes of the RCMs that took
place in 2013 & of any other RCMs that took place in 2014, pending availability of outcomes, in terms
of complementarities and actions to be carried out by MS in the RCM region of competence.
ToR2 - Review feedback and recommendations from data end users (STECF EWGs, ICES assessment
WGs and benchmark meetings, GFCM Subcommittees and relevant WGs, and ICCAT assessment
WGs) and PGCCDBS
14.00-18.00 - Plenary
ToR4 – New CFP – presentation by the EC – Bas Drukker + discussions
ToR6 - Revision of the DCF Regulation and development of a new EU Multiannual programme (EU
MAP) for data collection - presentation by the EC – Bas Drukker + discussions



Provide feedback on the STECF reports since the last RCMs, focusing on aspects related to
regional coordination.
Prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling programme
Consider how the future role of RCGs (preparing sampling, allocating tasks, quality
assessment at a regional level) can be achieved and what steps are required to get there.
What can already be done before adoption of revised DCF
ToR7 – Direct management programme of EMFF



Recommend studies and pilot projects EMFF (Art. 86(2)a) on research surveys under SFPAs
Consider direct management funding possibilities under EMFF (Art. 86(2)f) regional
cooperation
Explore interest of MSs in participating in “pilot RCG” projects funded under Art. 86(2)f) on
regional cooperation
ToR9 – Analyse data from 2014 RCMMed&BS-LP data call (TBC)
ToR3 - Regional coordination Regional databases: update since RCMs 2013. Identify needs of the
RCMs that could be addressed by the RDB SC and suggest any new features/reports to be developed.
Thursday, 4th September 2014
09.00-13.00 - Plenary
ToRs 3, 6, 7, 9 to be continued for conclusions
ToR5 – Review progress on quality control, validation etc. procedures and suggest any changes or
new procedures that may improve the data quality control. Consider processes how quality of data
can be evaluated before these are sending to end users
ToR8 – Propose a model for cost sharing of joint surveys
14.00-18.00 - Continuing discussions on the mentioned above ToRs
Friday, 5th September 2014
09.00-15.00 - In sub-groups
Draft recommendations and adoption – proposal for Recommendations to Liaison Meeting
Report schedule and possible assemblage
Any Other Business
o Chair / Next meeting date
24
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Annex 2 – Participants
Cf RCM MED&BS
25
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Annex 3 - ToRs of PGMed(*)

ToR 1) MED & LP - Ranking system for GSAs exploited by more than one MS (GSAs 7, 15-16,
17, 29) for the whole Mediterranean and for the Black Sea

ToR 2) MED & LP - Review and update the landing template for the Mediterranean and for the
Black Sea

ToR 3) MED - For the metiers exploiting a shared stock and selected by the ranking system,
propose the number of sampling trips by metier at the GSA level.

ToR 4) MED and LP - Investigate sampling stratification and assess the CV for shared stocks
both for the Mediterranean (GSA 7,GSA 15-16, GSA 17), Black Sea and large pelagics.

ToR 5) MED - Analyse the extension of the problem concerning the fishing performed in a
different GSA than their original one.

ToR 6) MED and LP - Data quality: present current approaches and case studies from the
Mediterranean and for large pelagics, review of advances from other international working

ToR 7) MED and LP - Review obstacles encountered by countries to produce SDEF datasets
starting from their national datasets. Produce detailed recommendation for RDB SC on
format, codelists, range …)

ToR 8) LP - Develop pilot applications helping answers to data call from tuna-RFMOS based
on SDEF

ToR 9) MED & LP - Proposals of workshops and studies.

ToR 10) MED & LP - Any other business.
*) with indication of ToRs addressed by MED&BS and LP subgroups respectively or jointly
26
RCM MED&BS-LP 2014 Report – LP subgroup
Annex 4 – Actualized list and description of métiers targeting Large Pelagics
27