EU DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK (DCF), REGULATIONS (EC)
199/2008, 665/2008 AND DECISION 2010/93/EU
Report of the 10th Regional Coordination Meeting
for the Mediterranean and Black Sea 2013
(RCM Med&BS-2013)
Final version Report
Constanta, Romania 2-6, September 2013
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Table of Contents
Executive summary ………………………………………………………………….. 1
1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 3
1.1.
Background and legal requirements ………………………………………… 3
2. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2012 RCM and follow
up of recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 4
2.1. Review and follow-up of RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendations …………
2.2. Review the bilateral and multilateral agreements in place...............................
2.3. Review of relevant outputs of LM 2012 ………………………………………….
2.4. Review of outputs of PGMed 2013 …………………………………………….
2.5. Review outputs from MEDIAS 2013...............................................................
2.6. Review outputs from PGECON ………………………………………………….
3. Review feedback and recommendations from data end users and relevant
RFMOs …………………………………………………………………………………..
3.1. Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWG 13-12 Report
3.2. Review feedback and recommendations from GFCM …………………………..
4. Regional coordination ………………………………………………………………
3.3. Regional database: update/actual status since RCM 2012 …………………
3.4. Proposals for ways in which the work of RCMs could be expanded under the
DC-MAP, to become RCG …………………………………………………………
3.6. Proposals for cooperation activities between MSs that could be forward
for funding under the EMFF (Article 85) …………………………………….
5. Data quality issues
5.1. Review progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP proposals ……..
5.2. Review of relevant recommendation of EC to settle of Large Pelagic
Species …………………………………………………………………………..
6. EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020 ……..
6.1. Provide feed back on the draft EU MAP 2014-2020 …………………………
6.2. Prepare a roadmap for development of a regional sampling programme …
7. Studies and pilot projects ………………………………………………………….
8. Any other business ………………………………………………………………….
9. Summary of recommendations ……………………………………………………
10. References …………………………………………………………………………..
11. Annexes ………………………………………………………………………………
2
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Executive summary
The 10th Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea
[RCM Med&BS] (Chair: Constantin Stroie - Romania) was held in Constantza,
Romania from 02-06 September 2013.
The meeting was attended by scientists from majority Mediterranean MSs,
including the Chair of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological
Development [PGMed] and the Chair of the Mediterranean Acoustic Surveys
Working Group [MEDIAS WG], the Chair of the Steering Committee of Regional
Data Base, as well as a representative of the European Commission. The
meeting was planed and organized in the same location and period of time with
RCM Long Distance Fisheries [RCM LDF] in order to settle the issue on large
pelagic species outside the Mediterranean Sea, as per annex of EU Decision
93/2012 and EC recommendation.
The representation of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
[GFCM] was delegated to the Chair of Steering Committee for Regional Data
Base. Also ICCAT organization was invited but no representative attended the
meeting. Should be remarked the fact that 8 EU MS were represented from 10
EU MSs in the region, missing the representatives of Bulgaria and Cyprus.
Despite the invitations sent to the other 4 riparian countries of the Black Sea and
to Montenegro – Mediterranean Sea those states didn’t send any representative
to the meeting.
The terms of reference [ToRs] of the meeting were based on the generic ToRs
of all RCMs, agreed between the Chairs of the RCMs and the Commission, with
some adaptations to suit the needs of the RCM Med&BS and focusing on the
issues related with the DC MAP, i.e. the new legislation in the EC fisheries
policy and the changes needed in data collection framework to be ensure the
implementation of the new common fisheries policy of the EC for the next 20142020 cycle.
Next meeting will take place in Croatia, option one, or Greece, option two,
pending on the final agreement of Croatia authorities to be sent to the Chair and
EC.
1.
Introduction
The 10th Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea
(RCM Med&BS) was held in the National Institute for Marine Research and
Development “ Grigore Antipa” Constantza, Romania from 02 to 06 September
2013. The meeting was attended by scientists from 8 Mediterranean MS
(Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and Spain), including
the Chair of PGMed and the Chair of MEDIAS, the Chair of Steering Committee
for Regional data Base, representing also the General Fisheries Commission for
the Mediterranean (GFCM) and a representative of the European Commission
(Annex I). The missing countries were Bulgaria and Cyprus.
3
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Before the meeting, the Chair of the RCM Med&BS were informed by the
Commission that the coordination of large pelagic outside the Mediterranean
Sea, which is in the merit of the RCM Long Distance Fisheries, was included in
the ToRs of the 2013 Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and
Black Sea (RCM Med&BS), due to the necessity to settle the issue of Large
Pelagic Species outside the Mediterranean on which RCM is responsible
according to the EU legislation Decision 93/2010. It was therefore agreed that
the RCM Long Distance Fisheries to be organized simultaneously and in the
same location for this purpose and the EC representative thanked Romania for
hosting both meetings.
Representatives from third countries (Montenegro, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and
Georgia) and from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT) were also invited but unfortunately no one attended the meeting.
RCMMed&BS appreciates the availability of SharePoint offered by ICES proving
to be very efficient in organizing the all works related to the meeting.
1.1.
Background & legal requirements
The EU Data Collection Framework (DCF) is the official framework of the EU/EC
dedicated to data collection on economic, biological and transversal aspects in
the fisheries sector of Member States. This multiannual programme is providing
the basic data for the evaluation of the status of fishery resources and the
fisheries, aquaculture and processing sector of the EU, as well as the support of
management and use of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice for the CFP
(EC Regulation no. 199/2008). The framework of data collection uses also the
provisions of EC Regulation 665/2008, laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, and its technical Decision
2010/93/UE. The data collection is coordinated at regional level and specific
agreements are facilitating it between MSs sea areas (regional/basins) through
various ways of standardization, collaboration and task sharing between. RCMs
are held annually involving the MSs experts acting in fishing sector in the
respective region. As per the denomination of this RCM – RCMMed&BS is
including Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea community waters.
Additional terms of reference (addressed under ToR 5) were required by the
EC: RCMs to propose a list of MS for which they agree that a change to the
NP2014 is essential. Guidance how to implement the NP2014 - complete the
table on NP2014-2016 state of play addressing the question on “how to
understand and interpret the NP2014-2016”, both for MS and for STECF for the
evaluation how MS implemented these NPs.
Every RCM to give their opinion on whether it would be useful for MS to still
have a list of “recommended” DCF meetings for 2014-2016 (equivalent to the list
of eligible meetings) should be financed under the EMFF, on shared
management; it is up to MS to decide on how they allocate their funding to
meetings, and there will no longer be a list decided by the Commission, on
which meetings are eligible or not for EU co-financing.
4
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
The ToRs (Annex II) of the meeting were based on the generic ToRs of all
RCMs, agreed between the Chairs of the RCMs and the Commission, with
some adaptations to suit the needs of the RCM Med&BS.
Large Pelagics (LP)
In 2012 the Large Pelagic species fishery were not reviewed by any RCM due to
a misunderstandings and a lack of agreement on the competence for LP
between the RCM Med&BS and the RCM LDF. Therefore, in 2013 the RCMs
LDF and RCM Med&BS were hold together and a working group was formed to
work on all Large Pelagics with the aim that the conclusions of their work be
included in both reports of the RCM LD and the RCM Med&BS.
The RCM LDF and the RCM Med&BS participants recommended the creation of
a single coordination sub-group on Large Pelagics dealing with all large pelagic
fisheries, species and stocks issues, covering areas of competence of RCMs
LDF, NA, Med&BS and all tunas RFMOs end users in the Mediterranean Sea
and in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans (ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC and
WCPFC).
It is suggested to expand the RCM “Med&BS” to the RCM “Med&BS & Large
Pelagics”. This “expanded” RCM would then need to have two co-chairs, one for
Mediterranean and BS and one for Large Pelagics.
Regarding the approach to a RDB, the members of the LP sub-group agreed
that a standardization of formats and tools at the MS level should be a first step.
Level of data aggregation and localization of a physical RDB will have to be
considered in a second step. The Large Pelagics RDB Steering Committee shall
be established in close cooperation with other Steering Committees to ensure
similar approaches, procedures and systems between LP RDB and other RDBs.
The LP sub-group identified some areas of studies that would benefit from the
financial support which could be provided under the EMFF (article 85). These
areas include, i.e.: development of common tools for data collection and data
management, coordination meeting between MS, tuna tagging program, aerial
survey program.
The LP sub-group advises MS, which are involved in LP fisheries to validate
their sampling programmes according to guidelines of WKPICS2.
The Large Pelagics sub-group recognizes that obligation of landings all catches
may interfere with data collection approaches and protocols and in particular will
impact observer programs which are designed for discard estimation. It is
unknown on how this obligation will effectively be set in place in the different
RFMOs because, e.g. some species are not authorized to be kept on board
under RFMOs present regulation, the discard ban may not be in place in certain
EEZs, obligation of landings all catches will allow estimation of all species
caught during port but this will only be possible for the whole trip and not by
fishing operation, most RFMOs request data at a fine spatial scale (5x5 or 1x1
degree squares) which is not possible to perform if all discards are landed
together.
5
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
These constraints lead the Large Pelagics sub-group to consider that, at this
time, observer programs will still be required to collect detailed scientific data
on-board independently of captain declarations.
The RCM LDF made 3 recommendations, one Strategic comment and one
suggestion to be reviewed by the 10th Liaison Meeting.
The present chair of the RCM LDF, Mr Irek Wojcik (PL) was re-elected as a
chair for the next term and Mr Pierre Chavance (FR) was elected as a co-chair
of the Large Pelagics sub-group within the RCM Med&BS.
2.
Review and follow-up in regional co-ordination since the 2012
RCMMed&BS and follow up of recommendations
The progress achieved in regional coordination since the last RCM Med&BS
was reviewed. A review was made on the follow-up of the recommendations of
the RCM Med&BS 2012, a special attention being paid to the outputs of the 9th
Liaison meeting, the outputs of PGMed 2013, MEDIAS, PGECON and Regional
Data Base status analysis.
2.1
Review and follow-up of RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendations
The Recommendations of the last RCM Med&BS, as well as the relevant
comments by the Liaison Meeting (LM) and the progress achieved as a
follow-up are provided below.
1. On the role of RCM
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
Considering the increased regional tasks
and power of the RCMs under the EU
MAP for data collection for 2014-2020,
RCM Med& BS recommends that the
current structure of the RCMs (i.e. the
inclusion of national correspondents,
economists and biologists) remains the
same. The Group further recommends
that PGMed continues functioning under
the umbrella of the RCM Med& BS.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
DGMARE, LM, RCMMed&BS
The group found that the PGMED was hosted under the RCMMed&BS as
decided.
2. Feedback from data end users: Time period for provision of data
6
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
RCM Med& BS, recalling its 2011
recommendation and also the STECF
EWG 11-20 recommendation on a
harmonized time period required for data
to be available for transmission to endusers, recommends that the time period
of 6 months following the end of the
collection of transversal and biological
data is respected by the data calls and
the end users. In case this time period of
6 months continues not being respected
by the data calls, the Group stresses the
importance that the National
Correspondents follow a common
approach requesting the respect of this
time period and NOT submit the data.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
JRC, DG MARE, LM, MS, RCM Med&
BS, National Correspondents.
The group reconfirmed its previous position on data availability time
period.
3. Review feedback from end-users: On the eligibility of GFCM meetings under
DCF
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
The RCM Med& BS recommends GFCM
to submit to the Group a list of its
planned 2013 meetings, for identifying
the meetings relevant to DCF and
proposing their inclusion in the list of
eligible meetings under the DCF for
2013. The Group was informed on the
planned GFCM workshop that will be
organized early 2013 for finalizing the
structure and definitions of Task 1 & 2.
The RCM Med&BS recommends that
this workshop will be eligible under the
DCF. MS are strongly recommended to
participate in this workshop.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
GFCM, RCM Med&BS, LM, DGMARE
Before the 2012 LM
The group underlined that in the list of EC eligible meetings for 2013
included the WGs of GFCM, listed in the NPs. Unfortunately not the all
7
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
MSs attended those meetings. It was made a call to MSs participants to
pay more attention in the future on attending the mentioned above
meetings.
4. Metier-related variables: on the accuracy of geographical origin of landings
and effort data
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
The RCM Med&BS recalls its 2008
recommendation and recommends MS
to investigate the accuracy of the
geographical origin of landings and effort
data (using the VMS data where
possible). This information should be
reviewed during the next RCM Med &
BS.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
MS, RCM Med& BS
Before next RCM Med& BS
The Group underlined that the access to the data is under control
regulation provisions and MSs are facing difficulties to access them. In
some MSs there is no problem on using those kind of data, and where
possible and feasible also the use of ERS data is considered to fulfill the
commitments to EC.
5. Metier related variables - on the planned minimum number of fish to be
measured
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
RCM Med&BS recommends that in the
future NPs the planned minimum no. of
fish to be measured for métier related
variables will not be required. Since the
métier related variables are required to
be collected during concurrent sampling,
the Group considers that only the
proposed and actual number of trips for
concurrent sampling should be
requested.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
DG MARE, STECF, LM
Before the new DCMAP
This issue will be raised for analyze of STECF EWG and Commisssion
dedicated to the new DC MAP.
6. Métier related variables: East Atlantic Bluefin tuna
8
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
Concerning the east bluefin tuna stock
(Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean
sea), the RCM Med&BS appreciates the
progress achieved with the provision of
metier-related data (length) from MS
participating in RCM LDF (Portugal,
France, Spain) to the PGMed chair.
However, the Group recommends that
the data are provided according to the
required data format, in order to be
actually utilized for a complete
estimation of the relevant CV of the
bluefin tuna.
Transmission of data to PGMed chair
MS (France, Spain and Portugal), RCM
LDF chair, PGMed chair
Before the 2013 PGMed meeting
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
This recommendation was applied by the implied MSs.
7. Workshop on large pelagic
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
RCM Med&BS reiterates the 2011
recommendation by RCM Med&BS and
RCM LDF on a joined workshop among
ICCAT representatives, scientists
involved
9
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
in large pelagic sampling, as well as
representatives from RCM LDF and
RCM MED&BS for harmonizing the
biological sampling issues on large
pelagic and specifying additional data or
modifications that should be included in
the future DC-MAP, taking into account
the ICCAT requirements for stock
assessment.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
DG MARE; Liaison meeting; STECF;
RCM LDF; RCM MED&BS; ICCAT; MS
Before the new DCMAP
Taking into account the establishment of the group for large pelagic under the
RCMMed&BS, the issue will be coordinated by the Co-chair of this group in
cooperation with RCM LDF to jointly mete the needs of end users: ICCAT, EC,
etc.
8. Stock related variables: Development of ICCAT reporting forms for submitting
data on large pelagic
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
RCM Med&BS endorses the
recommendation made by PGMed on
the development of reporting forms by
ICCAT Secretariat for submitting
information on individual stock-related
variables - length, weight, sex, maturity
and age estimation for the large pelagic,
and awaits DG MARE to contact and
collaborate with ICCAT on the
development of the forms.
DG MARE; ICCAT
The Group expressed its hopes that DG MARE, under the new DC MAP, will
settle the issue harmonization of the forms with ICCAT.
9. On the usefulness of CV as a quality indicator
RCM Med&BS 2012
RCM Med& BS considers that the
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Recommendation
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
calculation of the CV is a poor indicator
for quality. Considering also that this
value is not being assessed by the endusers, it is recommended that the future
DC-MAP will not include the CVs as a
quality indicator.
DG MARE, STECF, LM
Despite the numerous debates on various EWG on the usefulness of CV as a quality
indicator, in the last STECF EWG 13-07 dedicated to the evaluation of the annual MSs
Reports the problem persisted. So, many MSs were required to calculate and to
explain the methodologies used, as per EC letter sent to National Correspondents.
The group considers DG MARE to clarify the issue, so that MSs to not be taken
responsible on the missing such indicators in their annual reports, and Commission will
abstain on applying financial reduction related to this issue.
10. On the regional database
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
The Group agreed that the MED&BS
RDB will include biological and
transversal data. It was decided that
economic and survey data will be
excluded for the time being from the
RDB, following the decision by PGECON
to develop one European Database for
including economic and transversal data
from all supra-regions. The Group
agreed that the Mediterranean & Black
Sea regional database could be hosted
by GFCM and that the Steering
Committee for the development of the
RDB will include 1 person per MS, 2
economists for the transversal data, the
Chairs of Medias and Medits and a
GFCM representative. It was further
agreed that the RDB steering group will
be represented at the planned GFCM
Workshop for the finalization of GFCM
Task 1 and Task 2.
DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM
MED&BS, GFCM
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the new DCMAP
The issue was approached under dedicated chapter of the Report – 4.2. Any way
should be underline the fact that GFCM is not so cooperative with MSs on the region,
considering data transmission as per their needs, and as a consequence the EC is
applying financial reduction to MSs in their National Program, because of that, despite
the fact GFCM didn’t launched the call for such Workshop dedicated for the finalization
of GFCM Task 1 and 2, even before the date of RCMMEd&BS meeting in September
2013.
EC is kindly asked to reconsider its position versus to all MSs, facing this problem, and
to react accordingly to GFCM in clarifying its possibilities/availabilities on the way for
the settlement of this issue in a positive manner, so that it will have the arguments to
abstain in financial reduction application to those MSs for Annual Reports 2012.
11. Implementation of a Large Pelagics RDB
RCM 2012 Recommendation
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
The RCM recommends the
implementation of a large pelagics RDB
Organisation of a regional meeting
(included in NP 2013) for discussing the
prototype prepared by IRD and drafting a
multiannual plan 2014-2020
IRD, DG MARE, LM, RCMs, RDB-SC
July 2013
Before the new DC-MAP
The issue should be in the attention of the EC to be finalized under the new DC
MAP, taking into account till now the negotiation with GFCM and works of RDB
SC in such respect are pending on the conditions of GFCM to host, in general a
data base for the region, including in the future the large pelagics, in one hand,
and, in the other hand, the new EU legislation and financial envelop will be
decided the next year.
2.2 Review the bilateral and multilateral agreements in place
Two documents were prepared by the Commission for helping RCMs to review
bilateral and multilateral agreements between Member states in their region.
- the first one was a table of recommendations from RCMs and LMs that concern
agreements, including an assessment on whether these recommendations have
been fulfilled by MSs.
- the second was a compilation of bilateral and multilateral agreements listed by
MS in addition of their Annual report 2012.
RCMs were asked to update these documents as far as possible based on the
knowledge of their participants and to mention if new agreements will be settled for
next years.
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Following agreements were reviewed:
1) Bulgaria and Romania signed a bilateral agreement in 2010 on detailed actions to
be carried out for the collection of biological data and the common scientific surveys
and on the sharing of these works and the related expenses.
The first implementation of the agreement occurred in 2012 but stopped in 2013 due to
BG financial difficulties not allowing performing 2013 joint pelagic surveys as initially
planned. Otherwise RO carried out accordingly the demersal surveys on the common
continental shelf of the both MS but also one pelagic survey in its national waters on
national funding.
On the other hand, although the exploitation of sprat stock at regional level is
unsustainable (2012 STECF/SGMed report) but taking in account the low level of BG
catch lasts years, BG considers that sprat stock in BG waters is exploited sustainably
with quantities a half under the determined TAC and that, for this reason, it is not
necessary to perform pelagic surveys each year.
As the agreement finishes in 2013, RCM Med&BS hopes the cooperation between BG
and RO will continue under new rules. So the Group proposes:
- MEDIAS Working Group to analyse BG consideration and its proposal to
perform pelagic surveys in a longer term basis.
- EC to redefine with MSs a more adequate sharing of the costs based for
example on a well-balanced financial contribution of each country.
2) Malta and Cyprus agreement on collection of biological métiers variables from catch
and landings of CY trawlers involved in the shared métier "Bottom otter trawl targeting
mixed demersal and deep sea species in GSA 15".
This agreement is well implemented since 2009 and will continue for next years until
further notice.
3) RCM-Med&BS multilateral agreement on large pelagic species.
This agreement involves Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Greece nd Cyprus. Croatia could
be concerned also as from 2014. It defines yearly sampling intensities for estimation of
métiers and stocks variables for 5 LPF species and the numbers of specimens to be
sampled by each MS according to their importance in these shared fisheries. Since
2009, PGMed is in charge to calculate yearly the allocation of sampling effort between
MS on this Mediterranean-wide basis.
The agreement will be applied next years until further notice.
No new agreement for next period 2014-2016 was notified to RCM Med&BS. Excel
tables on agreements were updated accordingly.
Collaboration between MS exists also for scientific surveys (vessels sharing for
example). RCM Med&BS is of opinion that these ways of collaboration do not require
bilateral agreements, as MEDITS and MEDIAS Working Groups are already in charge
of the coordination of these international surveys.
Recommendation
Bilateral & Multilateral agreements – Bulgaria and Romania
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
RCM Med&BS 2013
Recommendation
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
RCM considers as first importance the
updating of the agreement between BG
and RO. So the Group recommends:
- MEDIAS Working Group to analyse
on which optimal temporal basis
pelagic surveys must be conducted in
Black sea waters.
- EC to define with MSs an effective
procedure and a well-balanced sharing
of the costs between the both
countries.
Implementation of a new BG-RO
agreement from 2014.
MS (Bulgaria, Romania), MEDIAS WG
and RCM Med&BS chairs, EC
End of 2013.
In the Annex VIII could be seen all information on the bilateral and multilateral
agreements in the Mediterranean and Black seas.
2.3 Review of relevant outputs of LM 2012
*** On the role of RCM
RCM Med&BS
Recommendation
Follow-up actions
needed
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
LM 2012 comments
Considering the increased regional tasks and power of the RCMs
under the EU MAP for data collection for 2014-2020, RCM Med&
BS recommends that the current structure of the RCMs ( i.e. the
inclusion of national correspondents, economists and biologists)
remains the same. The Group further recommends that PGMed
continues functioning under the umbrella of the RCM Med&BS.
LM to approve
DGMARE, LM, RCM Med&BS
Before the new DCMAP
Given the evolution of PGCCDBS and PGMED, LM suggests to
consider these 2 groups amalgamate into 1 Planning Group to
facilitate future work in an efficient way. One option would be to
cover this group under an ICES/GFCM MoU. Another option can be
to bring this group under the STECF umbrella. Regarding the
recommendation from RCM Med&BS, LM is of the opinion that
pending the upcoming changes in regional coordination
procedures, the current structure should not be changed.
The Group approved the Recommendation of 2013 PG MED, to remain under the
umbrella of RCMMed&BS. See chapter 2.4. of the Report
*** Feedback from data end users: Time period for provision of data
RCM Med&BS 2012
RCM Med&BS, recalling its 2011 recommendation and also the
Recommendation
STECF EWG 11-20 recommendation on a harmonized time period
required for data to be available for transmission to end-users,
recommends that the time period of 6 months following the end of
the collection of transversal and biological data is respected by the
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Follow-up actions
needed
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
LM 2012 comments
data calls and the end users. In case this time period of 6 months
continues not being respected by the data calls, the Group stresses
the importance that the National Correspondents follow a common
approach requesting the respect of this time period and NOT
submit the data.
LM to consider
JRC, DG MARE, LM, MS, RCM Med&BS, National
Correspondents.
LM doesn't endorse this recommendation. This issue should be
taken up between the Commission and MS involved while taking
into account current agreements in RCM Med&BS as well as
current and future regulations and legal obligations.
Considering the necessities of data compilation for bio, eco, effort and transversal variables, in
some cases, based on accounting registers of the companies, the Group notes MSs will act
accordingly, indicating this option in National Programs
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Metier-related variables: on the accuracy of geographical origin of landings and effort
data
RCM MED&BS 2012 The RCM MED&BS recalls its 2008 recommendation and
Recommendation
recommends MS to investigate the accuracy of the geographical
origin of landings and effort data (using the VMS data where
possible). This information should be reviewed during the next RCM
MED&BS
Follow-up actions
Forward to MS
needed
Responsible persons MS, RCM Med& BS
for follow-up actions
Time frame
Before next RCM Med& BS
(Deadline)
LM 2012 comments
LM supports the recommendation.
PG MED will address this issue in 2014 meeting.
***Metier related variables - on the planned minimum number of fish to be measured
RCM Med&BS 2012
RCM Med&BS recommends that in the future NPs the planned
Recommendation
minimum no. of fish to be measured for métier related variables will
not be re quired. Since the métier related variables are required to be
collected during concurrent sampling, the Group considers that only
the proposed and actual number of trips for concurrent sampling
should be requested.
Follow-up actions
Forward for approval to responsible bodies
needed
Responsible persons DG MARE, STECF, LM
for follow-up actions
Time frame
Prior to the NEW DCMAP
(Deadline)
LM 2012 comments
LM recommends that the overview of numbers of fish to be measured
is not evaluated by STECF as this number is not required by the
regulation. (Table III_C_5, column J (planned no. of fish
aged/measured))
The Group fully agreed and cvs exclusion and to ask to the EC to introduce this on the new
DCMAP and to be discussed in the LM.
16
Métier related variables: East Atlantic Bluefin tuna
RCM Med&BS 2012
Recommendation
Follow-up actions
needed
Responsible persons
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
LM 2012 comments
Concerning the east bluefin tuna stock (Eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean sea), the RCM Med&BS appreciates the progress
achieved with the provision of metier-related data (length) from MS
participating in RCM LDF (Portugal, France, Spain) to the PGMed
chair. However, the Group recommends that the data are provided
according to the required data format, in order to be actually utilized
for a complete estimation of the relevant CV of the bluefin tuna.
Transmission of data to PGMed chair
MS (France, Spain and Portugal), RCM LDF chairs, PGMed chair
Before the 2013 PGMed meeting
LM did not consider this as it was not a key recommendation
Harmonization of data of the Med MSs with Atlantic MSs – PG MED analyze and
presentation in the next RCMMed&BS from 2014 will include Subgroup for Large
Pelagics = for RCMED only
*** Workshop on large pelagics
RCM Med&BS 2012
RCM Med&BS reiterates the 2011 recommendation by RCM
Recommendation
Med&BS and RCM LDF on a joined workshop among ICCAT
representatives, scientists involved in large pelagic sampling, as
well as representatives from RCM LDF and RCM MED&BS for
harmonizing the biological sampling issues on large pelagic and
specifying additional data or modifications that should be included
in the future DCMAP, taking into account the ICCAT requirements
for stock assessment.
Follow-up actions
needed
Responsible persons
DG MARE; Liaison meeting; STECF; RCM LDF; RCM MED&BS;
for follow-up actions
ICCAT; MS
Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DCMAP
LM 2012 comments
LM doesn't endorse this recommendation as LM considers this as a
task for the RCMs. The RCM should invite the relevant end-user to
the to deal with this issue. Given the confusion which RCM is
dealing with large pelagics. LM requests the Commission in
cooperation with the relevant chairs to provide the RCM LDF and
RCM Med&BS with a final conclusion where large pelagics are
dealt with. The deadline for this decision is the December NC meeting where the decision will be announced.
The Group considers the LDF is to adrress this isuue should be included in the RCM frame
work and discussions on LM.
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Stock related variables: Development of ICCAT reporting forms for submitting data on
large pelagic
RCM Med&BS endorses the recommendation made by PGMed on
the development of reporting forms by ICCAT Secretariat for
submitting information on individual stock-related variables - length,
weight, sex, maturity and age estimation for the large pelagic, and
RCM Med&BS 2012
awaits DG MARE to contact and collaborate with ICCAT on the
Recommendation
development of the forms.
Follow-up actions
needed
Responsible persons
DG MARE; ICCAT
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline)
LM 2012 comments
LM did not consider this as it was not a key recommendation
It was agreed to maintain the recommendation for the next 2014 RCMMED.
*** On the usefulness of CV as a quality indicator
RCM Med&BS 2012
RCM Med&BS considers that the calculation of the CV is a poor
Recommendation
indicator for quality. Considering also that this value is not being
assessed by the end-users, it is recommended that the future
DCMAP will not include the CVs as a quality indicator.
Follow-up actions
Forward to DG MARE
needed
Responsible persons
DG MARE, STECF, LM
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DC-MAP
LM 2012 comments
Pending the current developments towards the DCMAP, LM
doesn't agree with this recommendation. The issue of quality
indicators will be dealt with in the proper forum in the near future.
The Group agreed that it is recommended that the future DCMAP will not include the CVs as a
quality indicator.
18
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
*** On the regional database
RCM Med&BS 2012
The Group agreed that the Med&BS RDB will include biological and
Recommendation
transversal data. It was decided that economic and survey data will
be excluded for the time being from the RDB, following the decision
by PGECON to develop one European Database for including
economic and transversal data from all supra-regions. The Group
agreed that the Med&BS RDB could be hosted by GFCM and that
the Steering Committee for the development of the RDB will
include1 person per MS, economists for the transversal data, the
Chairs of Medias and Medits and a GFCM representative. It was
further agreed that the RDB Steering group will be represented at
the planned GFCM Workshop for the finalization of GFCM Task 1
and Task 2.
Follow-up actions
Forward to DG MARE
needed
Responsible persons
DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM MED&BS, GFCM
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DCMAP
LM 2012 comments
LM notes that GFCM will cover the data for the BS area as well. LM
supports the recommendation and suggests that a representative
from the Med&BS RDB participates in the RDB FishFrame Steering
Committee. However, LM notes the different approaches in
selecting members for the steering committees as well as the
approval procedures for proposals from the committees. LM
suggests the steering committees to streamline the procedures in
cooperation with the Commission to prevent both groups to develop
own procedures.
The RCMed&BS agreed that EC to allocate funds in order to support RdBMed&BS. SCRDB
will make proposal for the up-loading system in RDB under negotiations with GFCM
(software, formats, terms etc). RCM recommends the up-loading the data by MSs in RDB is
made compulsory through inclusion in the legal text of the DC MAP; this issue will be
addressed to LM.
*** Implementation of a Large Pelagics RDB
RCM Med&BS 2012
The RCM recommends the implementation of a large pelagics RDB
Recommendation
Organization of a regional meeting (included in NP 2013) for
Follow-up actions
discussing the prototype prepared by IRD and drafting a
needed
multiannual plan 2014-2020
Responsible persons
IRD, DG MARE, LM, RCMs, RDB-SC
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline) July 2013
LM 2012 comments
In general, LM stresses that the number of databases should be
limited. LM can't assess the need for (a specific) RDB for large
pelagics due to the limited background information available. The
Commission is asked to specify the need for this database and if a
RDB is needed, a dedicated RDB Large Pelagic Steering group
shall be established in close cooperation with other Steering
Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and
systems between the different RDBs, according to LDF approach.
2.4. Review outputs of PGMed 2013
19
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
The Chair of PGMed outlined the ToRs of the last PGMed 2013 stressing the
following:
- Ranking system following regional harmonization of the metiers at level 6 – Review
of work achieved during PGMed 2013
The Chair of PGMed presented the results of the regional ranking system performed
for the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea separately (see also PGMed 2013 report).
For the Mediterranean, the ranking system was performed using as reference the
average values of landings and effort using 2010 and 2011 as reference years, for
those countries in which these data was available (Cyprus, Spain, Malta and
Slovenia). For France and Italy, years used were the most recent available (20092010 and 2010, respectively) and in the case of Greece, as last available data were
from 2008, it was not considered in the analysis. There was no information on
economic value for France. Thirteen métiers were selected at Mediterranean level
(see table below). In most cases, these métiers were already selected in previous
years, being the most important métiers consistent along time.
From PGMed 2013 Report: Table 1.4. Summary showing métiers selected by the
ranking systems based on landings and effort in 2010-11 for the Mediterranean
region and segmented according to Appendix VII of EC 2010/93/EU and
comparison with the 2008-09 and 2009-10 ranking results. E: Total effort as days at
sea; L: landings (tons) ‚ X: metier has been selected by the ranking system.
Level 4
Purse seine
[PS]
Bottom otter
trawl [OTB]
Trammel net
[GTR]
Pelagic pair
trawl [PTM]
Set gillnet
[GNS]
Boat dredge
[DRB]
Set longlines
[LLS]
Bottom otter
trawl [OTB]
Drifting
longlines
[LLD]
Pots and
traps [FPO]
Midwater
otter trawl
[OTM]
Level 5
Level
6
L
L
L
E
E
E
2008- 2009- 2010- 2008- 2009- 20102009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011
Small pelagic fish
>=14
X
X
X
X
X
X
Demersal species >=40
X
X
X
X
X
X
Demersal species >=16
X
X
X
X
X
X
Small pelagic fish
>=20
X
X
X
Demersal species >=16
X
X
X
X
X
X
Molluscs
X
X
X
X
Demersal fish
(a)
X
X
Mixed demersal
species and deep
water species
>=40
X
X
X
Large pelagic fish
(a)
X
X
X
Demersal species (a)
Mixed demersal
and pelagic
species
>=20
20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Bottom otter
trawl [OTB]
Hand and
Pole lines
[LHP][LHM]
Deep water
species
>=40
X
Cephalopods
(a)
X
For the Black Sea, the ranking system was performed at the regional level using as
reference the average landings, effort and value data of the years 2010-2011 from
Romania and 2009-2010 for Bulgaria. Four métiers were selected at Black Sea level
(see table below), all of the selected in the previous years.
From PGMed 2013 Report: Table 1.8. Mètiers selected by the ranking systems in
the Black Sea region and segmented according to Appendix VII of 2010/93/EU. E:
Total effort (days at sea); V: value (€); L: landings (tons).‚ X: metier has been
selected by the ranking system.
Level 4
Level 5
L
L
L
E
E
E
Level
2008- 2009- 2010- 2008- 2009- 20106
2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011
Midwater
Mixed demersal
13otter trawl
and pelagic
20**
[OTM]
species
Stationary
uncovered
Large pelagic fish
(a)
pound nets
[FPN]
Set gillnet
360Demersal species
[GNS]
400**
Set longlines
Demersal fish
(a)
[LLS]
Set gillnet
Small and large
>=16
[GNS]
pelagic fish
Pots and
Demersal species
(a)
traps [FPO]
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The RCMMed&BS notice that it would be necessary to have the most updated data
in order to a better approach to the regional ranking system. Following the changes
of the future PGMed, the call for data should be done by the RCM chair and not only
to the potential participants to the meeting, but also to the National Correspondants,
in order to ensure the most updated data. Also, it was suggested that the data from
the Official Data Calls launched by the JRC could be used for the PGMed, if
necessary.
Data Calls PGMed and use of 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
CMMed&BS. It also recommends
that, when necessary, some specific
21
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
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
- On the future of the PGMed
The chair of the PGMed showed an ICES presentation about the future of Planning
Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS).
This discussion in the ICES area comes after the increasing competences of
PGCCDBS over time as well as after the proposal for creation of two new Working
Groups, WGCATCH (WGCATCH, which will carry on the work of PGCCBDS,
WKPICS and SGPIDS in areas of work related to commercial fishery sampling and
analysis) and WGBIOP (based on the extension of WKNARC, and the equivalent
work conducted within PGCCDBS, to support the development and quality
assurance of regional and national provision of biological parameters as reliable
input data to stock assessment and advice).
Three options have been explored for the future:
1) no changes to the present structures, keeping the PGCCDBS and avoiding the
creation of WGCATCH and WGBIOP
2) formation of WGCATCH and WGBIOP and retaining a much reduced PGCCDBS
with responsibilities for steering the work of data collection related matter in the
ICES area
3) cessation of PGCCDBS but strengthening and extending the role of the Liaison
Meeting (as a Liaison Group) as a steering group.
As the RCMMed&BS cannot interfere in the ICES decision to be taken, the
discussions were related to how these schemes could affect the future of the
PGMed. However, as the most likely option seems to be option 2, the RCMMed&BS
planned the future of the PGMed based on it. The main conclusions were:
- To maintain the PGMed as the methodological group as it is, keeping the kind
of work developed there, and still under the RCMMed&BS umbrella.
- To constrain the work carried out by the PGMed in only two days.
- The PGMed should meet in time right before the RCMMed&BS, during the
same week (PGMed: Monday-Tuesday and RCMMed&BS: WednesdayFriday) in order to facilitate the collaboration among both groups.
Following the suggestion from PGMed 2013, the RCMMed&BS appointed Tristan
Rouyer (IFREMER, France) as new PGMed chair for the period 2014-2016.
LM: Future of PGMed
RCM
Med&BS
Recommendation
2013
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.
22
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
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)
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up Liaison Meeting, DGMARE
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
Before 2014
- List of recommended meetings:
LM: On the list of recommended meetings
RCM Med&BS 2013
The RCMMed&BS recommends the
Recommendation
EU to create a list of recommended
meetings related to the DCF, and
later to the DC-MAP, and circulate it
among the MS in order to facilitate
the selection of meetings to be
attended by experts. This list should
be based on the 2013 list of eligible
meetings and cover aspects related
to the data collection of commercial
catches, discards, surveys, stock
assessment and coordination.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
LM, DGMARE
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the end of 2013
RCMMed&BS agreed the Terms of Reference for the next meeting of PGMED in
2014 that will take place in the first two days before the meeting in 2014 of
RCMMed&BS, as mentioned above. See Annex III of the report.
2.5. Review outputs from MEDIAS 2013
The Chair of MEDIAS presented the outcomes of the 6th Annual Steering
Committee Meeting of the MEDIAS surveys, held in Capo Granitola, Italy, in the
period 8-11 April 2013 (MEDIAS 2013).
Participants in the meeting were representatives from European Union countries
involved in acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. Greece, Italy, Slovenia,
France and Spain) as well as a representative from the EU country (Romania)
operating in the Black Sea, one scientist from Croatia, as an EU candidate country,
two scientists from Morocco working on fisheries acoustics in Mediterranean and
Atlantic Sea, and one scientist from Turkey.
23
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
The aims of the 6th MEDIAS meeting were:
 to present the results of the Pan-Mediterranean Pelagic survey (MEDIAS)
carried out in 2012;
 to coordinate the MEDIAS surveys to be performed in 2013;
 to improve and update the common Protocol for the MEDIAS acoustic surveys
that is incorporated in the DCF and reflected in the MEDIAS Handbook;
 to update the table of “Ecosystem Indicators available from acoustic surveys”;
 to present and discuss the recommendations from the “Mediterranean & Black
Sea Regional Database (Med&BS RDB) meeting”;
 to present the results of the MAREA/MEDISEH project;
 to revise the ToRs from 2013 and to establish the ToRs for 2014;
 to elect the new chairman of the steering committee.
Mediterranean Acoustic Surveys (MEDIAS) carried out in 2012 by the MEDIAS
partners in the Adriatic Sea, in the Gulf of Lions, in the Strait of Sicily, along the
Iberian coast, in Maltese waters and in the Aegean Sea were presented, as well as
results from acoustic surveys performed by Croatia in the Adriatic Sea, Morocco in
the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea and Turkey in the Black Sea.
Specific Terms of Reference for the “MEDIAS 2013” were
 Update MEDIAS handbook;
 Develop the MEDIAS Website;
 To Agree on a code list for the common database;
 To work on common procedures to estimate a coefficient variation for
acoustic estimates;
 To Work on procedures to filter echograms to improve acoustic estimates.
A workshop on the use of Echoview software tools was carried out in the first two
days of the meeting with the participation of two experts from Myriax LTD. A
common workflow for acoustic data processing was discussed, also on the basis of
the procedures adopted and the results obtained during the Echoview workshop.
Taking into account the results of such workshop, a general discussion on the
revision of the common MEDIAS protocol and an update of the MEDIAS handbook
was carried out (see Annex IV of the Report of 6th meeting for MEDIterranean
Acoustic Surveys).
24
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
During the 2013 meeting a preliminary version of the MEDIAS website was
presented. It has been developed by means of Joomla, i.e. one of the most popular
and flexible Content Management System (CMS), and is temporarily hosted on a
test server (http://140.164.26.221/medias/website/). The MEDIAS website will be
revised and updated every year.
The abilities of currently applied MEDIAS surveys to contribute towards an
ecosystem based management approach in relation to the current and the future
DCF requirements was extensively discussed based on 2012 initial discussion and
agreement. Certain ecosystem indicators that can derive from acoustic surveys
were discussed and proposed. Moreover ecosystem indicators that can be provided,
either on a regular basis (based on data regularly collected and analyzed) or on a
potential basis (depending on survey peculiarities and available funding), were
reviewed and proposed.
In the framework of the AcousMed project as well as MEDIAS meetings, a common
database design has been concluded for all MEDIAS surveys (See ANNEX B of the
MEDIAS Handbook). The MEDIAS Steering Committee agreed on the use of this
database framework to store acoustic, biological and environmental data collected
within the acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea.
The Steering Committee agreed on the needs to realize soon the MEDIAS database
but all the participants highlighted the importance to obtain additional funds for the
completion of the database.
Concerning the proposals of the Mediterranean & Black Sea Regional Database
(Med&BS RDB) group, the MEDIAS Steering Committee decided to maintain the
MEDIAS database separate from the MEDITS one and to include a simple link into
the Med&BS-RDB. The decision is mainly linked to the particular structure of the
acoustic data and to the procedures adopted for estimating pelagic fish biomass.
The Steering Committee worked also on a list of fields of the MEDIAS database to
include in the “Common section” of the Med&BS-RDB.
The work done within the MEDISEH project, funded by DG MARE and assigned to
MAREA consortium, was presented. MEDISEH refers to DG MARE Specific
Contract No 2 (SI2.600741) "Compilation and mapping of environmental and
fisheries related information in the Mediterranean Sea by means or Geographical
Information Systems (GIS)". In particular, concerning small pelagics (i.e., Engraulis
encrasicolus, Sardina pilchardus, Scomber colias, Scomber scombrus, Trachurus
trachurus, Trachurus mediterraneus) available acoustic surveys, ichthyoplankton
surveys and MEDITS bottom trawl surveys were used where appropriate to apply
spatial analysis techniques in order to identify suitable locations for fish nurseries
and spawning grounds throughout the Mediterranean basin. Persistent habitat maps
with persistent, occasional and rare habitat areas were presented to the MEDIAS
group. Difficulties encountered, gaps in knowledge and potential for improvement
were presented and discussed. Comments for improvement were made from the
participants that were encouraged to participate in the related publications of the
project.
The procedures for estimating a coefficient of variation for acoustic estimates were
presented and discussed by the participants to the meeting. The MEDIAS Steering
Committee agreed to propose a specific workshop for working on data and defining
25
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
a common procedure to evaluate the coefficient of variation for acoustic estimates.
In the first approximation the CV should take into account only for sampling design
error. It was decided to carry out the workshop during the next 7th MEDIAS meeting.
The MEDIAS partners reiterated the studies previously proposed:
1. Inter-calibration exercise by the MEDIAS research vessels (see RCMMed&BS
2011 Report);
2. “Ex situ” experiment for TS measurement on anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus)
and sardine (Sardina pilchardus) (see RCMMed&BS 2012 Report).
The following ToRs were proposed for the 2014 MEDIAS Meeting
General:
- To join and harmonize the ongoing acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea
and Black Sea;
- To provide information for management decisions;
- To provide input for stock assessment purposes concerning the stocks which
are internationally managed.
Specific:
- Update MEDIAS handbook;
- Update the MEDIAS Website;
- Update the structure of the common database;
- Update the workflow for the analysis of the echograms;
- To work on acoustic data analysis for the estimation of CV in a standardized
way.
Following the presentation, the RCM Med&BS 2013 endorsed the proposed ToRs
for the next MEDIAS Meeting.
Proposal on MEDIAS survey area:
Enlargement of pelagic survey (Medias)
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation Considering the tasks addressed by the
Chair of the Medias survey and following
the output of the Medias Steering
Committee, the RCMMed&BS
recommends the enlargement of the
MEDIAS survey in the GSA 9 (Ligurian
and North Tyrrhenian Sea) and GSA 10
(Central and Southern Tyrrhenian Sea)
starting from 2014, and the increase of
the number of vessel days in the French
waters (Gulf of Lions, GSA 7).
The echosurvey in the GSA 9 and GSA
10, will permit to assess the small
pelagic resources, mainly anchovy
(Engraulis encrasicolus) and sardine
(Sardina pilchardus), that in this area are
economically relevant.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
Liaison Meeting; DGMARE; MS
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
26
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
The Chair of MEDIAS stressed the importance to enlarge the MEDIAS survey area
in the Tyrrhenian sea (GSAs 9 and 10). The echosurvey will permit to monitor the
small pelagic resources, mainly anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and sardine
(Sardina pilchardus), that in this area are economically relevant.
During the RCMMed&BS 2012 meeting in Madrid (Spain) such enlargement of the
survey area was declared eligible under the new DC-MAP (see RCMMed&BS 2012
Report).
The proposed echosurvey in GSAs 9 and 10 will be carried out by IAMC-CNR, one
of the Italian participants to the MEDIAS Project, according to the “Common protocol
for the Pan-MEDiterranean Acoustic Survey (MEDIAS)”.
The Chair of MEDIAS highlighted also the importance to increase the number of
vessel days in the French waters (GSA 7) for covering also the sea area between
the Gulf of Lion and the Italian border.
Waiting for the new DC-MAP with an adjustment of total number of vessel days, the
Chair of MEDIAS proposed the enlargement of the MEDIAS survey area in the
GSAs 9 and 10 beginning from 2014, and the increase of the number of vessel days
in the French waters (GSA 7).
Moreover, taking into consideration enlargement of EU by accession of the Republic
of Croatia from 1st July 2013, the MEDIAS Coordination Committee released also
the enlargement of survey area in the Adriatic Sea (GSA 17), and need for an
adjustment of total number of vessel days within MEDIAS framework was
highlighted.
Since the Croatian national acoustic survey for 2013 and 2014 will be funded by EU,
the Chair of Medias proposed for the DC-MAP an adjustment of total number of
vessel days by adding 30 vessel days for the acoustic survey in the eastern part of
Adriatic Sea in GSA 17.
2.6. Review outputs from PGECON
- Economic and Socio-economic Data
RCM reviewed the STECF WG 13-05 report. RCM agreed on the general approach
to define a core set of variables identified as necessary and a few other variables to
be included as optional. RCM considered useful the publication of the glossary on
economic terms in the Master Reference Register.
The group discussed the proposal to include social variables in the DCMAP and
agreed on the utility of collecting such data. Nevertheless, RCM agreed with EWG
13-05 that before social data are included in the new DCMAP a pilot study should
be conducted how data should be collected, which data are available through
common sources and what are the applications/end users and requirements.
RCM recommended that the level of aggregation of the social and economic data of
the fishing fleet must be specified in the DC MAP. RCM also considered necessary
27
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
to develop models to provide data at a more disaggregated level.
The group also suggested to introduce a system to upload data to the centralised
database at regular intervals and fixed deadlines instead of having data calls. RCM
suggested that deadlines for submission of data should be suggested by PGECON
and included in the legal text.
- Transversal Data
Transversal data are essential information for providing scientific advice and for
implementing sound sampling plans. Over the last ten years, Mediterranean
Members States have developed different approaches (sampling surveys, fixed
panels, declarative forms) to collect this information and to ensure reliable data and
complete coverage of the fishing operations.
In drafting the new DC-MAP, RCM considered essential to ensure the comparability
over time and to keep time series. Therefore, any changes in the requirements and
in the methodological approaches should be careful evaluated.
RCM recommended that the commitment to collect transversal data should be
maintained in the DC-MAP. DC-MAP should also ensure that MS applies the most
suitable methodologies to estimate them.
- Control Data
The group discussed the use of control data for the purpose of DCMAP and
concluded that these data can be used only if these data are made available at
much disaggregated level (for instance, individual logbook data should be
complemented by sales notes because of the derogations in logbook provisions only catches more than 50 kilos). Moreover, the use of control data implies to
undertake processes of validation and verification of these data if used for scientific
purposes.
In addition, the group underlined that the main issue to be solved refers to
confidentiality. In order to carry out the DC-MAP data collection, involved public
bodies/institutes in charge of the implementation of the national programme should
have timely access to all primary data coming from the control regulation. The group
considered that at present this is not feasible because of the provisions of the
control regulation on the Confidentiality of professional and commercial secrecy
(article 113 Reg. CE 1224/09).
RCM recommended that the issue of confidentiality of control data is addressed and
solved before introducing a commitment in the DCMAP that obliges MS to make use
of these data for the DC-MAP requirements.
3. Review feedback and recommendations from data end users and relevant
RFMOs, STCEF.
3.1 Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWG 13-12 Report
As per the STECF EWG Report 13-12 DCF Part 2, the group stressed the
importance on the access to data collected according to the control regulation;
28
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
delegations invoked the necessity that the new DC MAP/Regulation should clearly
state the free access to this type of data for the scientists involved in DCF,
especially, for the effort, VMS data, and information of from control sampling plan
results/reports even the confidentiality principle is still used at national level for the
restrictions occurred during past years.
Special attention was paid for data collected based on surveys at sea being
underlined the necessity of the regional approach for the list of surveys and its
periodical review. A special question was discussed related to the availability of
funding, till now the most difficult issue referring to the unknown amount will be
allocated under EMFF for each country for the evaluation of the needed money; the
proposals of new surveys are reflected in the corresponding chapter of this report.
Referring to the discards ban in the new regulation of CFP and the increasing
number of indicators for assessing the impact of fishery to environment, it was token
on discussions the needs of clear definition and agreed methodologies should be
applied that need to be included in guidelines for the next DC MAP.
On the aquaculture and processing challenges for 2014-2020 it was stressed the
importance of clear definitions should be included in the DC MAP and the fair
evaluation of the number and importance of indicators in the next period. The
relevant EWGs must be requested to clarify their proposals soonest possible, so
that in the next NPs experts of MSs had the possibility to design properly their
sampling schemes, at regiona/national level, involving the relevant bodies.
The Group agreed to support the organization of EWGs on possible definitions for
possible threshold for data collection as per the specificity of each status at national
level, and regional coordinated.
3.2 Review feedback and recommendations from GFCM
GFCM was contacted as an end-user of the DCF data by the European Commission
in order to put forward suggestions related to the new DC-MAP proposal. As the
RFMO for the Mediterranean and Black Sea, the RCM Med&BS recognizes the
importance of GFCM for the management of shared stocks in this area. The
Commission’s approach for GFCM to give its review on the new DC-MAP is a step
forward towards acknowledging GFCM’s importance towards harmonizing
management of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, including
both EU and non-EU states.
GFCM expressed their happiness to be consulted and request for the extension of
the final date to give their opinion.
Their first responses and impressions were as follows:
 GFCM do benefit from the data collection structures and programs that
GFCM European Members have;
 In that sense, GFCM will definitely benefit from a data collection system that
covers the needs that the GFCM Members express within the GFCM bodies,
such as the Scientific and Advisory Committee;
 Since the end of 2012 the GFCM has a running Framework Program which
includes actions towards capacity building and training in data collection, with
the aim to strengthening the capacity of national institutions in charge of data
collection and supporting the establishment of regional databases and
information systems;
 Also, it is important to note that the EU is itself a Member of the GFCM,
therefore it has a number of rights and also commitments as the rest of the
Members of the GFCM.
GFCM has nine data collection currently in progress which derives from binding
29
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
decision for members.
The core of GFCM data collection is represented by Task 1, a multidisciplinary
approach aiming at gather data and information on fleet, fishing activities, main
resources, socio-economic variables, catch, effort, overall by-catch as well as on
biological aspect.
Data for stock assessment is collected through stock assessment forms, which were
revised last year in light of Members comments, and which include a number of
sections which allow the GFCM Scientific and Advisory Committee to provide advice
on the status of Mediterranean and Black Sea Stocks.
GFCM agrees that the data and information currently collected under DCF at EU
level are mostly compliant with the GFCM requirements.
RCM Med&BS 2013 welcomes the first reaction of the GFCM on the Commission
proposal on new DC-MAP and is looking forward for good cooperation. On the other
hand RCM feels that the GFCM is an important final end user of the DCF data even
they have their own data collection system. The data that is requested and send to
GFCM by MS is in the majority of the cases collected and co-financed under the
DCF.
However European MS that are collecting data under DCF has a lot of additional
administration and technical burden to ensure the fulfilment of GFCM classification
systems for data collection and to respond to GFCM data collection requirements.
All this activities are usually financed only by national sources. Because of this an
additional harmonisation of the DCF and GFCM data collection would be welcomed
and fully supported as also additional involvement of the European Commission in
the process of providing MS data to GFCM.
The RCM recommends the harmonization of data submitted to the EU’s JRC (as
part of the Mediterranean and Black Sea data call, and the Fisheries Fleet economic
data call) and the data required as part of Task 1 by the GFCM. This will avoid
duplication of work from Mediterranean EU Member States, maximization of
resources as well as the introduction of errors when transforming the data from one
format to the other. The RCM recognizes that the main difference lies in the
classification of vessels length, métiers and segmentation.
RCM was informed that the GFCM is currently reviewing entire Task 1 and that the
workshop on Task 1 will be done only when the review will be completed. However
RCM suggests that the GFCM could consider sending the official reminders, with
required forms and templates and required reference years for the data to the
national focal points one and a half month before the official deadline for the
submission of the data to GFCM stipulated by the GFCM recommendations. After
the submission of the data to GFCM, RCM suggests that GFCM would perform
check of the data and give the feedback to MS and time to resubmit data that are
not in accordance with GFCM recommendations. RCM also identified the need to
harmonize as much as possible Task 1 data with data collected under DCF and
future DC-MAP and to consider the reference year for the submission of the data to
GFCM.
During the meeting the GFCM representative asked the RCM to put forward any
30
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
suggestions to the GFCM with regards to all the data requested from the GFCM.
On the basses of abovementioned issues RCM put the following recommendations:





It would be helpful if an email reminder to the national focal points for the
GFCM FWP is circulated a month and a half before the deadlines stipulated
by the GFCM recommendations.
Recommendation GFCM/2006/2 should be clearer about if data to be sent to
the GFCM by 30th January each year is to incorporate data from the previous
fishing season (August to December, sometimes extending to January) of
from the previous year (January, August – December).
The deadline for the data to be sent to the GFCM with regards to GFCM
recommendation; 15th January (as per EC Regulation 1343/2011) is too tight,
hampering MS from providing good quality data, as this is required only 15
days after the end of the fishing season.
Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/3 should include the reference year of the
data to be sent on an annual basis as it is not clear whether n-1 data or n-2
data should be submitted.
European Commission could play more important role in the submission of
the available requested data from the GFCM for all European member states
that are also members of GFCM. And to harmonize as much as possible the
requested data and classification systems under current DCF and future DCMAP with the data requested and classification systems from the data
collection system of the GFCM.
RCM Med&BS considered that could be useful received, from the GFCM, a “reminder” with
the templates and requested data for the reference year. This document should be sent to
MS national focal points in order to properly prepare the data one and a half month before
the deadlines stipulated by the GFCM recommendations.
RCM Med&BS considered that the Recommendation GFCM/2006/2 should be clearer
about if data to be sent to the GFCM by 30th January each year is to incorporate data from
the previous fishing season (August to December, sometimes extending to January) of from
the previous year (January, August – December).
RCM Med&BS considered that the deadline for the data to be sent to the GFCM with
regards to GFCM recommendation, 15th January (as per EC Regulation 1343/2011), is too
tight, hampering MS from providing good quality data, as this is required only 15 days after
the end of the fishing season.
RCM Med&BS considered that the Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/3 should include the
reference year of the data to be sent on an annual basis as it is not clear whether n-1 data
or n-2 data should be submitted.
Recommandations:
Submmission of the data to GFCM – introduction of reminders for data calls for GFCM
MS
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation
RCM Med&BS recommends that GFCM
consider sending the reminders with the
templates and requested reference years for
data to MS national focal points in order to
properly prepare the data one and a half
month before the deadlines stipulated by the
GFCM recommendations.
And to send the direct feedback to MS
31
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
regarding the relevance of received data.
Follow-up action needed
Responsible persons for
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
follow-up DG MARE, LM, GFCM
Before the new DC-MAP
Submission of the data to GFCM – amendments of Recommendation GFCM/2006/2
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation
RCM Med&BS recommends that the
Recommendation GFCM/2006/2 should
be clearer about if data to be sent to the
GFCM by 30th January each year is to
incorporate data from the previous
fishing season (August to December,
sometimes extending to January) of from
the previous year (January, August –
December).
Follow-up action needed
Responsible persons for follow-up DG MARE, LM, GFCM
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the next plenary session of the
GFCM
Submission of the data to GFCM – amendments of EC Regulation 1343/2011
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation
RCM Med&BS recommends that the
deadline for the data to be sent to the
GFCM
with
regards
to
GFCM
recommendation; 15th January (as per
EC Regulation 1343/2011) is too tight,
hampering MS from providing good
quality data, as this is required only 15
days after the end of the fishing season.
Follow-up action needed
Responsible persons for follow-up DG MARE, LM, GFCM
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the next plenary session of the
GFCM
Submission of the data to GFCM – amendments of Recommendation
GFCM33/2009/3
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation
RCM Med&BS recommends that the
Recommendation
GFCM/33/2009/3
should include the reference year of the
data to be sent on an annual basis as it
is not clear whether n-1 data or n-2 data
should be submitted.
32
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Follow-up action needed
Responsible persons for
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
follow-up DG MARE, LM, GFCM
Before the next plenary session of the
GFCM
Submission of the data to GFCM – lowering the administration and technical burden
of MS and avoiding the duplication of work.
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation
RCM Med&BS recommends that the
European Commission submits the
available requested data from the GFCM
for all European member states that are
also members of GFCM.
And to harmonize as much as possible
the requested data and classification
systems under current DCF and future
DC-MAP with the data requested and
classification systems from the data
collection system of the GFCM.
Follow-up action needed
Responsible persons for follow-up DG MARE, LM, GFCM
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the new DC-MAP
Other recommendations relevant for the European Commission:
List of actual recommendations from different WGs related to the process of data
collection
RCM Med&BS 2013 Recommendation
RCM Med&BS recommends that the
European Commission selects and
publish on the data collection web page
all the relevant recommendations from
different working groups, scientific
bodies, regional meetings and liaison
meetings
as
well
as
regional
management organizations that are
relevant in the process of the data
collection.
Follow-up action needed
Responsible persons for follow-up DG MARE, LM
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
Before the new DC-MAP
4.
Regional coordination
4.1
Regional database: update/actual status since RCM 2012
33
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Mr. Carpentieri, chair of the Steering Committee for the Mediterranean and Black
Sea Regional Database (Med&B-RDB), made a presentation on the progress
achieved so far during the 1st Steering Committee Meeting and on some important
issues to be considered for the Med&B-RDB development.
The 1st Steering Committee Meeting for the Med&BS-RDB was held in Rome,
kindly hosted in the GFCM headquarters, from 29 to 30 November 2012. The
Steering Committee (SC) met in response of a recommendation by the 2012
Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS
- Madrid July 2012), in order to set up some principles for a Regional Database
hosting the data collected under the Data Collection Framework (DCF). The meeting
was attended by 18 scientists from 6 MS (Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Romania
and Spain), by the chairs of MEDITS and MEDIAS surveys at sea, by the
representatives of the GFCM, plus two external observers.
The Chair of the SC presented the document for the Med&BS-RDB data
confidentiality and data ownership policy that all MS, uploading their data, must
follow. This document has been discussed and revised during the RCMMed&BS
2013. The agreed Data Policy Document is presented in the Annex III.
Moreover, the Chair of the SC informed the RCMMed&BS on the governance model
that has been discussed and suggested:
RCMMed&BS
Content governance
Prioritise and develop road map for
data upload
Monitoring general problems (i.e. data
upload, data processing)
Suggest area for development
Appoint member to SC
Estimate of cost and any financial
issues
Type of data
Data access and sharing
Terms of reference for the SC
Steering Committee
Technical governance
Strategic planning
Operational issues
Estimate of cost and any
financial issues
Terms of reference for the SC
A short explanation was given on the data that should be store, initially, under the
RDB. SC proposed that Med&BS-RDB could be divided in two separate sections:
1) Common section
2) Private section
The first section could be accessible to all MS, whether the second will be
accessible to the MS owner of the data.
In the “Common section”, the SC proposed to report landing, value and effort data
by métier (Level 6, Appendix IV Reg. 93/2010), by quarter and GSA. A proposal is
reported in the following Table:
34
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Landing data
Year
Country
GSA
Métier level
6
Quarter
Weight
(tons)
Effort data
Year
Country
GSA
Métier level
6
Quarter
Days at sea
Value data
Year
Country
GSA
Métier level 6
Quarter
Species
Value
In the “Private section”, the SC proposed to report biological data separately in
métier (length) and stock variables (sex, maturity, weight, age) and aggregated by
species, by quarter and GSA. A proposal is reported in this other Table:
Métier variables
Year
Country
GSA
Métier level 6
Vessel length
Quarter
Species
Landing (tons)
Length
Discards or landing fraction
Tot weight of the samples
Tot n° of individuals of the sample
Stock variables
Year
Country
GSA
Quarter
Species
Length
Sex
Maturity
Age
Discards or landing fraction
Tot weight of the samples
Tot n° of individuals of the sample
The proposal presented covers Member States in the Mediterranean and Black Sea
Region that have expressed a need and interest for a RDB.
The SC identified the GFCM as the best option to host and to maintain a regional
database for the Mediterranean and Black Sea region. The SC recognized that
hosting the Med&BS-RDB by an international organization such as GFCM should be
preferred considering that GFCM is the body covering Regional needs and it has
wide experience in maintaining international data bases. GFCM was approached
during the SC meeting and was asked whether it would be willing to host the
Med&BS-RDB. GFCM had answered positive to do so as long as costs and practical
issues could be resolved (both internally and with European Commission). Several
types of costs related to maintenance (hardware, upgrades etc), support to users,
management and further development of the database should be investigated. It will
be necessary to elaborate the cost estimate in more detail and the EC need to
approve this cost.
The Chair of the SC informed the RCMMed&BS on some changes that should be
done in the report of the 1st SC meeting. The following sentence: “All participating
MS would have the possibility to contribute to the development of the Med&BS-RDB
35
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
in an open source environment following priorities defined by the SC” should be
replaced by this sentence “The choice of the development platform should be
performed in coherence with the infrastructure and established development tools
that the GFCM is willing to put at disposal, provided that (I was the one to raise this
point) it is understandable that specific portions of source code addressing sensitive
statistical algorithms (T-SQL queries, R scripts or C# routines) might be made
available to MS for iterative discussions and evolutions.”
The RCMMed&BS 2013, agreed on the decision that for the time being the
MED&BS-RDB will include biological and transversal data. Next SC meeting should
better investigate the format and which data should be incorporated.
For the economic data, RCMMed&BS 2013 agreed that they should be included in
the Med&BS-RDB. Next SC meeting should evaluated which economic data should
be incorporated.
Regarding the surveys:
- MEDITS is developing a regional database. So, for the future will be
evaluated the possibility to include a link of this database under the RDBMed&BS;
- MEDIAS also is developing a database. The MEDIAS Steering Committee
decided to maintain the MEDIAS database separate from the MEDITS one
and to include a simple link into the Med&BS-RDB.
Any proposal regarding surveys data should be further discussed during the 2014
surveys working and the next SC.
On the regional database 1
RCM Med&BS 2013
Recommendation
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
On the regional database 2
RCM Med&BS 2013
Recommendation
The Group agreed that the MED&BS
RDB will include biological and
transversal data. It was decided that
also economic data should be
incorporated in the future MED&BSRDB.
DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM MED&BS,
The Group agreed that the MED&BS
RDB could be hosted by GFCM. Upon
the clearance of the RCMMed&BS, a
formal procedure will be activated in
order to contact GFCM officially and
consequently evaluate the related
feasibility and necessary funding.
Upon availability of the required funds,
GFCM
would
dispose
human
36
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
resources, technical expertise and IT
infrastructure that can be up-scaled in
order
to
provide
database
development,
administration
and
security.
Follow-up actions needed
Responsible persons for follow-up
actions
Time frame (Deadline)
DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM MED&BS,
GFCM
This ToR was not addressed due to the non-attendance of representatives of any
invited third country at the meeting.
5.
Data quality issues
5.1.
Review progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP proposals
With regard to the quality of the indicators and data delivered through the NP,
respectively, Annual Reports, participants stressed the necessity on ensuring the
use of the best practices on this purpose. The new requests of quality level stressed
by the EC should be a constant preoccupation of the scientists of each MS. The
participants agreed on the deployment of the best procedures on data collection,
methods of in time up-loading the data bases. It was reiterated the necessity of the
necessity of quitting on CVs, as per the above mentioned Recommendation on the
previous chapter of the report.
Validation will be done according to the best methods used in international statistics
activities. A regional harmonization and regular exchanging information on those
methods was recommended to the participants. The progress achieved by each MS
on improving the quality issue is reflected on each MS Annual Report, evaluated by
the STECF and endorsed by the EC.
All participants agreed on the increasing efforts of each MS to be able to respect the
new levels of quality on data, which will be the fully responsibility of them on the next
2014-2020 period, that is established into Proposals of the EMFF Regulation.
5.2.
Review of relevant Recommendation of EC to settle of Large Pelagic
Species issue between RCMMed&BS and RCM LDF
The 9th LM in 2012 stressed that there is a need to resolve the issue of competence
for Large Pelagics between the RCM Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med &
BS) and the RCM Long Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF).
An extensive e-mail exchanges took place on this issue over the past year. In 2012
these species were not reviewed by any RCM due to a lack of agreement. There is
no perfect solution, which is why no agreement has been met despite so many
discussions. A decision was needed to make the best of the situation, even if
imperfect, so that 2013 does not once again result in Large Pelagics being left out of
RCM discussions. The issue was addressed also to STECF EWG12-20, which
made the following recommendation:
37
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
STECF-EWG 12-20: Concerning the large pelagic coordination among
RCMMed&BS and RCM LDF, EGW 12-20 refers to the LM 2009
recommendation and supports the decision that all the sampling activities for
the large pelagic species, included in Appendix VII of Decision 2010/93/EU for
the Mediterranean and Black Sea area (i.e. albacore (ALB), swordfish (SWO),
bonito (BON) and bluefin tuna (BFT)), will be managed solely by the RCM
Med&BS.
RCM LDF will then deal with all other large pelagic species, operating outside
the Mediterranean and/or third countries and in international waters, as several
tuna fleets operating in the Atlantic or the Indian Ocean and Pacific.
Therefore, the following approach was proposed:
All large pelagic species are to be treated by the RCM LDF, except those
dominantly exploited in the Mediterranean, which are to be treated by the RCM
Med&BS. The Large Pelagics to be treated by the RCM Med&BS would then be
species in the competence of ICCAT, including:





bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
albacore ( Thunnus alalunga)
swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda)
shark species 'taken in association' with tuna and tuna-like species as listed
in Appendix VII of Commission Decision 93/2010 (Mediterranean and Black
Sea section)
The RCM Med&BS would be responsible for dealing with data collection issues
relating to these species in all geographical areas for which the fisheries takes
place, and hence where data collection takes place, and not just data collection in
the Mediterranean.
Despite this split in competencies, for this year, the RCMs LD and RCM Med&BS
were hold together, in Constanta from 2-6 September, therefore a suggestion was
made that a working group be formed to work on all large pelagics and that this
working group write up the conclusions of their work and this section be included in
both the reports of the RCM LD and the RCM Med&BS.
5.2.1 Position of the Large Pelagics Group
As requested by the 9th Liaison Meeting and following the approach proposed be the
Commission, participants of RCM LDF and participants of RCM Med&BS dealing
with Large Pelagics met and discussed the question of positioning of Large Pelagics
coordination. It was agreed by all participants that it would be more efficient to have
a unique coordination sub-group dealing with all large pelagic fisheries, species and
stocks issues. This unique sub-group would then be able to deal with all tunas
RFMOs end users extending through the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea
(ICCAT), the Indian Ocean (IOTC) and the Pacific Ocean East and West (IATTC
and WCPFC).
The participants then recommended the creation of a single coordination sub-group
on Large Pelagics covering areas of competence of RCM LDF, NA, Med&BS and
dealing with all large pelagic species and fisheries. In order to avoid the risk of
duplication of meetings for some scientists dealing with large pelagics, in particular
in the Mediterranean and in Other areas (for example swordfish, bluefin tuna), it is
38
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
suggested to expand the RCM “Med&BS” to the RCM “Med&BS & Large Pelagics”.
This would facilitate more pragmatic and efficient approach by having common
annual meetings allowing scientists participation either in sub-group dealing with
Mediterranean and BS and/or in a sub-group dealing with large pelagics. This
“expanded” RCM would then need to have two co-chairs, one for Mediterranean and
BS and one for Large Pelagics.
The representatives of the MS present in RCM LDF and RCM Med&BS were
unanimous in agreeing that if such modification is accepted, Pierre Chavance (from
IRD, France) should take the duty of co-chair for Large Pelagics for the next two
years.
Recommendation 2013-3: Regional cordination on Large Pelagics
RCM LDF 2013
Recommendation
(LP sub-group)
Follow-up actions
needed
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)
LM, STECF,
DGMare
Responsible persons Chairs of the RCM LDF and the RCM Med&BS
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline) Before the next RCM meeting in 2014
5.2.2. Bilateral Agreements table
Large Pelagic sub-group revised table listing bilateral agreement presently in place.
The document was corrected for missing ES agreements present in the “All” sheet
but missing in the “ES” sheet. No Agreements were added by any of the present
MS. This table is contained in the file “2013-07-30 List of bi_multilateral
agreements.xlsx”,
available
on
the
RCMs
Sharepoint
(https://groupnet.ices.dk/rcm2013/LD2013/default.aspx).
Review output of the 9th Liaison Meeting
Strategic comment 2013-4: Cooperation with RMFOs
39
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
RCM LDF 2013
Strategic comment
(LP sub-group)
RCM LDF (LP sub-group) reiterates the need
expressed by RCM Med&BS 2012 on a joined
meeting among tuna related RFMOs (ICCAT
and IOTC) representatives, scientists involved
in large pelagic data collection, as well as
representatives from RCM (LP sub-group). The
aim of the meeting will be harmonizing the
biological sampling issues on large pelagic and
specifying additional data or modifications that
should be included in the future DCMAP, taking
into account the ICCAT /IOTC requirements for
stock assessment, as well as providing
guidelines for best statistically sound sampling
schemes and data quality indicators.
Knowing that the LM didn’t endorse this
recommendation as they considered this as a
task for the RCMs, RCM LP sub-group
expresses the need for some guidelines in
order to know which are the exact steps to
follow, with the aim to invite ICCAT and IOTC
Follow-up actions
Guidelines
from LM
Commission
representatives,
and/ in
particular where
needed
corresponding funds should be foreseen under
EMFF.
Responsible persons EC, ICCAT/IOTC, RCM (LP sub-group), …??
for follow-up actions
Time frame (Deadline) Before the next RCM meeting
Review recommendations from ICCAT and IOTC WGs
This point was not considered by the LP sub-group due to the absence of feedback
from the tuna RFMOs. As it has been expressed in the previous point, the LP subgroup thinks that some resources will be necessary for the establishment of an
effective communication between both RCM and RFMO members.
5.2.3. Regional Database
A presentation by IRD regarding a Large Pelagic RDB proposal was made during
the 2012 RCM Med&BS who formally recommended the implementation of a Large
Pelagic RDB and the organization of a regional meeting for discussing the prototype
prepared by IRD and drafting a multiannual plan 2014-2020. LM stresses that the
number of databases should be limited and asked the Commission to specify the
need for this database and states that if a new RDB is needed, a dedicated Large
Pelagic RDB Steering Committee shall be established in close cooperation with
other Steering Committees to ensure similar approaches, procedures and systems
between the different RDBs.
The Large Pelagic sub-group reiterates that there is a great need to progress in the
direction of better exchange ability between fisheries information systems among
UE fishing countries. Main objectives in this domain are:
40
RCM Med&BS Report 2013

Support expected improved regional coordination for data collection among
MS

Provide MS data managers and end users with common tools for data call,
automated reports, statistical analysis, DCF indicators production …
The LP sub-group underlines that this need is also required among countries fishing
in areas of competence of all tuna RFMOs. Consequently, working in that direction
will contribute enhancing collaboration between UE MS, between UE MS and tuna
RFMOs and among third countries fishing in tunas RFMOs areas of competence.
Regarding the approach to a RDB, the members of the LP sub-group agree that a
standardization of formats and tools at the MS level should be a first step.
Level of data aggregation and localization of a physical RDB will have to be
considered in a second step. If all members are using locally a common format then
it is possible to apply common methodologies such as the COST tools or any R
function script agreed among the members. The export functions of such a local and
harmonized database should easily allow to output aggregated data at the level
legally required by each country so that, if the MS agree, such data (which is public
by definition since it must be available according to EU data accessibility
regulations) can be incorporated into a regional database of common use.
LP sub-group agrees that a RDB Large Pelagic Steering Committee shall be
established in close cooperation with other Steering Committees to ensure similar
approaches, procedures and systems between LP RDB and other RDBs.
Suggestion 2013-5: RDB on Large Pelagics
RCM LDF 2013
Suggestion
(LP sub-group)
The Large Pelagic sub-group reiterates that
there is a great need to progress in the
direction of better exchange ability between
fisheries information systems among UE
fishing countries.
Regarding the approach to a RDB, the
members of the Large Pelagic sub-group
agree that a standardization of formats and
tools at the MS level should be a first step.
Level of data aggregation and localization of
a physical RDB will have to be considered in
a second step.
Follow-up actions
needed
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
establishing
RDB-LP
Pelagic RDBthe
andnew
other
RDBs.Steering
Committee or joining the existing RDB SCs ?
Responsible persons LP sub-group,
for follow-up actions
Time frame
(Deadline)
Next RCM meeting
41
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
5.2.4. Cooperation between member states
The LP sub-group identified some areas of studies that would benefit from the
financial support which could be provided under the EMFF (article 85). These areas
are the following:
Development of commons tools for data collection and data management

Contribute to the identification, development and dissemination of
common tools for data introduction and management. For example, such
tools as AVDTH, T3+ and ObServe are used for data introduction and
validation, data management and analysis developed within French DCF
national program for large pelagic species and now used by numerous
tuna sampling scientists in EU MS but also in third countries (Senegal,
Ghana, Ivory Coast, Seychelles, Madagascar, Mauritius). These
commons tools greatly facilitate collaborations among teams.

Development of common tools for data exploration, selection, analysis…
The foreseen improved capacity of exchanging data and data accessibility
through RDB should be accompanied by the development of tools using
open source language helping data managers and end users to work with
DCF Data. The Cost R library project that ended in 2008 can serve as an
example of extremely useful tools allowing statistical analysis and
treatment of DCF data stored in a common exchange format.
Data collection innovations
Self-sampling and electronic monitoring systems should be explored and promoted
as a complement to observers or as an alternative in places where observer can’t be
taken onboard (e.g. lack of space or safety on board in the Indian Ocean)
Coordination meeting between MS
It should be foreseen that RCM and future RCG will need to have intersession
activities like coordination working sub-groups dealing with particular aspects not
being appropriately tackled during annual meeting of RCM. These activities should
be supported by the program.
Tuna tagging program
As put forward since the first RCM LDF meeting in 2010, tagging programs are key
elements in population dynamics and stock structure studies and should be fully
supported. The sub-group highlighted the importance of these studies as these are
almost the only tool giving fisheries independent information on tuna stocks unlike
other species stocks, e.g. small pelagics or demersal species benefiting from
scientific surveys. A recent tagging program took place in the IOTC area of
competence with excellent results. A similar program in the ICCAT area is highly
demanded by tuna scientists.
Aerial survey program
As noted by EWG 13-05, the sub-group reiterates the great interest to conduct
independent aerial survey for Blue fin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea, involving
France, Italy and Spain. These surveys are presently not eligible under the DCF but
could be supported within EMFF funds.
42
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
5.2.5. Harmonization of Regional Sampling Schemes & Data Quality
issues
A major change associated with the DC-MAP will be a revision of the roles and work
programmes of the current Regional Coordination Meetings (to be re-designated as
Regional Coordination Groups; RCGs). A series of previous STECF EWGs,
including EWG 12-01, 12-07 and 12-15 proposed that the RCGs would develop
regional work plans in which end-user priorities are ranked to ensure work plans
operate within (limited) capital and human resources. Assuming that Member States
develop statistically-sound schemes for sampling commercial fisheries, regional
coordination would revolve around the stock/species-orientated sampling priorities
based on regional assessment and advisory needs. A national catch-sampling
scheme could be seen as comprising sampling frames and strata within the overall
regional sampling activity, but with priorities and sampling levels coordinated at the
regional level. Also, it is emphasized that it is essential that the quality of data is
known when it is used for analysis by end-users, because management actions
based on poor data should be avoided.
These proposals identify a need for: clear documentation and prioritizing by endusers of the estimates needed to support regional assessment and advisory needs;
implementation of best practice in designing and running statistically-sound
sampling schemes; and a need for some degree of optimization of sampling across
countries to achieve the most cost-effective data collection supporting assessments
and advice.
Thus, as a first step, for the correct coordination during the sampling it is important
to have a detailed and clear knowledge of the end users’ needs of the data. In
relation to large pelagic fisheries, there are some requirements made by the end
users (e.g. ICCAT); for instance tasks I & II ICCAT or the recommendation of 10%
observer coverage for the by-catch estimation. However nothing is said about how
the sampling should be design, in order to be statistically sound sampling, or about
minimum data quality requirements. It is essential that the quality of data is known
when it is used for analysis by end-users, because management actions based on
poor data should be avoided. For the moment, tuna related RFMOs do not provide
any advice on these issues, so the guidelines provided by the ICES expert groups
WKPICS (Workshop on Practical Implementation of Statistical Sound Catch
Sampling Programs) and SGPIDS (Study Group on Practical implementation in
Discard Sampling Program) were considered as a starting point for the RCM LDF
participants.
Some good examples of coordination already exist (e.g. the Mediterranean
throughout the PGMED or the coordination for the last decade between ES-FR on
the tropical tuna surface fisheries sampling). However, issues mainly coordinated
are related to the sampling onboard (onboard sampling protocols). Then, the target
métier (PS targeting Large Pelagic), which is shared by both countries, is divided in
national strata. At this step, there is a lack of cooperation/coordination between
countries, and each of the countries tries to allocate their resources the best way for
the sampling of their national vessels. This is not the case of the port sampling were
a complete coordination exist throughout a bilateral agreement. In the case of
longline fisheries sampling, coordination among countries does not exist. RCM
participants underline the need of this international cooperation. Even more, this
coordination should be expanded to the other countries outside EU involved in the
large pelagic fisheries.
WKPICS2 (ICES, 2013) has developed guidelines for “best practice” that apply to
data collection methods and design, sampling intensity, data collection and data
quality evaluation. Best practice can be defined as sampling designs,
43
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
implementation and data analysis that lead to minimum bias and an accurate
estimate of precision, and which make the most efficient use of sampling resources.
For example, probability-based sampling with accurate control of the inclusion
probabilities would be considered an example of best practice. However, if logistical,
legal, and economic constraints dictate the use of a non-probability based scheme
to select primary sampling units (for example legal requirements in the selection of a
reference fleet), it is good practice if the selection is done in a way that ensures
representative coverage of the target population and minimizes bias, and if this can
be demonstrated with suitable diagnostics.
In order to apply this to Large Pelagics knowledge of the total fleet (Target
population) operating in a geographic area (Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and
Mediterranean) should include all fleets but in practice only the EU flagged vessels
are covered. This is a limitation that should be accounted for when a stock
assessment is carried out.
Each of the different geographical areas should work on their harmonized and
statistical sound catch sampling designs, in close collaboration with the different
RFMOs. Each of these areas will deal with specific requirements, but some common
difficulties arise in all of them, mainly the need of coordination between MS under
the DC-MAP and non-EU states.
Some common “bad practices” were identified within the sampling designs that are
in place among the different MS present in the RCM LDF (e.g. opportunistic vessel
selection). As a first step, the LP sub-group suggests that each of the MS
participating in Large Pelagic Fisheries identifies and, if possible, corrects these
limitations by the next RCM LP meeting.
Thus, the RCM LP advises the members states, which are involved in Large Pelagic
fisheries to validate their sampling programmes, with the guidelines of WKPICS2
and, where necessary, start developing/improving their sampling programmes in
accordance with these guidelines.
5.2.6. Obligation to land all catches
The Large Pelagics sub-group recognizes that obligation of landings all catches may
interfere with data collection approaches and protocols and in particular will impact
observer programs which are designed for discard estimation. However it is
underlined that:

It is unknown on how this obligation will effectively be set in place in the
different RFMOs

It must be foreseen that some discards will still occur because:
o Some species are not authorized to be kept on board under
RFMOs present regulation,
o Species without catch limits are not included in the discard ban so
all these species would not be accounted for and, more generally,
the discard ban will probably be set progressively on a species
basis
o The discard ban may not be in place in certain EEZs.
44
RCM Med&BS Report 2013

Obligation of landings all catches will allow estimation of all species
caught during port sampling (with the exception indicated above) but this
will only be possible for the whole trip and not by fishing operation

Most RFMOs request data at a fine spatial scale (5x5 or 1x1 degree
squares) which is not possible to perform if all discards are landed
together
These constraints lead the Large Pelagics sub-group to consider that, at this time,
observer programs will still be required to collect detailed scientific data on-board
independently of captain declarations.
5.2.7. Ranking of metiers to find out whether changes are needed in
for the 2014-2016 programme.
Ranking of métiers has not been performed by Large Pelagics sub-group since data
from data call have only been partially received on catch, effort and value by
métiers. Furthermore, it has been decided that the first task of the group should be
to validate the list of métiers established according to DCF 2011-2013 national
programs. This validation will be started by e-mail after this meeting since all
countries concerned were not present (Cyprus and Ireland) with the objective to be
completed for next RCM meeting. Data on catch, effort and value for 2010-2012 will
then be compiled and serve as a basis for discussion on interest/necessity and
modalities of ranking Large pelagic fisheries. Table with the list of métiers targeting
Large Pelagics is provided in an Annex VI.
6.
EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020
6.1.
Provide feedback on the draft EU MAP 2014-2020
The EC representative made a presentation concerning the new EU Data Collection
Multi-Annual Programme (EU DC-MAP) 2014-2020. The CFP reform proposal
(specifically Articles 37&38) will repeal the existing DCF legislation. Details on data
collection obligations will be laid down in a new EU Multi-Annual Programme,
replacing Regulation 199/2008, while the financial basis for the new EU DC-MAP
will be covered in the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The MS
Operational Programme will include a chapter on data collection and additionally
Annual Work Plans are proposed to be submitted. The objectives of the new EU
DC-MAP are:
• A seven year, i.e. predictable framework for Data Collection for the period
2014-2020
• Improving the flexibility of the legal framework and simplification
• Enhancing financial stability for the MS
• Integration and harmonization with other EU legislation (e.g. avoid overlaps in
the collection of data, use EUROSTAT definitions where possible)
• Improving quality and availability of data for ecosystem based management.
Options concerning important issues such as the kind of data to be collected, a
simplification of rules and better flexibility in the legal framework, integration and
45
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
harmonization with other EU legislation, simplification of data formats, better link of
data collection with data needs were also presented.
The Group was informed on the recent meeting between the Commission and the
National Correspondents that took place middle of July and that MS are invited to
provide feedback and comments concerning the new EU MAP.
It was agreed that at this moment it is too early to prepare a roadmap for the
development of a regional sampling programme.
Concerning the proposed EU discard ban in the proposal for the reform of the CFP,
RCM Med&BS expressed its concern on the negative impact that it will probably
have on the observer programmes. Fishermen may refuse to accept observers on
board, as they may consider that they observe for control purposes. Furthermore,
with a possible discard ban the need for implementing observer programmes may
need to be re-evaluated, as well as the tasks of the observers.
The Group reviewed the progress achieved in previous RCM Med&BS, as well as
recommendations made by STECF. Concerning the Workshop on transversal data
collection (i.e. common understanding) and statistical methodologies to
estimate/reevaluate them, with a special focus on the small scale fisheries,
proposed by RCM Med&BS 2011 and eligible for 2012, the Group was informed that
it will take place in the 4th quarter. The second relevant workshop that was
proposed by the Group in 2011 and is eligible for 2012, the Workshop to develop
guidelines to convert DCF biological, economic and transversal data to GFCM Task
1 is postponed until the finalization of the GFCM Task 1 amendments.
6.2.
Prepare a roadmap for development of a regional sampling programme
developing statistical sound harmonized sampling programmes
Proposed DCMAP framework for regional sampling programmes
A major change associated with the DC-MAP will be a revision of the roles and work
programmes of the current Regional Coordination Meetings (to be re-designated as
Regional Coordination Groups; RCGs). A series of previous STECF EWGs,
including EWG 12-01, 12-07 and 12-15 proposed that the RCGs would develop
regional work plans in which end-user priorities are ranked to ensure work plans
operate within (limited) capital and human resources. Assuming that Member States
develop statistically-sound schemes for sampling commercial fisheries, regional
coordination would revolve around the stock/species-orientated sampling priorities
based on regional assessment and advisory needs. A national catch-sampling
scheme could be seen as comprising sampling frames and strata within the overall
regional sampling activity, but with priorities and sampling levels coordinated at the
regional level. Also, it is emphasized that it is essential that the quality of data is
known when it is used for analysis by end-users, because management actions
based on poor data should be avoided.
These proposals identify a need for: clear documentation and prioritising by end46
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
users of the estimates needed to support regional assessment and advisory needs;
implementation of best practice in designing and running statistically-sound
sampling schemes; and a need for some degree of optimisation of sampling across
countries to achieve the most cost-effective data collection supporting assessments
and advice.
The challenges of establishing a coherent regional sampling programme within a
stronger system of regional coordination by RCGs was recognised by the ICES
Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling
(PGCCDBS), which initiated a series of Workshops on the Practical Implementation
of Statistical Sound Catch Sampling Programmes (WKPICS1, WKPICS2 and
WKPICS3) providing an essential background for establishing and coordinating
design-based sampling programmes at a regional scale.
Statistical sound sampling
WKPICS2 developed a guidelines for”best practice”, this covers design,
implementation and analysis stages of catch sampling schemes. Best practice can
be defined as sampling designs, implementation and data analysis that lead to
minimum bias and an accurate estimate of precision, and which make the most
efficient use of sampling resources. For example, probability-based sampling with
accurate control of the inclusion probabilities would be considered an example of
best practice. However, if logistical, legal, and economic constraints dictate the use
of a non-probability based scheme to select primary sampling units (for example
legal requirements in the selection of a reference fleet), it is good practice if the
selection is done in a way that ensures representative coverage of the target
population and minimises bias, and if this can be demonstrated with suitable
diagnostics. Bad practice would be an ad-hoc, non-probability based sampling
scheme, particularly where there are no census data to show how representative the
samples are of the population or to re-weight the samples during analysis (WKPICS,
2012).
WKPICS2 provided a draft for “best practice” guidelines, which could be included in
a repository (Master Reference Register; MRR) with best practice for the new DCMAP. The participants agreed that the new development of the needs on respecting
the requirements for this issue will be developed on the specific experts groups,
such as: WKPICS2, PGMED, PGECON, etc. in order to achieve by each MS of the
newest methods used at international level, regional coordinated in MEDIAS and
MEDITS – for bio aspects on surveys at sea in the region, and to be included in the
NPs.
For the purpose to improve quality in all aspects of data collection in the NPs,
RCMmed&BS proposed the following study: “Provision of statistics assessing the
quality of the data collected”. The details of this study are developed in the further
chapter.
7. Studies and pilot projects
RCMMed&BS 2013 propoese a list of studies and pilot projects to be included in the
new list of DC MAP as follows:
47
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
1. Identification of stock boundary/unit of the turbot in the Black Sea
Objective: Correct and efficient management of the turbot stock/stocks in the Black
Sea Community waters
Activity: Getting information on the Black Sea turbot population (distribution and
migration) through research, monitoring and exchange of information.
Involved countries: Romania and Bulgaria
Collaborating countries for monitoring and exchange of information: Turkey
and Ukraine
Period: 2-3 years
Indicative costs: 350,000-400,000 Euros
2. Proposal for a multinational exercise in age determination methods in order
to harmonize age reading
Objective:
Multilateral cooperation on age reading calibration and harmonization of otolith
processing techniques for Merluccius merluccius in the Mediterranean Sea between
Croatia, Italy and Slovenia.
Activity: It is necessary to establish a common methodology for age determination
in order to provide compatible age results for Merluccius merluccius which is a
shared stock between these countries and the most important commercial species
in trawl fisheries in the Adriatic and Mediterranean Sea. Furthermore, Merluccius
merluccius is a G1 species according to Appendix VII of Council Regulation (EC) No
199/2008, for which age determination is required. As Croatia has not been able to
participate in the efforts made in the field of age determination it is necessary to
ensure a multinational cooperation and coordination in order to harmonize age
reading so as to provide relevant data for stock assessment.
The cooperation would include:
•
Coordination meeting for the identification of age determination methods and
experts from the specialized EU laboratories
•
Inviting/contracting experts
•
Multinational exchange of otolith samples
•
Multinational processing of samples for age determination and calibration of
readings in order to harmonize age reading
Involved countries: Croatia, Italy and Slovenia
Period: 1-2 years
Indicative costs: 50.000,00 EUR
3. Structure of Mediterranean fish populations based on otolith shape
Objective: Assessing whether neighbouring countries exploit two populations of the
same species or share the same one is of great ecological interest and has
important applied consequences, particularly to achieve sound fish stock
assessments and efficient fisheries management under the CFP.
Activity: In practice, this remains complex as adjacent populations are not
separated by clear geographical barriers. For Mediterranean stocks, only little is
known on that issue. Recent techniques make use of otolith shape as an efficient
way to make distinctions between populations. Such an approach requires otolith
sampling that could be implemented at the Mediterranean scale taking advantage of
the scientific surveys that are already carried out for the DCF (MEDITS and MEDIAS
surveys in the Mediterranean). A study could be carried for a pre-defined set of
48
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
commercially important demersal and pelagic species, (e.g., hake, red mullet,
sardine and anchovy). An emphasis could be put on methodological development
around the processing of otolith images. By targeting several species, such a study
would allow to investigate connectivity between stocks at a broader scale than more
classical monospecific approaches, which complies with the ecosystem approach to
fisheries. A pilot study between two neighbouring member states, such as France
and Spain, focussing on two commercially important species, hake and red mullet,
would allow to assess the feasibility and the performance of such an approach.
Involved countries: France and Spain. However, depending on the funding
available more member states could be involved for a wider-scale study
Period: over 18 months
Indicative costs: 150.000 euros for 2 member states.
4. Tagging experiments for red mullet and striped red mullet
Objective: The lack of validation for ageing is a major source of uncertainty, which
directly affects the reliability of stock assessments a tag experiment, is needed.
Activity: Several methods exist to validate age readings of calcified structures (i.e.
otoliths), like the mark and re-capture method. So far, tagging experiments for
Mullus spp. have neither been done in the Atlantic nor in the Mediterranean Sea.
Within the framework of the WKCAM2, a recommendation to use validation methods
independently from annual growth ring interpretation was made. The tagging
experiments presently proposed could be carried out by France and Spain, two
countries that cover both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean regions, as a first
attempt to evaluate the suitability of tagging approaches for these species.
Involved countries: France and Spain, two countries that cover both the Atlantic
and the Mediterranean regions, as a first attempt to evaluate the suitability of
tagging approaches for these species
Period: over 18 months
Indicative costs: 300,000 €
5. Inter-sessional work coordination between France and Spain for
assessments
Objective: France and Spain share the catch for several stocks in GSA 7, such as
hake and red mullet
Activity: In order to assess the state of these stocks as required by the EU,
scientists from both countries have to meet for one week in order to exchange
expertise, review available data and run stock assessment models. Such yearly
meetings are necessary to meet stock assessment requirements and ultimately to
achieve a sound and efficient management under the CFP. As no intersessional
work has been considered as eligible for funding during the DCR and the DCF,
these meetings have so far been funded by institutes from both countries, which has
been a growing issue for this fruitful collaboration in the past few years.
Involved countries: France and Spain
Period: 3 years (2014-2016)
Indicative costs: 12,000 €
6. Pilot study of social variables to be included in the new DC-MAP
Objective: STECF EWG 13/05 recommended such a study for MSs
Activity: In order to assess the state of these data as required by the EU, scientists
from the Med&BS countries (10) have to meet for one week in order to exchange
49
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
expertise, review available data and evaluate information sources for different social
variables collecting methods/assessment. Such yearly meetings are necessary to
meet social assessment requirements and ultimately to assess and a sound and
efficient method, way of collecting data could be harmonized in the under new CFP.
Involved countries: all 10 MSs in Med&BS region
Period: 3 years (2014-2016)
Indicative costs: 90,000 – 100,000 €
7. Provision of statistics assessing the quality of the data collected
Objective: RCMMED&BS 2013 recommended such a study for MSs for the quality
of data collected
Activity: In order to improve the quality of the assessing process of data collected
MSs the scientists from the Med&BS countries (10) have to meet for one week in
order to exchange expertise, review available data and evaluate information sources
for different variables collecting methods/assessment and especially data quality
level, as requested by the EC. Such yearly meetings are necessary to meet the
requirements and ultimately to harmonize in an efficient way the methodologies of
data quality evaluation in the NPs and AWPs. It is also to share the best
practice/methods of quality evaluation.
Involved countries: all 10 MSs in Med&BS region
Period: 3 years (2014-2016)
Indicative costs: 100,000 – 120,000 €
8. Any other business
9. References
Abella, A., Rátz, H-J., Charef, A. 2011. STECF EWG 11-05 Expert Working Group
on Assessment Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 1. Ponza, Italy, 23-27 May 2011,
249pp.
Cardinale, M., Rátz, H-J., Charef, A. 2011. STECF EWG 11-12 Expert Working
Group on Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 2. Larnaka, Cyprus, 26-30
September 2011, 608pp.
Cardinale, M., Rátz, H-J., Charef, A. 2012. STECF EWG 11-20 Expert Working
Group
on Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks - part 3. Madrid, Spain, 16-20 January
2012, 404 pp.
Daskalov, G., and Rátz, H-J. 2011. STECF EWG 11-16 Expert Working Group on
Assessment of Black Sea Stocks. Sofia, Bulgaria, 10-14 October 2011, 213 pp.
EC 2008a. Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the
establishment of a Community Framework for the collection, management and use
of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries
Policy - OJ L60, 5.3.2008, p.1-12.
EC 2008b. Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down
detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008
50
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection,
management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice
regarding the Common Fisheries Policy - OJL 186, 15.7.2008, p.3-5.
EC 2008c. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying
down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006
as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and
management of the basic fisheries data - OJ L 295, 4.11.2008, p. 24-33.
EU 2010. Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of 18 December 2009 adopting a
multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data
in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013- OJ L41, 16.2.2010, p.8-71.
GFCM 2012a. Report of the 12th Session of the Sub-Committee on Statistics and
Information (SCSI). FAO HQs, Rome, Italy, 23-26 January 2012, 20pp.
GFCM 2012b. Report of the 13th Session of the Sub-Committee on Stock
Assessment
(SCSA). FAO HQs, Rome, Italy, 23-26 January 2012, 44pp.
GFCM 2012c. Report of the thirty-sixth session. Marrakech, Morocco, 14-19 May
2012. GFCM Report. No. 36. Rome, FAO. 2012. 71 pp.
Liaison Meeting, 2011. Report of the 8th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the
RCMs, the chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative,
the Chairs of STECF DCF EWG's and the European Commission. Brussels,
Belgium, 4-5 October 2011, 117 pp.
MEDIAS 2012. Report of 5th meeting for MEDIterranean Acoustic Surveys
(MEDIAS) in the framework of European Data Collection Framework. Sliema, Malta,
20-22 March 2012.
MEDITS 2012a. MEDITS-Handbook. Revision n.6, April 2012, MEDITS Working
group. 92pp.
MEDITS 2012b. Report of the MEDITS Coordination Meeting (Mediterranean
International Trawl Survey. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 6-8 March 2012, 79pp.
PGMed 2010. Report of the 4th Meeting of the Mediterranean Planning Group for
Methodological Development (PGMed). Lisbon, 1-6 March 2010, 35 pp.
PGMed 2012. Report of the 6th Meeting of the Mediterranean Planning Group for
Methodological Development (PGMed). Rome, 30 January -5 February 2012, 79 pp.
RCM LDF, 2012. Report of the Third Regional Co-ordination Meeting for Long
Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF). Madrid, Spain, 9-13 July 2012, 45 pp.
RCM Med&BS, 2009. Report of the 6th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the
Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med&BS). Venice, Italy, 13-16 October
2009,162pp.
RCMMed&BS, 2010. Report of the 7th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the
Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS). Varna, 17-21 May, 2010, 96 pp.
RCMMed&BS, 2011. Report of the 8th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the
Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS). Ljubljana, Slovenia, 10-13 May
2011, 79pp.
51
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Sabatella, E. and Virtanen, J. 2011. STECF - EWG 11-18 on Review of Economic
Data collected in relation to the DCF and Harmonisation of Sampling Strategies.
Salerno,
Italy, 17-21 October 2011.
Sampson, D. B. 2010. STECF-SGRN 10-03 Review of needs related to surveys.
Brussels, Belgium, 4-8 October 2010, 70pp.
10. Annexes
52
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Annex I - List of participants
Name
Bas Drukker
Constantin Stroie
Country Institution
NA
European Commission
Romania National Agency for Fisheries and
Aquaculture
Beatriz Guijarro
Spain
Spanish Institute of Oceanography
Angelo Bonanno Italy
Istituto per l’Ambiente Marina Costiero
UOS di Capo Granita
Gualtiero Basilone Italy
Istituto per l’Ambiente Marina Costiero
UOS di Capo Granita
Christian Dintheer France
Ifremer
Tristan Rouyer
France
Ifremer
Paolo Carpentieri Italy
MIPAAF
Evelina Sabatella Italy
IREPA
Maria Gonzalez
Spain
Spanish Institute of Oceanography
Roberta Mifsud
Malta
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture MCDEC
Argyris Kallianiotis Greece Fisheries Research Institute
Jernej Svab
Slovenia Ministry of Agriculture and Environment
Bojan Marceta
Ivana Vukov
Igor Isajlovici
Gheorghe Radu
Magda Nenciu
Madalina Galatchi
Slovenia
Croatia
Croatia
Romania
Romania
Romania
Fisheries Research Institute
Directorate of Fsheries
Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries
NIMRD Constanta
NIMRD Constanta
NIMRD Constanta
53
Role
DG MARE
Chair
email
Bas.Drukker@ec.europ.eu
Constantin.stroie@anpa.ro
PGMED
beatriz@ba.ieo.es
Angelo.bonanno@cnr.it
MEDIAS
Attendance
part time
part time
part time
MEDIAS
Scientist
Scientist
Biologist
Economist
Biologist
National Correspondent
christian.dintheer@ifremer.fr
Tristan.rouyer@ifremer.it
paolo.carpentieri@uniroma1.it part time
e.sabatella@nisea.eu
part time
maria.gonzalez@ma.ieos.es
Roberta.mifsud@gov.mt
Biologist
DCF National
Correspondent
Biologist
Economist
Biologist
Biologist
Economist
Biologist
akallian@inale.gr
jernej.svab@gov.si
bojan.marceta@zzrs.si
Ivana.vukov@mps.hr
igor@izor.hr
gpr@alpha.rmri.ro
mnenciu@alpha.rmri.ro
mcristea@alpha.rmri.ro
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Annex II - Terms of Reference for the 2013 RCM Med&BS
Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2012 RCM (follow-up of
recommendations) and 9th Liaison Meeting report. Evaluate the outcomes of
the RCMs that took place in 2012 & of any other RCMs that took place in
2013, pending availability of outcomes, in terms of complementarities and
actions to be carried out by MS in the RCM region of competence.
Review feedback and recommendations from data end users (STECF EWGs,
ICES assessment WGs and benchmark meetings, GFCM Subcommittees and
relevant WGs, and ICCAT assessment WGs) and PGECON.
Regional coordination
Regional databases: update since RCMs 2012. Identify needs of the RCMs
that could be addressed by the RDB SC and suggest any new
features/reports to be developed.
Make proposals for ways in which the work of RCMs could be expanded
under the DC-MAP, to become Regional Coordination Groups (i.e. what new
tasks to deal with at regional level, which tasks should take place during a
meeting, which tasks could be carried out intersessionally)
Proposals for cooperation activities between Member States that could be put
forward for funding under the EMFF (Article 85).
Data Quality issues
Review progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP proposals.
EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020
Provide feedback on the draft EU MAP2014-2020
Prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling programme
Studies and pilot projects
Any other business
Analyse data from 2013 RCM data call (TBC).
54
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Annex III - Mediterranean and Black Sea Regional DataBase (Med&BSRDB): data policy document dealing with data confidentiality and data
ownership issues.
1) Goal
The goal of this policy is to define how the data uploaded into the
Mediterranean and Black Sea Regional DataBase (Med&BS-RDB) are stored
and used in accordance with agreement made between the data submitters,
data users and the “host”. For the European Union Member States, the basis
for data policy rules should be the provisions of the Council Regulation (EC)
No. 199/2008 of 25 February 2008.
Furthermore, to ensure that data can be made available for the coordination
of establishing regional fisheries data sampling plans to serve and facilitate
the production of advice and status reports by stating the conditions for data
submission, access and usage rights.
2) Scope
This policy applies to all data submitters and users of data uploaded into
Med&BS-RDB and to activities for providing access to data.
3) Legal basis for EU Member States
According to Articles 18 and 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008,
Member States (MS) shall make detailed and aggregated data available to
end users to support scientific analysis.
Member States shall ensure that relevant detailed and aggregated data to be
sent on a regular basis is provided timely to the appropriate regional fisheries
management organizations to which the Community is a contracting party or
observer and relevant international scientific bodies in accordance with the
international obligations of the Community and the Member States.
According to Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008:
MS shall ensure that the data is provided to end-users within two months from
the receipt of the request for these data.
MS have the right, under specific circumstances, to withhold data
transmission to end users for a period of three years following the date of
collection of the data.
By submitting data to the regional database, MS grant permission for that
data to be used by RCMMed&BS for coordination (e.g. harmonize sampling
strategy….) and by EC, ONLY to provide scientific advice to the European
Commission and its partners as per Article 18.1a of Council regulation (EC)
No. 199/2008. Any requests for data under items b) and c) of Article 18 of the
Council regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 or for other uses will be referred back to
the MS.
MS may choose not to upload certain data to the Med&BS-RDB and will need
to meet end users and commission data requests through their own internal
mechanisms.
4) Management of the RDB
The regional database for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (Med&BS-RDB)
55
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
would be for internal use of EU members only in support of processing
covered by the Data Collection Framework.
Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea
(RCMMed&BS) is responsible for the content governance of the Med&BSRDB. RCMMed&BS is in charge to decide data access and sharing policy.
RCMMed&BS keeps under review the types of data to be included in the
Med&BS-RDB, prioritize and develop road maps for data uploads as well as
identify areas for development.
The Med&BS-RDB is be managed by the Steering Committee. The Steering
Committee will follow the guidance provide by RCMMed&BS. The Steering
Committee is composed of members of each country appointed by the
RCMMed&BS, plus the “host”, the Chairs of the surveys and a representative
of the EC. RCMMed&BS is responsible for appointing members in the
Steering Committee. It will be responsibility of the RCMMed&BS to appoint
alternates (with appropriate user profile) if the first representative is not
available.
The Steering Committee is responsible for the technical governance, strategic
planning, operational and financial issues.
Steering Committee is also open for observers from countries, including non
EU countries, that are presently not participating in the RDB but that want to
gain knowledge.
The “host” would dispose human resources, technical expertise and IT
infrastructure that can be up-scaled in order to provide database
development, administration and security.
5) Data
The Med&BS-RDB can hold the following data types:
Landing data
Effort data
Value data
All these data must be reported aggregated by GSA, by species, by year, by
quarter, by métier and by segment.
Biological data
All biological data related to sex, maturity, weight, age and length, deriving
from sampling of commercial fisheries, collected through market, harbour or
self- or sea sampling, must be reported by quarter, by species, by métier, by
GSA.
According to Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008, detailed data are defined
as data based on primary data in a form does not allow natural persons or
legal entities to be identified directly or indirectly; aggregated data are defined
as the output resulting from summarising the primary or detailed data for
specific analytical purposes.
6) Data ownerships
56
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
The national data in Med&BS-RDB is owned by the individual MS. Med&BSRDB contains copies/derived outputs from the national databases.
Access to viewing and analysing other MS data in Med&BS-RDB does not
entail permission to download, to copy or publish data, as defined in EU REG
199/2008, outside Med&BS-RDB. Such permissions can only be granted by
each country. The focal point in each EU MS is the National Correspondent.
7) Access rights
Access to Med&BS-RDB is restricted to persons who have a user name and a
password, a user name is for the sole use of that individual.
Each role defines the user’s access to functionality, applied to a given data
context defined by the combination of data groups and the minimum
aggregation level for those data.
The “host” should be provided, by the national correspondent, with lists of
scientists in the country and the role(s) assigned to their profiles. The list
should be updated at least annually.
National Correspondent or the person delegate by the NC (alternate) could
have the possibility to read, upload, download and/or delete all the data of his
country.
EC could have the possibility to read or download all the data of all MS.
When the user is logged in, the access to Med&BS-RDB data and
functionality is role based.
In the list of scientists of each country, a single user can have several roles
assigned to his/her profile.
New specific roles can be defined by the Steering Committee if and when
such roles are needed.
8) Policy for Data Providers
Although the “host” may perform some data quality/integrity control, the MS
always retain complete responsibility for data quality and when necessary for
updating.
When changes (new data and revisions) are made in the data source (the
national database containing the primary data) MS are responsible to in a
timely manner update and process their own data in the Med&BS-RDB.
It is the responsibility of the MS to make sure that data that cannot be
identified to any individual vessel or legal entity or at a resolution violating
confidentiality rules.
9) Policy for Use of Data
On request of the Steering Committee, the “host” will make data available in a
timely way. This data provision will be made according to the access
restrictions deriving from Reg. 199/2008 and in accordance with the
limitations given by the owners of the data.
Correct and appropriate data interpretation is solely the responsibility of data
users.
Data sources (MS) must be properly acknowledged.
Data Users must respect any and all restrictions on the use or reproduction of
data following the EU Regulations199/2008 and the associated restrictions.
57
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Data Users are obliged to inform MS and keeping informed Steering
Committee of any suspected problems in the data.
10) Data Quality at Regional Level
On the basis of the recommendations made by the Steering Committee, the
“host” could develop and apply quality assurance procedures as appropriate
and feasible. The “host” may also receive reports on potentially erroneous
data by Steering Committee.
The “host” will inform Steering Committee of relevant quality issues.
58
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Annex IV - Terms of Reference for PGMed 2014
ToR 1) Ranking system for the whole Mediterranean and for the Black Sea
ToR 2) Reviewing and update of the landing template for the Mediterranean
and for the Black Sea
ToR 3) For the metier which are exploring a shared stock and selected by the
ranking system, the number of sampling trips by metier at the GSA level can
be determined.
ToR 4) Assess the CV for shared stocks both for the Mediterranean (GSA 7,
GAS 15-16, GSA 17) and Black Sea.
ToR 5) To analyse the extension of the problem concerning the fishing
performed in a different GSA than their original one
ToR 6) Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2013 for large pelagic
species on sampling of length and stock related variables by using 2012 (or
2013) data
ToR 7) Assess the CV of large pelagic for length
ToR 8) Review WK on data quality carried out until now: state of guidelines of
statistical sound sampling methodologies
ToR 9) Proposal of workshops and studies
ToR 10) Any other business
59
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Annex V March 2013
The Commission decision on Large Pelagics and its background
(extracts made by the chair of the RCM LDF)
The 2012 LM stressed that there is a need to resolve the issue of competence
for Large Pelagics between the RCM Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM
Med & BS) and the RCM Long Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF).
An extensive e-mail exchanges took place on this issue over the past year(s).
In 2012 these species were not reviewed by any RCM due to a lack of
agreement. There is no perfect solution, which is why no agreement has been
met despite so many discussions. A decision was needed to make the best of
the situation, even if imperfect, so that 2013 does not once again result in
Large Pelagics being left out of RCM discussions. Therefore the following
approach was proposed, also in line with the recommendations of STECF
EWG12-20 on this issue (extract below*):
All large pelagic species are to be treated by the RCM LDF, except those
dominantly exploited in the Mediterranean, which are to be treated by the
RCM Med & BS. The Large Pelagics to be treated by the RCM Med & BS
would then be species in the competence of ICCAT, including:
bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
albacore ( Thunnus alalunga)
swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda)
shark species 'taken in association' with tuna and tuna-like species as
listed in Appendix VII of Commission Decision 93/2010 (Mediterranean and
Black Sea section)
The RCM Med&BS is responsible for dealing with data collection issues
relating to these species in all geographical areas for which the fisheries takes
place, and hence where data collection takes place, and not just data
collection in the Mediterranean.
Despite this split in competencies, for this year, the RCMs LD and RCM
Med&BS will be hold together, in Constanta from 2-6 September, therefore a
suggestion is made that a working group be formed to work on all large
pelagics and that this working group write up the conclusions of their work
and this section be included in both the reports of the RCM LD and the RCM
Med&BS.
* STECF-EWG 12-20: Concerning the large pelagic coordination among
RCMMed&BS and RCM LDF, EGW 12-20 refers to the LM 2009
recommendation and supports the decision that all the sampling activities for
the large pelagic species, included in Appendix VII of Decision 2010/93/EU for
the Mediterranean and Black Sea area (i.e. albacore (ALB), swordfish (SWO),
bonito (BON) and bluefin tuna (BFT)), will be managed solely by the
RCMMed&BS.
RCMLDF will then deal with all other large pelagic species, operating outside
the Mediterranean and/or third countries and in international waters, as
several tuna fleets operating in the Atlantic or the Indian Ocean and Pacific.
60
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Annex VI – List of métiers targeting Large Pelagics
MS
CYP
CYP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
FRA
GRE
GRE
IRL
IT A
IT A
IT A
IT A
IT A
MLT
MLT
MLT
PRT
PRT
PRT
PRT
PRT
Reference
Region
years
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
IAT T C+WCPFC
IAT T C+WCPFC
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
IOT C
IOT C
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
IOT C
IOT C
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Mediterranean
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
ICCAT Atlantic
IOT C
Fishing ground
BIL 95
AL 35
IAT T C+WCPFC
IAT T C+WCPFC
BF 54
BF 58
BF 58
BF 58
AL 31
AL 31
BIL 94 A+B, BIL 96, BIL 97
AT L(CANA)
AT L (ET RO)
AT L (ET RO)
BF 59
AL 35
BIL 95
BIL 95
BF 59
MED
FAO 51+ 57
FAO 51+ 57
AL31
AL31
BF54
AL31
AT L (ET RO)
AT L (ET RO)
BIL 93
BF59
BF59
FAO 51+ 57
FAO 51+ 58
BIL 95
BF 59
North Atlantic
BF59
AL35
BF59
BIL95
MED
BIL95
BF59
BF59
BIL 94 A+B, BIL 96, BIL 97
BF 58
AL 31
AT L(CANA)
FAO 51+ 58
Gear
LVL4
LLD
LLD
LLD
PS
LHP
LHP
LHM
FPO
LHP
LHP
LLD
LHP
LHP
PS
LLD
LLD
LLD
LLD
PS
FPN
LLD
PS
PT M
PT M
LHP
PT M
LHP
PS
LHP/LLD
LLD
PS
PS
LLD
LLD
LLD
PT M
PS
LLD
LLD
LLD
MISC
LLD
LLD
LLD
LLD
FPO
LLD
LHP
LLD
Target
Assemblage
LVL5
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
Large pelagic fish
(*) MSP: Bluefin tuna, Albacore, Yellowfin, Skipjack and Bigeye
T ROP: Yellowfin, Skipjack and Bigeye
61
Metier LVL6
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
PS_LPF_0_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
LHM_LPF_0_0_0
FPN_LPF_0_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
LT L_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
PS_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
PS_LPF_14_0_0
FPN_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
PS_LPF_0_0_0
PT M_LPF_>=55_0_0
PT M_LPF_100-119_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
PT M_LPF_>=70_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
PS_LPF_0_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
PS_LPF_14_0_0
PS_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LT L_LPF_0_0_0
PT M_LPF_100-119_0_0
PS_LPF_14_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
MISC_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
PS_LPF_14_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
FPN_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
LHP_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0
Metier LVL7
code ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC &
WCPFC
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB)
LLALB
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
PS_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
PS
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
BB
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
BB
LHM_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
HAND
FPN_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
T RAP
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB)
BB
LT L_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB)
T ROL
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (MSP) *
BB
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
BB
PS_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
PS
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
LLJAP
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB)
LLALB
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT )
PS
FPN_LPF_0_0_0
T RAP
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
PS_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
PS
PT M_LPF_>=55_0_0 (ALB) MWT D
PT M_LPF_100-119_0_0 (ALB) MWT D
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
BB
PT M_LPF_>=70_0_0 (ALB) MWT D
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
BB
PS_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
PS
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
BB
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
LLBFT
PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT )
PS
PS_LPF_0_0_0 (T ROP) *
PS
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
LT L_LPF_0_0_0
T ROL
PT M_LPF_100-119_0_0
MWT D
PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT )
PS
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB)
LLALB
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
LLJAP
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
MISC_LPF_0_0_0
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
PS_LPF_14_0_0 (BFT )
PS
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
LLJAP
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
FPN_LPF_0_0_0 (BFT )
T RAP
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (ALB)
LLALB
LHP_LPF_0_0_0 (MSP) *
BB
LLD_LPF_0_0_0 (SWO)
LL
RCM Med&BS Report 2013
Annex VII
RCM & LM recommendations on task sharing activities
year
2010
meeting
short name of
recommendation
Metier and stock related
variables:
RCM Med&BS Fishing activities and
length - age sampling
coverage
Metier and stock related
2008-09 RCM Med&BS variables - Large pelagic
species
2009
recommendation
BUL and ROM propose in their NP to share tasks to perform biological
sampling of landings of the main metiers identified in the BS.
RCMMed&BS encourages these both countries to cooperate for
optimizing the allocation of the available sampling effort to the
different metiers and stocks by using exploratory analysis tools as
COST and by estimating precision levels achieved at BS level. Other MS
involved in shared metiers in a GSA are also asked to share data
collected and carry out such an analysis (following the output of the
RCMMed&BS 2009 and PGMed 2010).
follow-up actions needed
BUL and ROM to review existing data or
initiate a pilot study to assess precision
BUL and ROM, concerned
levels achieved in the concerned
Member States; RCM
metiers and to report to PGMed. Other
Med&BS; PGMed
MS to perform such analysis for shared
fishing activities.
This agreement involves Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Greece nd Cyprus.
Croatia could be concerned also as from 2014. It defines yearly
sampling intensities for estimation of métiers and stocks variables for 5
MS to include sampling effort defined
LPF species and the numbers of specimens to be sampled by each MS
by PGMed in their NPs.
according to their importance in these shared fisheries. Since 2009,
PGMed is in charge to calculate yearly the allocation of sampling effort
between MS on this Mediterranean-wide basis
Metier variables - Shared
métier "Bottom otter
RCM Med&BS trawl targeting mixed
Agreement implemented by both MS on voluntary basis
demersal and deep sea
species in GSA 15"
follow-up
responsabilities
Member states, PGMed
MT will sample CY trawlers when they
land fish at the MT fish market.
MT onboard observers are allowed to Member states
go on CY trawlers if onboard sampling is
required.
time frame
(deadline)
fulfilled by MSs?
PGMed 2011
NO
existing bilateral agreement BG-RO
but only implemented during a short
period in 2012, then stopped due to
financial difficultuies, according to BG
Yearly updates
To apply until
further notice
Yes, since 2009. Will apply until
further notice
To apply until
further notice
Yes, since 27/01/2009