ANNUAL REPORT
LATVIAN NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR
COLLECTION OF FISHERIES DATA 2013
Riga, May 2014
Table of contents
I.
II.
General framework ..................................................................................................... 3
National data collection organisation.......................................................................... 3
II.A National correspondent and participating institutes ............................................. 3
II.B Regional and International co-ordination ............................................................. 5
II.B.1 Attendance of International meetings .......................................................... 5
II.B.2 Follow-up of regional and international recommendation........................... 5
III.
Module of the evaluation of the fishing sector ....................................................... 7
III.A
General description of the fishing sector .......................................................... 7
III.B Economic variables ................................................................................................ 7
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d), North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas) 7
III.B.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................ 8
III.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................... 9
III.B.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations ........................... 9
III.B.4 Actions to avoid shortfalls............................................................................... 9
III.B. Economic variables ............................................................................................. 10
Other regions (CECAF area Central East Atlantic) ...................................................... 10
III.B.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal .............................. 10
III.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................. 10
III.B.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations ......................... 10
III.B.4 Actions to avoid shortfalls............................................................................. 10
III.C
Metier related variables .................................................................................. 10
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d) ..................................................................................... 10
III.C.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal ....................... 10
III.C.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal .......................... 11
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .................. 11
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..................................................................... 12
III.C
Metier related variables .................................................................................. 12
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas).................................................. 12
III.C.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal ....................... 12
III.C.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal .......................... 13
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .................. 13
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..................................................................... 14
III.C
Metier related variables .................................................................................. 14
CECAF area .................................................................................................................. 14
III.C.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal ....................... 14
III.C.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal .......................... 14
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .................. 15
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..................................................................... 15
III.D
Recreational fisheries ..................................................................................... 15
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d) ..................................................................................... 15
III.D.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal ....................... 15
III.D.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal .......................... 17
III.D.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations .................. 17
III.D.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..................................................................... 18
III.D
Recreational fisheries ..................................................................................... 18
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas).................................................. 18
III.D
Recreational fisheries ..................................................................................... 18
CECAF area .................................................................................................................. 18
III.E
Stock related variables .................................................................................... 18
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d) ..................................................................................... 18
1
III.E.1
Achievements: results and deviations from NP ..................................... 18
III.E.2
Data quality: results and deviations from NP......................................... 19
III.E.3
Follow-up of Regulations and international recommendations ............. 19
III.E.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..................................................................... 20
III.E
Stock related variables .................................................................................... 20
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas).................................................. 20
III.E.1
Achievements: results and deviations from NP ..................................... 20
III.E.2
Data quality: results and deviations from NP......................................... 21
III.E.3
Follow-up of Regulations and international recommendations ............. 21
III.E.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..................................................................... 22
III.E
Stock related variables .................................................................................... 22
CECAF.......................................................................................................................... 22
III.E.1
Achievements: results and deviations from NP ..................................... 22
III.E.2
Data quality: results and deviations from NP......................................... 22
III.E.3
Follow-up of Regulations and international recommendations ............. 23
III.E.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls....................................................................... 23
III.F Transversal variables ............................................................................................ 23
III.F.1 Capacity ......................................................................................................... 23
III.F.2 Effort .............................................................................................................. 23
III.F.3 Landings ........................................................................................................ 25
III.G
Research surveys at sea .................................................................................. 25
III.G.1
Achievements: Results and deviations from NP proposal ..................... 25
III.G.2
Data quality: Results and deviations from NP proposal ........................ 32
III.G.3
Regional and international recommendations ........................................ 33
III.G.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls ..................................................................... 33
IV. Module of the evaluation of the economic situation of the aquaculture and .............. 33
processing industry ........................................................................................................... 33
IV.A Collection of data concerning the aquaculture .................................................... 33
IV.B Collection of data concerning the processing industry ........................................ 33
IV.B.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal.............................. 33
IV.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................. 34
IV.B.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations ......................... 34
IV.B.4: Actions to avoid shortfalls ........................................................................... 35
V. Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem . 35
V.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................... 35
V.2 Actions to avoid shortfalls.................................................................................. 36
VI.
Module for management and use of the data ........................................................ 36
VI.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal ............................... 36
VI.2
Actions to avoid shortfalls .............................................................................. 36
VII Follow-up of STECF recommendations..................................................................... 37
VIII List of acronyms and abbreviations .......................................................................... 41
IX Comments, suggestions and reflections ....................................................................... 42
X References ..................................................................................................................... 42
XI Annexes ....................................................................................................................... 43
Annex 1 Multilateral agreement ................................................................................... 43
2
I.
General framework
This is the Technical Report of Latvian National Program for Collection of
Fisheries Data 2013. It has been prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for the
submission of Technical Reports version 2013.
The “Latvian National Program for Collection of Fisheries Data, 2011-2013” (hereinafter
– the DCP) has been developed in accordance with the rules laid down in the:
 Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for
the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for
scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy;
 Commission Regulation (EC) No 605/2008 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the
establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and
use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the
Common Fisheries Policy;
 Commission Decision (2010/93/EU) adopting a multiannual Community
programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector
for the period 2011-2013.
 Guidelines for the submission of Annual Report on the National Data Collection
Programmes under Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, Commission Regulation
(EC) 665/2008 and Commission Decision 2010/93/EU Version March 2013.
II.
National data collection organisation
II.A
National correspondent and participating institutes
The national correspondent of Latvia:
Georgs Kornilovs, Head of Fish Resources Research department, Institute of Food
Safety, Animal Health and Environment “BIOR”, Daugavgrivas str. 8, LV-1048, Riga,
Latvia, phone: +371 67612409, fax: +371 67616946, e-mail:
Georgs.Kornilovs@bior.gov.lv
The collateral contact person:
Didzis Ustups, Head of Sea Unit, Fish Resources Research department, Institute of Food
Safety, Animal Health and Environment “BIOR”, Daugavgrivas str. 8, LV-1048, Riga,
Latvia, phone: +371 67612409, fax: +371 67616946, e-mail:
Didzis.Ustups@bior.gov.lv
The following institution was involved in Latvian DCP.
Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment “BIOR”, Lejupes str. 3, LV1076, Riga, Latvia: phone: +371 67620526, phone: +371 67620434; fax: +371 67620434,
e-mail: bior@bior.gov.lv, or Daugavgrivas str. 8, LV-1048, Riga, Latvia, phone: +371
67612409, phone: +371 67676027 fax: +371 67616946, e-mail:
Georgs.Kornilovs@bior.gov.lv
The information on Latvian National Program for Collection of Fisheries Data
can be found on the website of the BIOR: http://www.bior.gov.lv/lv/left-menu/zivjuresursu-izpete/datu-vaksanas-programma. There we put the main information on the
implementation of data collection progamme like results of scientific surveys, main
international coordination and assessment groups meetings. The data collected in the
frames of the data collection programme are not inserted there as all the biological data
are submitted to the regional databases.
3
The execution of the DCP in 2013 as in previous two years was performed by the
Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment “BIOR”. The National data
collection programme in 2013 was performed and the Technical Report of Latvian
National Program for Collection of Fisheries Data 2013 was prepared by the Fish
Resources Research Department of “BIOR”. For the implementation of the National data
collection programme BIOR signs contract with the Ministry of Agriculture of Latvia
which provides the necessary financial resources.
Like in 2011-2012 DCP in 2013 was executed by one institution. There are two
main national coordination meetings in Latvia. The first meeting takes place in the
beginning of year and is confined with arrangement of organizational issues for the
execution of the national programme:
1) designation of the responsible persons for procurement procedures for the rent
of vessels for scientific surveys;
2) designation of the responsible persons for preparation of contracts with fishing
firms for on-board sampling in commercial fishery and for self sampling in the coastal
fishery;
3) drafting of the list of eligible meetings where the participation of Latvia is
important for the implementation of data collection program and designation of persons
who will participate in these meetings;
4) setting of dates, responsible persons and deadlines for the preparation of data
for the ICES assessment working groups and for the Annual Report of the
implementation of DCF in the previous year.
The second national coordination meeting is held in the beginning of May and is
dedicated to the preparation of the Annual Report. The responsible persons submit the
prepared Text and Tables.
Besides, BIOR performs monthly reporting on progress in implementation of
data collection programme to the Ministry of Agriculture.
The list of derogations of Latvia for the collection of data are given in the text
table below.
Short title
of
derogation
NP
proposal
section
Type of
data Variables
Region
Derogation
approved
or rejected
Year of
approval
or rejection
of past
requests
for
derogations
Reason/Justific
ation for
derogation
Economic
variables
III.B
Economic
variables
Economic
variables
North
Atlantic
(ICES
areas VXIV and
NAFO
areas
approved
2012
Confidentiality
reasons
Economic
variables
III.B
Economic
variables
Economic
variables
CECAF
area
Central
East
Atlantic
approved
2012
Confidentiality
reasons
4
Collection
III. E Stock Biological
of biological related
variables
data for
variables
whitefish
Recreational
fisheries of
cod
Economic
situation of
the
aquaculture
II.B
II.B.1
III.D
Biological –
Recreationa
l fisheries
IV.A
Collection
of data
concerning
the
aquaculture
Biological
variables
Economic
variables
Baltic
Sea
(ICES
areas III
b-d)
Baltic
Sea
(ICES
areas III
b-d)
Baltic
Sea
(ICES
areas III
b-d)
rejected
2011
Negligible
catches
approved
2012
Negligible
catches
approved
2012
Only
aquaculture of
freshwater
species in
Latvia
Regional and International co-ordination
Attendance of International meetings
An overview of the international co-ordination meetings that was attended by
Latvia is given in standard table II.B.1. In 2013 Latvia was able to attend more planned
meetings compared to the previous years although there were still some financial
constraints. In 2013 Latvia participated in 22 eligible meetings as compared to 11 and 20
respectively in 2011 and 2012. The preference was given to data collection coordination
meetings (RCMs, PGCCDBS) and ICES assessment working groups (WGBIFS,
WGBFAS, WGBAST) and other meetings which are more important for Latvia in
relation to fishing activities and respective data collection. In some cases Latvia did not
attend planned meeting because the most suitable expert for the participation in the
respective workshop was not available. One of the meetings which was planned to attend
was withdrawn (Workshop on the identification of clupeoid larvae, WKIDCL).
II.B.2
Follow-up of regional and international recommendation
The list of relevant RCM recommendations and the responsive actions are given in the
text table below. Only the recommendations from the meetings of 2012 are presented
since the recommendations of the earlier meetings and the responsive actions were given
in the previous Annual Reports.
The list of relevant LM (Liaison meeting) 2011 recommendations and the responsive
actions are given in the text table below.
LM
2011
Recommendation
To ensure possibilities for adequate sampling of
biological and métier related data including
landings in foreign MS, national institutes need to
have online access to national logbook data and
national VMS data.
MS should upload all landing data into the Regional
Data Base allowing the RCM to analyse the
possible needs for bilateral agreements.
MS is requested to submit the recreational fishery
available data (total removals, any biological data)
to the next meeting of WGBFAS, WGBAST and
Responsive action
In Latvia there is full access to
logbook data, however full
access to VMS data is limited
by national legislation.
Accomplished. Cod herring
and sprat data are submitted to
FishFrame data base
Cod recreational fishery in
Latvia is negligible. Eel and
salmon recreational fishery
5
WGEEL in 2012.
MS to look into discard sampling program
according to WKACCU 2008 guidelines (12
aspects).
RCM NA recommends that the collection of
otoliths of John Dory is continued but not proceed
with age readings until an agreed standardized
method is developed.
RCM NA recommends MS to describe in detail the
methodology on the separation of the catches of the
2 Lophius species. This information should be
available to the 2012 benchmark assessment.
RCM NA recommends MS to check in their NP
proposal 2012 that sufficient coverage of deepwater fisheries on-board sampling is planned, in
order to meet the EWG needs.
MS to update metier descriptions already compiled
by RCM NA 2010 and using the standard template
complete descriptions for any new regionally
ranked metiers identified. Updated and new files to
be uploaded by Fishing Ground co-ordinators.
MS to fill in template on concurrent sampling and
provide it to the chair of RCM NA for compilation
and sending to the chair of STECF EWG 11-19 in
advance of the December meeting
RCM NA recommends RCM participants to contact
relevant staff within their institute to attend the
ICES
WKPICS1
meeting
on
practical
implementation of statistical sound catch sampling
programmes.
Baltic Sea
RCM Baltic and LM recommendations
RCM Baltic 2012 and LM 2012:
1. MS should upload all landing data into FishFrame
allowing the RCM to analyse the possible needs for
bilateral agreements.
2. The RCMs should each year perform an analysis on
landings in foreign countries and conclude were
bilateral agreements needed to be made. MS should
set up agreements, fixing the details of sampling,
compilation and submission of data in each case when
it is indicated by the RCM that a bilateral agreement is
needed. To include the agreed analysis in FishFrame
would be very convenient and time saving.
3. MS should set up agreements, fixing the details of
sampling, compilation and submission of data in each
case it is concluded by the RCM that a bilateral
agreement is needed.
RCM Baltic 2012 and LM 2012:
The RCM Baltic 2012 recommends that landings should not
data are submitted to
corresponding working
groups.
Accomplished.
Not relevant for Latvia.
Not relevant for Latvia.
Not relevant for Latvia
because there is no deep see
fishery.
Accomplished.
The template was not received
Latvia attended
meeting in 2012
WKPICS2
Responsive actions
Latvia has already uploaded all
yearly commercial sampling
data of cod in FishFrame.
So far Latvia has no bilateral
agreements with other countries
because landings of other MS in
the Latvian ports are occasional
and are well below 5% of the
total landings of the other MS.
Additionally RCM has no
identified special need of
bilateral agreements for Latvia.
If it will be appropriate we
consider it in future.
Accomplished
6
be sampled abroad by landings countries as these data cannot
be used but should be compensated by the flag countries by a
higher sampling level in the flag country.
RCM Baltic 2012 and LM 2012:
To ensure possibilities for adequate sampling of biological and
métier related data including landings in foreign MS, it is
recommended that the national authorities give ensure that
national institutes have online access to national logbook data
and national VMS data as this is needed for carrying out cost
efficient DCF obligations.
Latvia already has online access
to national logbook data and
VMS. However, due to
National legislation it is
available access to aggregated
VMS data only.
North Atlantic
Latvia has no agreements on coordination of sampling of discards and length structure of the
landings of foreign flags. There are no landings from North Atlantic of other MS in the Latvian
ports and Latvian fishery in NAFO area is terminated in 2012.
Recommendations
RCM NA 2012:
RCM NA 2012 recommends allow for new species compositions to link to certain gear types to allow appropri-ate
classification of metiers. The following species compositions
are proposed:
SPF, DEF & DWS to be allowed for gear LHM
MPD to be allowed for gear PTB
MCF to be allowed for gear SDN
MOL to be allowed for gear TBB
RCM NA 2012:
RCM NA 2012 recommends that the metier descriptions for
fishing grounds under the remit of the RCM be up-dated by each
MS in as much detail as possible. These descriptions to be used
as a tool, in conjunction with outputs from the RDB, to identify
metiers that could be combined for regionally coordinated
sampling plans.
RCM NA 2012:
RCM NA recommends MS put in place bilateral agreements for
sampling of landings abroad where applicable.
III.
Responsive actions
Accomplished
Accomplished
Not relevant for Latvia
Module of the evaluation of the fishing sector
III.A General description of the fishing sector
In 2013 the Latvian fishery was taking place in the Baltic Sea (52.7% of landings)
and in the Atlantic: NEAFC (ICES IIA, V, XII, XIV) and CECAF (Mauritania 1.31,
3.11; Morocco; Guinea (Conakry)) where landings made up to 47.3% of total Latvian
landings. The general overview of Latvian fleet fishing activities by geographical areas is
given in standard table III.A.1.
III.B Economic variables
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d), North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO
areas)
The format for the economic part of the Annual Report submission is according to
the Guidelines for the submission of Annual Report on the National Data Collection
7
Programmes under Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, Commission Regulation (EC)
665/2008 and Commission Decision 2010/93/EU; Version 2013.
III.B.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
The standard table III.B.1, shows population of vessel segments for collection of
economic data. The economic data in 2013 were collected for 2012. Target population is
presented by number of vessels which was included in the Fleet Register for each fleet
segment at the 1st of January 2012. The Target population in the Annual report table
III.B.1. differs from target population in the similar table in the National Program for
2011-2013 because the planned sample number was modified based on updated
information on the total population of vessels in Fleet Register. The changes of Target
population were due to the vessels scrapping according to the multi-annual management
plan to achieve a better balance between fishing capacity and the available resources. The
fishing vessels were “reassigned for activities outside fishing (by scrapping or selling)”.
There were 77 inactive vessels <10 m belonging to commercial fishing firms.
Besides in the segment of vessels <10 m there were 358 boats belonging to selfconsumption fishermen for which it was impossible to distinguish active and inactive
vessels. The general reason for combining active and inactive boats in coastal zone was
that these coastal fishing boats were not involved in commercial fishery and fished only
for self consumption. For that type of fishing activity transversal and landings data were
collected but that category was excluded from economic analysis. Capacity and capital
value data for 77 inactive vessels belonging to the commercial fishing firms were
collected and provided to the data call for fleet economic scientific data concerning 20082014.
The clustering of fleet segments is shown in standard table III.B.2. Two similar
segments were clustered for confidentiality reasons. Clustered segments were formed for
one sub-region/fishing ground taking into account similar gears with the same target fish
species.
Economic data collection strategy is shown for each fleet segment in standard
table III.B.3. Although according to the guidelines the Capital costs and Capital value
should not be included in the table III.B.3 these data were not erased from the table,
because the Capital cost and Capital value data were received from questionnaires. The
Capital value data for active and inactive vessels were provided in the frame of Call for
fleet economic scientific data concerning 2008-2014.
For two active distant-sea trawlers more than 40 m operating in the NAFO and
NEAFC area economic data were collected, but could not be reported for protection of
information confidentiality. These segments also cannot be clustered with the Baltic Sea
fishing vessels due to different area.
For calculation of imputed value of unpaid labour the data about average salary in
the segment and number of unemployed persons were used. Imputed value of unpaid
labour was calculated based on the data collected by questionnaire form.
Financial position was calculated, based on the data about debts.
FTE national and FTE harmonized were calculated based on the data about total
employments and days at sea (Study No FISH/2005/14 Calculation of labour including
FTE in fisheries).
The price data obtained from questionnaires were analysed and the most adequate
prices were used for calculations of gross value of landings.
Data collection strategy for Transversal variables from Appendix VI were moved
in standard table III.F.1 and reported for all fleet segments for 2013 according to
Appendix VIII.
8
III.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Economic variables were received from Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia
(CSB) by state statistical form/questionnaire “1-Fisheries”. Collected economic
information is based on the annual balance sheet. Primary economic information from
state statistical form/questionnaire “1-Fisheries” was received annually from owners of
fishing firms aggregated by fleet segments. Economic data cover all members of the
population. Despite that economic data collection is based on questionnaire form,
participation of the responders is obligatory according to the Latvian legislation. All the
economic data are stored in the CSB database. Type of data collection for Latvian fishing
fleet is “Census”. The data Achieved sample rate and Response rate were 100 %. The CV
indicator is ‘not applicable’ when the response rate is higher than 70%.
III.B.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
EWG 11-19 recommendation 2011
(Review of economic data collected in
relation to the DCF and harmonisation of
sampling strategies, 2011, Brussels,
Belgium.)
EWG recommends that a digressive
depreciation scheme should be applied and
the replacement value should be considered
as the proper basis for calculation of
depreciation costs.
9th Liaison Meeting recommendation
2012 (Brussels, Belgium 24 – 26
September)
PGECON 2012 Recommendation
Definition variable “direct subsidies”
should include:
refunds of fuel duty, subsidies for
temporary
cessation,
socio-economic
compensation for fishermen
“direct subsidies” should exclude:
Fuel tax exemption ,Subsidies for
permanent cessation of fishing activities,
investment subsidies (fleet modernization)
Responsive actions
Depreciation costs data were received from
questionnaires.
For
Capital
value
estimations for 2008 -2010 and for inactive
vessels in 2011 the same formulas were
used as applied for calculation of the vessel
scrapping compensation in the frame of
Operational Programme of fleet reduction
(Regulation [EC] No 1198/2006 on the
European Fisheries Fund; COMMISSION
REGULATION [EC] No 498/2007).
Responsive actions
The variable “direct subsidies” includes:
refunds of fuel duty, subsidies for
temporary
cessation,
socio-economic
compensation for fishermen. Variable
“direct subsidies” excludes: fuel tax
exemption, Subsidies for permanent
cessation of fishing activities, investment
subsidies (fleet modernization).
III.B.4 Actions to avoid shortfalls
The data for each economic variable for all fishing fleet segments were received.
Actions to avoid shortfalls are not needed.
As regards distant-sea vessels Latvian National Program 2011-2013 has
derogation: “In order to keep the principle of confidentiality for the distant-sea fleet
segment >40 m operating in North Atlantic economic data will not be reported.”
9
III.B. Economic variables
Other regions (CECAF area Central East Atlantic)
III.B.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
The standard table III.B.1, shows population of vessels for collection of economic
data. The data for the seven distant-sea fishing vessels more than 40 m operating in the
CECAF area (EEZ of Mauritania and Morocco) were derived from logbooks and Fishing
Vessels Register. The data cover all members of population and planned sample rate is
100%. Type of data collection is A (census).
Latvia did not provide economic data on distant-sea vessels of length more than
40 m operating in the CECAF area for the confidentiality reason.
III.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Economic data collection strategy is shown in standard table III.B.3. Economic
variables were received from Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (CSB) by state
statistical form/questionnaire “1-Fisheries”. Economic data cover all members of the
population. Achieved sample rate and Response rate were 100 %.
The economic data were collected, but could not be reported for the
confidentiality reason and cannot be clustered with the North Atlantic or Baltic Sea
fishing vessels due to different area.
III.B.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No recommendations relevant to this module were made by STECF or PGECON
in 2012.
III.B.4 Actions to avoid shortfalls
Latvian National Program 2011-2013 has derogation:”For distant-sea trawlers
more than 40 m operating in CECAF area economic data will not be reported for the
confidentiality reasons“.
III.C Metier related variables
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d)
III.C.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
In the Baltic Sea Latvia sampled eight metiers that were selected by the ranking
system and belonged to the top 90% of the parameter’s cumulative value. Data were
collected from all selected metiers. Collected material contains data from open sea
vessels and coastal area boats (vessels < 10 m). Any of the selected metiers were merged.
In general for the majority of species the achieved length and age sampling has
exceeded the required and planned levels. The excess sampling has taken place due to
continuation of the previous sampling practices where the data series are used for
analytical assessment purposes. The second reason for the excess sampling in the coastal
fishery was connected with data collection for common whitefish, salmon, pike perch and
sea trout to achieve the planned sampling level since the catches of these species in
coastal fishery were very low and the number of fishes in a single fishery act was small.
Planned sampling levels for length or age measurement were not reached for eel due to
10
very low catches in coastal fishery even although sampling activity was higher than
planned (respectively the total catch was only 1.8 t).
The metier (GNS_DEF_>=157_0_0) which was not displayed in NP has been
sampled because it is a metier that is targeting turbot and although both effort and
landings are low, it has local importance.
Although in Latvia NP data collection of plaice is not planned, information about this
species discards from cod direct trawl and gillnet fishery were collected and are displayed
in table C.6.
III.C.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
In table III.C.5 for the landings the precision target was not achieved for Anguilla
anguilla, Perca fluviatilis, Salmo salar, Salmo truta, Stizostedion lucioperca and
Coregonus lavaretus. For the discards the precision target was achieved for Gadus
morhua only.
During 2013 for the estimation of precision the methods included in the COST
toolbox (for species that had data in COST format) as well as analytical and boot-strap
methods adopted for the calculation of precision were used. For the discards the required
precision target was not achieved due to the small volume and large variability in the
proportion of discards in the catches. The main reasons why the precision levels of
national data are deviating from target is due to too many length classes and metier
groups and insufficient number of fish in each group. It has been shown in the analysis
that the required precision levels could be achieved by significant increase of the number
of the trips and collected samples that would substantially increase the expenses of DCP
but would be still unachievable due to the lack of necessary manpower.
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
Latvia has no agreements on coordination of sampling of discards and length
structure of the landings of foreign flags. The landings of other MS in the Latvian ports
are occasional and are well below 5% of the total landings of the MS who have landed in
Latvia.
The appropriate recommendations of RCM Baltic 2011-2012 and of the
responsive actions are given in the text table below.
RCM Baltic recommendations
Responsive actions
RCM Baltic 2011:
Latvia has already
1. MS should upload all landing data into FishFrame
uploaded all yearly
allowing the RCM to analyse the possible needs for
commercial sampling data
bilateral agreements.
of cod in FishFrame.
2. The RCMs should each year perform an analysis on
Upload of other Baltic fish
landings in foreign countries and conclude were
species data is considered.
bilateral agreements needed to be made. MS should
So far Latvia has no
set up agreements, fixing the details of sampling,
bilateral agreements with
compilation and submission of data in each case
other countries because
when it is indicated by the RCM that a bilateral
landings of other MS in
agreement is needed. To include the agreed analysis
the Latvian ports are
in FishFrame would be very convenient and time
occasional and are well
saving.
below 5% of the total
3. MS should set up agreements, fixing the details of
landings of the other MS.
sampling, compilation and submission of data in
However it will be
each case it is concluded by the RCM that a bilateral
checked in future
agreement is needed
11
RCM Baltic 2011:
To ensure possibilities for adequate sampling of biological
and métier related data including landings in foreign MS,
national institutes need to have online access to national
logbook data and national VMS data.
RCM Baltic 2011:
In order for all MS to gain the knowledge concluded in the
Lot 2 project on VMS and logbook data, the RCM
recommends a training workshop on how the different
appropriate tools can be used.
Latvia already has online
access to national logbook
data and VMS
RCM Baltic 2012 and LM 2012:
1. MS should upload all landing data into FishFrame
allowing the RCM to analyse the possible needs for
bilateral agreements.
2. The RCMs should each year perform an analysis on
landings in foreign countries and conclude were bilateral
agreements needed to be made. MS should set up
agreements, fixing the details of sampling, compilation
and submission of data in each case when it is indicated
by the RCM that a bilateral agreement is needed. To
include the agreed analysis in FishFrame would be very
convenient and time saving.
3. MS should set up agreements, fixing the details of
sampling, compilation and submission of data in each
case it is concluded by the RCM that a bilateral
agreement is needed.
Latvia has already uploaded
all yearly commercial
sampling data in FishFrame.
So far Latvia has no bilateral
agreements with other
countries because landings
of other MS in the Latvian
ports are occasional and are
well below 5% of the total
landings of the other MS.
Additionally RCM has not
identified special need of
bilateral agreements for
Latvia. If it will be
appropriate we will consider
it in the future.
RCM Baltic 2012 and LM 2012:
The RCM Baltic 2012 recommends that landings should not be
sampled abroad by landings countries as these data cannot be
used but should be compensated by the flag countries by a higher
sampling level in the flag country.
RCM Baltic 2012 and LM 2012:
To ensure possibilities for adequate sampling of biological and
métier related data including landings in foreign MS, it is
recommended that the national authorities ensure that national
institutes have online access to national logbook data and national
VMS data as this is needed for carrying out cost efficient DCF
obligations.
Accomplished
III.C.4
In 2012 Latvia
participated in the training
courses for the use and
analysis of VMS data
Latvia already has online
access to national logbook
data and VMS. However,
due to National legislation at
present it has access to
aggregated VMS data only.
Actions to avoid shortfalls
For 2014 the sampling scheme will be adapted to take into account the decrease
of the number of fishing vessels or fishing activity and to ensure that the planned number
of length/age measurements is achieved.
III.C Metier related variables
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas)
III.C.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
There are only two Latvian vessels fishing in the North Atlantic. One of them is
targeting Pandalus shrimps with demersal trawl in the NAFO area and other is targeting
redfish with pelagic trawl.
12
In 2013 shrimps fishery in NAFO 3M fishing area was not carried out. Achieved
length sampling for redfish has exceeded the required and planned levels. Excess
sampling has been realised on the national expense of Latvia.
III.C.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
For the sampling of landings the precision target was achieved for redfish.
During 2013 for the estimation of precision analytical and boot-strap methods
adopted for the calculation of precision were used.
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
Latvia has no agreements on coordination of sampling of discards and length
structure of the landings of foreign flags. There are no landings from North Atlantic of
other MS in the Latvian ports.
RCM recommendations
RCM NA 2011:
RCM NA recommends MS to check in their
NP proposal 2012 that sufficient coverage of
deep-water fisheries on-board sampling is
planned, in order to meet the EWG needs.
RCM NA 2011:
MS to update metier descriptions already
compiled by RCM NA 2010 and using the
standard template complete descriptions for
any new regionally ranked metiers identified.
Updated and new files to be uploaded by
Fishing Ground coordinators.
RCM NA 2011:
MS to fill in template on concurrent sampling
and provide it to the chair of RCM NA for
compilation and sending to the chair of
STECF EWG 11-19 in advance of the
December meeting
RCM NA 2011:
1. MS should make sure that their landings
abroad are included in the Regional
Database upload allowing the RCM to
analyse the possible needs for bilateral
agreements.
2. The RCMs should perform an annual
analysis on landings in foreign countries
and conclude where bilateral agreements
need to be made. MS should set up
agreements, fixing the details of sampling,
compilation and submission of data in
each case when it is indicated by the RCM
that a bilateral agreement is needed.
Standard output algorithms to enable
analysis of compiled data should be
included in the RDB.
RCM NA 2011:
RCM NA recommends that all MS
Responsive actions
Not relevant for Latvia
Accomplished
Accomplished
So far Latvia has no bilateral agreements
because the fishing is performed by two
vessels having observers on board
Not relevant for Latvia
13
investigate data loaded to RDB under metier
'No_logbook' and replace with the agreed
code given in section 3.1 and request the
RDB steering group to endorse these as
the only permitted entries within the fields
defined.
RCM NA 2011:
RCM NA recommended the use of the
standard code MIS_MIS_0_0_0 to replace
'No_Matrix' for fisheries not specified in
Annex IV of the Commission Decision.
RCM NA 2012:
RCM NA 2012 recommends allow for new
species com-positions to link to certain gear
types to allow appropriate classification of
metiers. The following species compositions
are proposed:
SPF, DEF & DWS to be allowed for gear
LHM
MPD to be allowed for gear PTB
MCF to be allowed for gear SDN
MOL to be allowed for gear TBB
RCM NA 2012:
RCM NA 2012 recommends that the metier
descriptions for fishing grounds under the
remit of the RCM be updated by each MS in
as much detail as possible. These descriptions
to be used as a tool, in conjunction with
outputs from the RDB, to identify metiers
that could be combined for regionally
coordinated sampling plans.
RCM NA 2012:
RCM NA recommends MS put in place
bilateral agreements for sampling of landings
abroad where applicable.
III.C.4
If Latvia will upload the data in RDB’s it will
be considered.
Accomplished
Accomplished
Not relevant for Latvia
Actions to avoid shortfalls
No actions are needed.
III.C Metier related variables
CECAF area
III.C.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Latvia started to collect data from this area in 2010. There is one metier
containing 7 vessels in CECAF area which is targeting small pelagic fishes with pelagic
trawl. Starting with 2012 the sampling of pelagic fishery is performed on the basis of
multi-lateral agreement between Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland
by local observers. The results of this sampling could be found in the Annual Report of
the Netherlands.
III.C.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
14
The sampling of pelagic fisheries was performed by local observers on the basis
of multi-lateral agreement between Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and
Poland. The results of this sampling could be found in the Annual Report of the
Netherlands.
III.C.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
Two RCMs On Long Distance Fisheries in 2010 and 2011 recommended that all
MS involved in the industrial pelagic fishery ensure adequate sampling coverage for
landings and discards. Latvia has performed length measurements of the main species in
2010-2011. Besides the Netherlands took the initiative of coordination of this sampling
that resulted in conclusion of the agreement between Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the
Netherlands and Poland that starting with 2012 the sampling will be performed by the
local observers and the MS will financially contribute to this sampling. RCMs On Long
Distance Fisheries in 2012 recommended to continue this cooperation.
III.C.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
No shortfalls.
III.D Recreational fisheries
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d)
III.D.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
In Latvia recreational fisheries could be divided in two basic parts:
 Personal consumption fisheries operating by limited number of static gears used
in commercial fisheries – gillnets, fyke-nets and bottom long-lines;
 Angling operating by angling tackle (rods etc.).
Both these fisheries are regulated by different legislation. Recreational fishermen
fishing with commercial gears are obliged to report the catches in the same way as
commercial fishermen. These catches are included in total catch statistics.
Anglers are not obliged to report the catches, except for salmon and sea trout in the
rivers were angling targeting these species is licensed. The share of angler’s catches in
fisheries is estimated from inquiries, sold angling cards and returned licenses which
contained information on catches.
The share of recreational fisheries (t) in Latvia, 2013
Fisheries
Angling
Self
Commercial
consumption
fisheries
fisheries
Coastal
50
139.1
3518.7
Inland
1500
56.0
261.0
Total
1550
195.1
3779.7
Recreational in
% from total
5.1
85.6
31.6
Share of recreational and commercial fisheries in coastal waters of Latvia by species (t),
20131
Species
Commercial
Self- consumption
Turbot
8.7
0.9
Pearch
26.8
8.4
Salmon
5,9
2.2
Cod
91.3
Not allowed
Flounder
129.1
31.0
Herring
3078.4
39.7
15
Sea trout
5.4
3.0
Eel
0.2
1.6
1
- species included in LATVIAN NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR COLLECTION OF
FISHERIES DATA
Cod, salmon and eel are fish species which are required to be sampled according
to Appendix IV of Commission Decision (2008/949/EC). Latvia has requested derogation
to sample cod recreational fishery (see text table below).
Short title
of
derogation
NP
proposal
section
Recreational
fisheries of
cod
III.D
Biological –
Recreationa
l fisheries
Type of
data Variables
Biological
variables
Region
Baltic
Sea
(ICES
areas III
b-d)
Derogation
approved
or rejected
Year of
approval
or rejection
of past
requests
for
derogations
approved
2012
Reason/Justific
ation for
derogation
Negligible
catches
In DCP of 2011- 2013 Latvia obtained derogation for sampling cod. In 2012
Latvia performed sampling of cod catches on the vessel from which the angling of cod
was carried out. The observations showed that the catches were negligible that is
evidently determined by the present pattern of cod distribution. Cod is mainly distributed
in the southern Baltic. During the angling season the total catch of cod was 79 fishes. All
fishes were measured. The survey was not conducted in the frames of DCF.
In total the catches of salmon and eel by recreational fisheries in Latvia in 2013
were estimated from two data sources:
 Log-books in self consumption fisheries,
 Data reported from licensed angling.
The angling of salmon is allowed by licensed angling in three rivers and the anglers
are obliged to return information on catches.
Salmon angling in the river Daugava and it’s tributary Bullupe is allowed whole the
year because artificial status of salmon stock. Salmon angling is allowed in coastal waters
too, however there is no information that it is performed.
The catches of eel by anglers were estimated in inquiry carried out in 2007. The
targeted angling of eel takes place mostly in few lakes where the eel has been artificially
restocked. In several such lakes also licensed angling has been introduced and the catches
of eel thus could be estimated. In other lakes and rives the catches of eel by anglers are
occasional.
The catch of cod, salmon and eel in (t) recreational fisheries in Latvia, 2013
Species
Cod
Salmon
Eel
Type of recreational fishery
Angling
Self
consumption
fishery
0.1
Not allowed
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.2
Total
recreational
0.1
1.0
0.5
There is no recreational fishery for sharks in the Baltic Sea.
16
III.D.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Data from personal consumption fisheries are exhaustive because fishermen are
obliged to report the catches by the same type logbooks as commercial ones. These data
cover all seasons, gear allowed and watercourses.
Information on catches of salmon by anglers was obtained from reports on
purchased and returned licences and is also exhaustive because only the licensed angling
of salmon was allowed in 2013. However, it could be considered that not all licenses are
returned and catches in licenced angling could be slightly underestimated. Information on
catches of eel by anglers was obtained from reports on purchased and returned licences
and estimated by the inquiry.
Since the coverage of salmon and eel landings was planned exhaustive no
precision targets were foreseen.
III.D.3
Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
A Workshop on Planning Group of Recreational Fisheries (PGRFS) was held in
May 2011. The report of PGRFS gives a summary of the national recreational fisheries
and the actions related to the recreational fisheries planned to be carried out by MS
according to their NP proposals in 2011-2013 for cod, eel, and salmon. In case of Latvia
it was concluded that derogation is justified by the low catches. The annual catches of
given species were found to be very low, only few hundred kilograms or even less.
The workshop developed guidelines for best practices for sampling recreational
fishery, methods recommended for optimal sampling design and unified sampling
protocol. Latvia has participated in the meetings of Working Group on Recreational
Fisheries Surveys (WGRFS) in 2012 and 2013. WGRFS considers that its role is to
provide recreational fishery data for stock assessment and advice that in the case of
Latvian negligible recreational catches does not have important influence on the
assessment results.
RCM Baltic was in opinion that in most cases in the Baltic Sea the data on
recreational catches could be collected nationally. RCM considers that the room for
coordination between MS presently is small and it is premature to propose harmonization
of sampling between MS.
According to European Commission Regulation (EC) Nr. 404/2011 in 2012
Latvia performed a pilot study on estimation of cod angling from coastal boats and
fishing vessels. The catches of cod were negligible.
RCM Baltic 2011:
1. MS is requested to submit the
Latvian recreational fishery in marine
recreational fishery available data
areas for cod, salmon and eel is small and
(total removals, any biological data) to till 2012 the sampling was not performed.
the next meeting of WGBFAS,
In 2012 Latvia performed a pilot study on
WGBAST and WGEEL in 2012.
estimation of cod angling from coastal
2. ICES WGBFAS, WGBAST and
boats and fishing vessels.
WGEEL are asked to consider the
usefulness of inclusion the recreational
fishery data into the stock assessment.
IF it is useful for certain stock WG
should provide the list of necessary
data needed from recreational fishery
in the Baltic.
17
III.D.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
There are no shortfalls to note.
III.D Recreational fisheries
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas)
Latvia hasn’t recreational fisheries in the North Atlantic.
Recreational fisheries : Linkage with stock
assessment needs
RCM NA recommends the future ICES
Planning Group on Recreational Fisheries
Surveys [PGRFS] to address the issue of the
use of the data collected for assessment
purpose, in particular by considering

the stocks boundaries used for
assessment in the sampling design;

the need to collect length, and age
when relevant, information;

the ratio commercial/recreational
catches in relation with management
measures and size of the stock.
Recreational fisheries : Best practice
RCM NA recommends MS to prepare their
NP Proposal 2011-2013 on recreational
fisheries based on the DCF requirements,
using their own knowledge of the fisheries,
without waiting for the outcomes of the
PGRFS. RCM NA recommends also MS to
consider the recommendations of the ICES
WGEEL.
Latvia has no recreational fisheries in North
Atlantic areas.
Latvia has no recreational fisheries in North
Atlantic areas.
III.D Recreational fisheries
CECAF area
Latvia does not have recreational fisheries in the CECAF area.
III.E Stock related variables
Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d)
III.E.1
Achievements: results and deviations from NP
The achieved levels of age, weight, sex ratio and maturity sampling are presented
in standard table III.E.3. For the majority of fish species the planned sampling levels have
been reached. The sampling has been performed in two ways: onboard sampling and
harbor sampling.
Latvia has planned excess sampling, e.g. herring sampling in trap-net fishery that
is used as tuning fleet in the assessment. In many cases sampling has been done for
species which have local importance but have relatively small catches therefore the
required sampling level would be deficient and the excess sampling has taken place due
to continuation of the previous sampling practices because the data series are used for
analytical assessment purposes. Excess sampling has been realised on the national
expense of Latvia.
18
Latvia has carried out salmon parr and smolt sampling in Salaca River (Latvian
salmon index river), as well as the number of ascending salmon in 2011 was estimated
for the first time by the twofold count of salmon nests in the Salaca river in November. In
2013 the count of salmon nests was unsuccessful due to very high water level in rivers.
However, for European eel the total number of age, weight, sex ratio and maturity
sampling was lower than planned, (respectively 43%). For European eel the planned
sampling was not reached due to low catches of this species. The catches of eel in Latvia
are usually very small. During fishing season of 2013 in the sampling site the catches
were untypically low. All caught specimens were included in samples.
For such species as Salmo salar and Salmo truta maturity sampling and for
Stizostedion lucioperca sex ratio and maturity sampling is problematical because
fishermen prefer to sell these fishes as whole.
Latvia has asked for derogation to collect biological data of whitefish, however
the request of Latvia was rejected. Therefore Latvia has performed biological sampling of
whitefish.
III.E.2
Data quality: results and deviations from NP
The precision levels have been calculated for length and weight at age, sex ratio
and sexual maturity of all collected fish species Latvia has planned the sampling at CV
0.025.
For the turbot biological information was collected from the metier
(GNS_DEF_>=157_0_0). Metier was not displayed in NP but has been sampled because
it is a metier that is targeting turbot and although both effort and landings are low, it has
local importance.
During 2013 for the estimation of precision, the methods included in the COST
toolbox (for species that had data in COST format) as well as analytical and boot-strap
methods adopted for the calculation of precision were used.
The main reasons why the precision levels of national data are deviating from
target can be summarized as follows:
1) Differences in growth of males and females and also in sex distribution by ages;
2) For sex –ratio@ age variable there were not enough age readings by species. If target
should be met it is necessary to increase age reading samples or the target should be
changed;
3) Lower number of sampled fish in youngest and eldest age groups;
4) There were too many length classes and metier groups and low number of fishes in
each group;
5) Evidently that the required precision levels are too high and to reach them the number
of samples had to be substantially increased for species which have relatively low
catches. This would accordingly increase the expenses of the sampling.
III.E.3
Follow-up of Regulations and international recommendations
The following RCM Baltic recommendations have been taken into account by
Latvia for stock-related variables.
RCM recommendations
RCM Baltic 2011:
MS to look into discard sampling program according
to WKACCU 2008 guidelines (12 aspects).
RCM Baltic 2011:
For institutes collecting small volumes of age samples
for certain species and when new species are to be
sampled, task sharing of age reading is necessary in
order to optimize the use of age reading expertise. The
Responsive actions
Accomplished
Possible cooperation will be
discussed during 2012.
19
RCM Baltic recommends the following MS to
investigate their capability to read relevant age
samples of interested MS:
(1) Germany: plaice and dab
(2) Denmark: plaice, dab and sole
(3) Poland: flounder and turbot
(4) Sweden: eel and salmon
(5) Finland: salmon
The suggested coordination should be discussed,
agreed and decided by the National Correspondents so
the first agreements could be established before
December 2011.
RCM Baltic 2011:
Regarding EA and MSFD, RCM Baltic suggests
WGBIFS and WGBFAS to address more
consideration to stomach sampling
The cod stomach sampling has been
renewed in 2012
Latvia supports the task sharing in age reading between member states. This
problem has been pointed out already in 2010 by RCM Baltic. In most of the member
states for some stocks (species) the number of collected otoliths is too small to have an
expert in age reading for these species. Therefore it would be desirable that this small
number of otoliths is treated by member states collecting remarkably bigger amounts. In
the Baltic for Latvia such species is eel and Latvia has indicated in several meetings that
it is collecting eel otoliths but is not determining the age. Unfortunately nobody has
agreed to read them, yet. Therefore Latvia has sent its expert for training of age reading
of eel and for the preparation of eel otoliths. The age reading of eel will be started in
2014.
There are no specific recommendations for the Member states concerning stock
related variables in RCM Baltic 2012.
III.E.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
For 2014 the sampling scheme will be adopted to take into account the decrease
of the number of fishing vessels or fishing activity and to ensure that the planned number
of biological variables is achieved.
III.E Stock related variables
North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas)
III.E.1
Achievements: results and deviations from NP
The sampling of redfish (NEAFC area) fishery was carried out by observers on
board of fishing vessel. In 2013 shrimps fishery in NAFO 3M was not conducted.
Concerning redfish fishery biological sampling, Latvia has collected only length
and sex data and collected otoliths for age determination. Latvia has not collected other
biological variables because it is very complicated to organize observer trips in this
fishery. Latvia has only one vessel fishing in the North Atlantic and targeting redfish.
Therefore there are no other options for sampling. The vessel is not entering Latvian
ports and the landings are made in ports outside EU (mainly in Iceland). The fishery
schedule is unpredictable and landing ports are chosen depending on market conditions.
Therefore the only solution to perform sampling was to sign contract with some crew
member who was instructed how to make measurements of the fishes and how to extract
otoliths. On the other hand information collected on redfish length distribution as well as
catch composition and by-catch of other species could be rather valuable as it covers all
20
the performed trips. Latvia considers that in such cases the sampling should be performed
in the landing ports.
Latvia did not perform estimation of the precision levels because we don’t have
performed age reading of redfish although the otoliths have been collected. Latvia does
not have expert in age reading of redfish. Latvia supports the task sharing in age reading
between member states. This problem has been pointed out already in 2010 by RCM
Baltic. In most of the member states for some stocks (species) the number of collected
otoliths is too small to have an expert in age reading for these species. Therefore it would
be desirable that this small number of otoliths is treated by member states collecting
remarkably bigger amounts. In the North Atlantic for Latvia such species is redfish and
Latvia has indicated in several meetings that it is collecting redfish otoliths but is not
determining the age (Workshop of National Age Reading Coordinators, Boulogne-surMer, 2011). Unfortunately nobody has agreed to read them yet. In 2012 Latvia contacted
the chairman of ICES working group dealing with the assessment of redfish and informed
him about the collected otoliths. It was promised to assist with this issue but it has not
been done, yet.
III.E.2
Data quality: results and deviations from NP
During 2013 for the estimation of precision the methods of analytical and boot-strap
methods adopted for the calculation of precision were used.
The precision level estimation for redfish was not carried out because Latvia has
not performed age reading although the otoliths have been collected (see explanation in
section III.E.1).
III.E.3
Follow-up of Regulations and international recommendations
The recommendations for the biological sampling in the North Atlantic are in the
text table below.
RCM recommendations
RCM NA 2011:
RCM NA recommends MS to complete
properly the tables III.E.1 and III.E.2
RCM NA 2011:
RCM NA recommends an inter sessional
study on combining the biological data in
FishFrame, and estimating the biological
parameters at the stock level. Blue whiting
(Micromesistius poutassou) was listed as a
candidate due to the number of MS having
sampling obligations.
RCM NA 2011:
RCM NA recommends all MS to have a
careful look at the tables in annex VII, in
order to identify stocks for which a bilateral
agreement would improve the sampling
scheme.
RCM NA 2012:
In respect of the development of the RDB
and the protection of the data and the
ownership of the data, a draft Data Policy
Document has been established. The data
policy document is based on the current
Responsive actions
Accomplished
Latvia has no blue whiting fishery o in North
Atlantic areas
Latvia will consider this in future
Latvia supports the development of RDB.
Additionally Latvian fishery on Sebastes sp.
in North Atlantic area for 2013 has been
already implemented in FishFrame database.
21
situation but need to be reviewed in all its
aspects in order to be satisfactory for all MS.
The data policy document is a “flexible”
document and must be updated as the needs
and the development of the RDB are
changing. For example, a new data policy
document will be prepared if there are
changes to the exchange format (update is
needed).
RCM NA 2012 recommends MS put in
place bilateral agreements for sampling of
landings abroad where applicable.
Latvia supports this recommendation,
however in relation to Latvian fisheries in
NA it has on-board sampling and the
landings are mainly outside EU
Latvia will prepare description for two ships
RCM NA 2012 recommends that the metier
fishing in NA
descriptions for fishing grounds under the
remit of the RCM be up-dated by each MS in
as much detail as possible. These descriptions
to be used as a tool, in conjunction with
outputs from the RDB, to identify metiers
that could be combined for regionally
coordinated sampling plans.
III.E.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
During the Workshop on National Age Reading Coordinators [WKNARC]
(Boulogne-sur-Mer, 2011) it was discussed the possibility to exchange collected age
structures of fishes for which national laboratories do not have experienced readers or
when it would be unprofitable to prepare an age reader for species for which the number
of collected age reading structures is low. It is the case with redfish for Latvia.
WKNARC recommended that coordination between MS is established to solve this
problem (see explanation in Section III.E.1).
Till now Latvia has not succeeded to find interested ICES working group or
institute that would be willing to get the collected redfish otoliths and perform their age
reading, although Latvia has informed on this issue several ICES working groups like
WKNARC, WRAMDEEP, AFWG. Latvia will continue efforts to find the possibility to
perform the age reading of the collected redfish otoliths.
III.E Stock related variables
CECAF
III.E.1
Achievements: results and deviations from NP
Latvia started to collect data from this area in 2010. There is one metier
containing 7 vessels in CECAF area which is targeting small pelagic fishes with pelagic
trawl. Starting with 2012 the sampling of pelagic fisheries is performed on the basis of
multi-lateral agreement between Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland
by local observers.
The sampling results are presented in the Annual report of the Netherlands.
III.E.2
Data quality: results and deviations from NP
22
The sampling of pelagic fisheries was performed by local observers on the basis
of multi-lateral agreement between Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and
Poland.
The sampling results are presented in the Annual report of the Netherlands.
III.E.3
Follow-up of Regulations and international recommendations
Two RCMs On Long Distance Fisheries in 2010 and 2011 recommended that all
MS involved in the industrial pelagic fishery ensure adequate sampling coverage for
landings and discards. Latvia has performed length measurements of the main species in
2010-2011. Besides the Netherlands took the initiative of coordination of this sampling
that resulted in conclusion of the agreement between Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the
Netherlands and Poland that starting with 2012 the sampling is performed by the local
observers and the MS will financially contribute to this sampling.
III.E.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Actions to avoid shortfalls are not needed
III.F Transversal variables
The format for the economic part of the Annual Report submission is according to
the Guidelines for the submission of Annual Report on the National Data Collection
Programmes under Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, Commission Regulation (EC)
665/2008 and Commission Decision 2010/93/EU; Version 2013. In Table III.F.1 the
footnote c has not been applied but this will be taken into account the next year.
III.F.1 Capacity
III.F.1.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
All Latvian fishing vessels are registered in the Latvian Ships Register of the
Latvian Maritime Administration (LSR). Latvian fishing vessels are included in the
Fishing Vessel Register (FVR) which is part of the Integrated Control and Information
System for Latvian Fisheries (ICIS). The FVR contains full information of vessels
capacity parameters listed in the table III.F.1. and also includes data for inactive vessels.
III.F.1.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Type of data collection for Latvian fishing fleet is “Census” for each variable
listed in Appendix VIII of the DCF (Commission Decision 2010/93/EU).
III.F.1.3. Actions to avoid shortfalls
Actions to avoid shortfalls are not needed.
III.F.2 Effort
III.F.2.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
23
The information on fishing effort for 2013 was retrieved from ICIS database. The
logbook information covered all fishing vessels operating in the Baltic Sea. The vessels
operating in the coastal zone have obligations to fill coastal logbooks and this
information is also included in the ICIS database. Calculations of energy consumption are
based on fuel price data and fuel costs which were obtained from questionnaires.
For the distant-sea vessels in NAFO, NEAFC and Mauritanian and Moroccan
EEZ effort data were obtained from logbooks and were collected according to Appendix
VIII of the DCF (Commission Decision 2010/93/EU). The information on effort data for
2013 is shown in the Table III.F.1.
III.F.2.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Type of data collection is “Census” for each variable listed in Appendix VIII of
the DCF (Commission Decision 2010/93/EU).
III.F.2.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
No recommendations relevant to this module were made by regional and
international bodies in 2012.
SGRN recommendation 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual
Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
SGRN recommends to clarify how to
regard
inactive vessels having no fishing license
but being included in the national fleet
register.
SGRN recommendation 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual
Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
SGRN recommends quality indicators and
figures in Tab. III.B.3 to be presented in the
same way as in Tab. III.F.1.
SGRN recommendation 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual
Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
SGRN recommends that all MS to
thoroughly check the data quality before
submitting them and to use the electronic
upload procedure and eventual built-in
automatic quality checks. All MS must to
submit data in the given time frame.
SGRN recommendation 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual
Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
SGRN recommends all MS should collect
economic and transversal data regarding
the fishing fleet for all fishing vessels in the
Responsive actions
The vessels which don’t have any landings
and effort are identified as inactive. For the
inactive vessels having no fishing license
the capital value and capacity data were
collected.
Responsive actions
The quality indicators in the table III.B.3.
and III.F.1. are presented in the same way
and the fleet segments are consistent.
Responsive actions
The transversal data were checked and
submitted in time stipulated in data call.
Responsive actions
Latvia collected transversal data for each
fishing vessel which had fishing activity
and was included in fleet register during
24
vessel register during the reference year, the reference year.
instead of only collecting data on vessels in
the fleet register on the 1st of January in the
relevant reference year.
III.F.2.4. Actions to avoid shortfalls
Actions to avoid shortfalls are not needed
III.F.3 Landings
III.F.3.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
The landing data collection for 2013 is shown in the Table III.F.1.The information
on landings for 2013 was obtained from logbooks and covered all fishing vessels
operating in the Baltic Sea, NAFO, NEAFC and Mauritanian and Moroccan EEZ.
For the calculation of variable Value of landing the information about prices was
collected from sales notes and questionnaires. The delivered price data were analysed and
the most adequate prices used for value of landings calculations.
III.F.3.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Type of data collection is “Census”. For the information delivered from
questionnaires the data response rate and achieved sample rate was 100%.
III.F.3.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
There are no specific recommendations concerning landings data for Appendix
VIII of the DCF (Commission Decision 2010/93/EU).
III.F.3.4. Actions to avoid shortfalls
Actions to avoid shortfalls are not needed.
III.G Research surveys at sea
III.G.1
Achievements: Results and deviations from NP proposal
In 2013 Latvia planned to carry out five Priority 1 research surveys in the Baltic
Sea. All surveys have been carried out as planned in NP proposal.
In standard table III.G.1 the performed activities during the surveys are shown.
The route of the surveys is shown in Figures 9.1.-9.5. The performed surveys are as
follows:
1) Baltic International Trawl Survey in the first quarter (BITS Q1). The survey was
conducted on 05-13 March on the rented research vessel “Baltica” from National Marine
Fisheries Research Institute in Gdynia, Poland. The primary purpose of the survey is to
produce abundance estimates and indices of recruitment for cod in the Eastern Baltic
(Sub-divisions 25-32) that are necessary for tuning VPA and prediction of the
recruitment. The survey is conducted in collaboration with national institutes from
Denmark, Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania and Sweden within the framework of
ICES. During the survey the hauls are performed according to the positions determined
25
by the coordinator of the survey (ICES WGBIFS). If the survey time allowed the
additional hauls were performed. The length, weight, sex and maturity stage of cod is
determined on board of the vessel. The age determination is performed in national
laboratory. Additionally the information about other main species – flounder, turbot,
herring and sprat were collected. During the survey also the basic hydrological
parameters (temperature, salinity, oxygen content) were measured. Collection of the data
from the echo-integration conducted during the haul time and between hauls locations
was performed. The survey is suitable for the calculation of the ecosystem indicators 1 to
4 listed in the appendix XIII. The tasks of the survey were performed entirely. Seven
additional hauls were made in Sub-division 26.
26
Figure 9.1. Trawling positions in the BITS first quarter survey in March 2013
(● trawling positions;
₊ hydrological stations;
●●●
border of fishing zone).
27
2) Baltic International Trawl Survey in the fourth quarter (BITS Q4). The survey was
conducted on 03-12 December on the rented research vessel “Baltica”. The primary
purpose of the survey is to produce abundance estimates and indices of recruitment for
cod in the Eastern Baltic (Sub-divisions 25-32) that are necessary for tuning VPA and
prediction of the recruitment. The survey is conducted in collaboration with national
institutes from Denmark, Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Estonia and Sweden
within the framework of ICES. During the survey the hauls are performed according to
the positions determined by the coordinator of the survey (ICES WGBIFS). The length,
weight, sex and maturity stage of cod is determined on board of the vessel. The age
determination is performed in national laboratory. Additionally the information about
other main species – flounder, turbot, herring and sprat were collected. During the survey
also the basic hydrological parameters (temperature, salinity, oxygen content) were
measured. Collection of the data from the echo-integration conducted during the haul
time and between hauls locations was performed. The survey is suitable for the
calculation of the ecosystem indicators 1 to 4 listed in the appendix XIII. The number of
hauls performed during the survey was lower than planned due to very bad weather
conditions.
The primary data from both BITS are stored in the BIODATA database, as well
as in ICES DATRAS database.
3) Baltic International Acoustic Survey in autumn (BIAS). The survey was
performed on 9-18 October on the rented research vessel “Baltica”. The survey was
carried out in Sub-divisions 26 and 28 including territorial waters of Latvian EEZ. The
main aims of the survey are to obtain indices of recruitment for sprat that together with
similar data from the Russian survey are used for prediction of the recruitment of sprat, to
achieve abundance estimates of herring and sprat which are used for tuning VPA for the
assessment of herring in Sub-divisions 25-29, +32 and of sprat in Sub-divisions 22-32 of
the Baltic Sea. The survey is conducted in collaboration with national institutes from
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Poland, Russia and Sweden within the framework
of ICES. From each trawl the length, weight, sex and maturity of herring and sprat are
determined and otoliths for age determination are taken. During the survey also the basic
hydrological parameters (temperature, salinity, oxygen content) were measured.
Collected data are stored in ICES databases BAD1 and FishFrame Acoustics (former
BAD2), as well as in the local database BIODATA. The survey is suitable for the
calculation of the ecosystem indicators 1 to 4 listed in the appendix XIII. The tasks of the
survey were performed entirely.
4) Gulf of Riga acoustic herring survey (GRAHS). The survey was performed on
23-30 July on a rented commercial fisheries vessel “Ulrika” in the Gulf of Riga (Subdivision 28.1). The main aim of the survey is to obtain abundance estimates of herring in
the Gulf of Riga which are used for tuning VPA for the assessment of the Gulf of Riga
herring (separate assessment unit). The survey is conducted in collaboration with national
institute from Estonia within the framework of ICES. From each trawl the length, weight,
sex and maturity of herring and otoliths for age determination are taken. During the
survey also the basic hydrological parameters (temperature, salinity, oxygen content)
were measured. Collected data are stored in the local database BIODATA. The survey is
suitable for the calculation of the ecosystem indicators 1 to 3 listed in the appendix XIII.
The total number of days at sea was shorter than planned due to very good weather
conditions. The tasks of the survey concerning the route of the survey and the number of
hauls were performed entirely.
28
G8
G9
H0
H1
58.5
45
58.0
1
32
4
44
SD 28
8
7
57.5
5
40 A6
9
37
11
10
13
43
12
57.0
42
43
16 15
45 A 14
17
56.5
41
46
56.0
SD 26
55.5
18.0
19.0
40
20.0
21.0
22.0
Figure 9.2. Trawling positions in the BITS fourth quarter survey in December 2013
(● trawling positions; ▲ hydrological stations; ▬▬ border of fishing zone).
29
59.0°
G8
G9
H0
H1
46
58.5°
17
SD 28
18
19
16
58.0°
15
57.5°
45
14
13
44
12
11
43
10
Latitude, N
57.0°
9
8
7
6
5
56.5°
3
2
42
4
41
1
56.0°
40
55.5°
SD 26
39
55.0°
38
54.5°
18.0°
19.0°
20.0°
21.0°
22.0°
Longitude, E
Figure 9.3. Cruise track design and hauls in BIAS, October 2013
(Baltic Sea, ICES Sub-division 28.2, r/v "Baltica”, 10-19.10.2013).
5) Sprat acoustic survey (SPRAS) or Baltic acoustic spring survey (BASS). The
survey was performed on 20-29 of May on a rented commercial fisheries vessel “Ulrika”.
The survey was carried out in Sub-divisions 26 and 28 including territorial waters of
30
Latvian EEZ. The main aims of the survey are to obtain to achieve abundance estimates
of sprat which are used for tuning VPA of sprat in Sub-divisions 22-32 of the Baltic Sea.
The survey is conducted in collaboration with national institutes from Germany, Russia
and Lithuania within the framework of ICES. From each trawl the length, weight, sex and
maturity of herring and sprat are determined and otoliths for age determination are taken.
During the survey also the basic hydrological parameters (temperature, salinity, oxygen
content) were measured. Collected data are stored in ICES databases BAD1 and
FishFrame Acoustics (former BAD2), as well as in the local database BIODATA. The
survey is suitable for the calculation of the ecosystem indicators 1 to 4 listed in the
appendix XIII. The tasks of the survey were performed entirely.
H2
H4
H3
Pärnu
ESTONIA
re
Sa a
14
a
ma
15
45
Kihnu
18
13
58.0°
12
11
19
16
17
Latitude, N
1
Ruhnu
Kolka
10
9
Salacgriva44
8
2
3
57.5°
Roja
7
6
5
43
4
LATVIA
Riga
57.0°
22.0°
23.0°
24.0°
Longitude, E
Figure 9.4. Cruise track design and hauls of GRAHS in July 2013
(Gulf of Riga, ICES Sub-division 28.1, f/v "Ulrika", 23-30.07.2013).
31
59.0°
G9
G8
H0
H1
46
58.5°
3
SD 28
4
58.0°
45
5
2
57.5°
44
1
43
Latiitude, N
57.0°
10
42
9
56.5°
8
7
6 11
41
56.0°
40
55.5°
SD 26
39
55.0°
38
54.5°
18.0°
19.0°
20.0°
21.0°
22.0°
Longitude, E
Figure 9. 5. Cruise track design and hauls in SPRAS, May 2013
(Baltic Sea, ICES Sub-division 28.2, r/v "Darius”, 21.-30.05.2013).
III.G.2
Data quality: Results and deviations from NP proposal
Baltic International Trawl Survey in the fourth quarter (BITS Q4). Due to bad
weather conditions the number of performed fish hauls was lower than planned. The 17
hauls were made from the planned 25.
32
For the Gulf of Riga acoustic herring survey (GRAHS) the total number of days
at sea was shorter than planned due to very good weather conditions. The tasks of the
survey concerning the route of the survey and the number of hauls were performed
entirely.
III.G.3
Regional and international recommendations
No regional and international recommendations
III.G.4
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Any shortfall could be noted.
IV. Module of the evaluation of the economic situation of the aquaculture and
processing industry
The format for the economic part of the Annual Report submission is represented
according to the Guidelines for the submission of Annual Report on the National Data
Collection Programmes under Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, Commission
Regulation (EC) 665/2008 and Commission Decision 2010/93/EU; Version 2013.
IV.A Collection of data concerning the aquaculture
There is only one state hatchery which performs rearing of salmon and sea trout
smolts. All information on this enterprise is public and available in the internet. The
Commission Decision 2010/93/EU (Appendix X List of economic variables for the
aquaculture sector) defines that collection of data for fresh water species is not
mandatory.
There is a derogation in Latvian National Programme 2011-2013: “ Latvia will
not present economic data in aquaculture sector because aquaculture enterprises in Latvia
perform farming of fresh water fish species for which the collection of data is not
mandatory according to Commission Regulation 2008/949/EC (IV.A.2(2))”.
IV.B Collection of data concerning the processing industry
IV.B.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
Economic data in 2013 were collected for 2012. The company segmentation was
applied according to the Appendix XII of the Commission Decision 2010/93/EU.
The number of enterprises and planned sampling is shown in the standard table
IV.B.1. The data were collected from all economically active enterprises in 2012. The
coverage rate was 100 %.
Economic variables of processing industry are based on the information provided
by Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (CSB). All information was provided according to
Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (NACE Code
Rev. 2). CSB collects economic data basing on the questionnaire/statistical forms and
administrative sources (such as State Revenue Service database). Questionnaire/statistical
forms are distributed by CSB to the owners of processing enterprises. The participation
of the responders is obligatory according to the Latvian national legislation. The lists of
33
economic variables from Appendix XII received from different data sources for all
segments are presented in standard table IV.B.2.
The questionnaire forms cover all members of the population in 2012. Coverage
rate is 100%. Despite economic data collection is based on questionnaires form,
participation of the responders is obligatory according to the Latvian legislation. Thus
type of data collection is “Census” for each variable listed in Appendix XII of
Commission Decision 949/08. Achieved sample rate, Response rate and CV (if the
response rate is less than 70 %) were calculated. The description of sampling strategy for
fish processing industry is shown in table IV.B.2.
IV.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal
In case of administrative data sources for the receiving of the economic variables
Type of data collection is A (census) and Achieved sample rate, Response rate are 100%.
In the case of questionnaire forms the Type of data collection is A (census) and B
(Probability Sample Survey). The questionnaire forms cover all members of the
population. Achieved sample rate, Response rate and CV (if the response rate is less than
70 %) were calculated. The description of sampling strategy for fish processing industry
is shown in table IV.B.2.
IV.B.3 Follow-up of Regional and international recommendations
SGRN recommendation 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual
Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
SGRN recommends that MS should
consult with the national statistical offices
in order to improve efficiency and
guarantee consistency in the data collection
process. Efficiency can be improved
because national statistical offices could
already have information required to be
collected under the DCF. Data consistency
will be met if the same definitions are
applied.
SGRN recommendation 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual
Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
SGRN recommends an amendment to the
Commission
Decision
2010/93/EU,
Appendix XII, regarding the number of
enterprises in the processing sector.
Enterprises should be segmented or
specified by size category using number of
FTEs in each enterprise instead of the
number of employees in each enterprise.
SGRN recommendation 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual
Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
Responsive actions
All processing industry variables were
received from Latvian Central Statistical
Bureau and submitted according to
Appendix XII. The data were collected
according to EUROSTAT definition and
NACE rev 2 codes.
Responsive actions
The enterprises were segmented by size
category using number of FTEs for each
enterprise.
Responsive actions
34
SGRN recommends that MS to follow the
specification stated in the DCF and fully
comply with future data calls on economic
data related to the fish processing sector.
SGEGA recommendation 2010
(SGECA 10-03 Review of economic data
collected in relation to the DCF,
harmonisation of sampling strategies 20-24
September 2010, Salerno)
SGECA recommends that MS avoid
duplication of sampling effort, according to
statistical best practices. Therefore, in cases
where official statistics on economic data
on the processing sector cannot be used to
meet the requirements of the DCF, MS
should clearly explain the reason and
justify the use of additional surveys.
SGEGA recommendation 2010
(SGECA 10-03 Review of economic data
collected in relation to the DCF,
harmonisation of sampling strategies 20-24
September 2010, Salerno)
STECF recommends that MS describe
definitions and methods used to collect
economic data regardless the source used in
order to ensure transparency.
SGEGA recommendation 2010
(SGECA 10-03 Review of economic data
collected in relation to the DCF,
harmonisation of sampling strategies 20-24
September 2010, Salerno)
STECF recommends MS to crosschecking data coming from different
sources (for instance landings coming from
logbook and from surveys) and to use
proposed methods to assess the coherence
of estimates of different variables coming
from different data sources.
All reported processing industry data were
provided in the frame of Data Collection
requirements.
Responsive actions
All processing industry data were received
from Latvian Central Statistical Bureau.
Additional surveys are not needed.
Responsive actions
Definitions and description of methods
used to collect economic data were
provided.
Responsive actions
The data which come from different
sources were checked.
No recommendations relevant to this module were made by STECF or PGECON
in 2012.
IV.B.4: Actions to avoid shortfalls
The data for each economic variable for all company segments were received.
Actions to avoid shortfalls are not needed.
V.
Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine
ecosystem
V.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
35
The information that could be used for calculation of environmental indicators to
measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem (indicators 1-9) is shown in
standard table V.1.
The indicators 1- 4 require biological data on fish species from fishery
independent research surveys. These data have been collected annually through the
surveys carried out by research vessels in the Baltic Sea. Baltic International Trawl
Survey was performed in I and IV quarters in cooperation with other MS. Full list of
surveys is shown in the Table G.1. Individual biological data needed for calculation of
the indicators 1- 4 such as length, weight, age, sex and stage of maturity were recorded
for the majority of fish species.
The indicators 5 - 7 require the full access to VMS data accumulated in special
database. The VMS data are available on temporal resolution one record every 2 hours.
Spatial resolution could be obtained in dependence from requested conditions. For
research purposes, as well as if it will be requested, these data could be aggregated at
métier level 6 and be used for calculation of environmental indicators 5-7.
The indicator 8 “Discarding rates of commercially exploiting species” could be
calculated by using the observer trips data. The onboard sampling is regularly performed
in the fisheries targeting cod where the discarding regularly takes place. The on-board
sampling is also performed in sprat fishery where the discards are negligible and in
coastal fisheries where discards are occasional.
The indicator 9 “Fuel efficiency of fish capture” could be estimated for each
vessel segment based on the level 6 for the métier classification by region, quarter and
year taking into account proportionality with the quarterly effort by métier. Direct
estimation of Fuel consumption by métier is impossible as the aggregated economic data
(generated by CSB of Latvia) are summarized by fleet segment.
V.2
Actions to avoid shortfalls
Actions to avoid shortfalls are not needed.
VI.
Module for management and use of the data
VI.1
Achievements: Results and deviation from NP proposal
The biological, economic and transversal data for Latvian Fisheries collected
during the 2013 year were transmitted to ICES and EU Commission scientific structures in
accordance with the required procedure. Information on the data sampled and
transmitted in 2013 is shown in standard table VI_1.
There were no cases of data non-transmission and deviations from NP proposal.
In 2013 Latvia continued the development of ICIS and BIODATA data bases to
improve the delivery of data, checking and correction facilities.
The data on all fish species collected in commercial fisheries have been submitted
to Regional data base - FishFrame. It covers not only the fishery in the Baltic Sea but also
in the North Atlantic. Latvia will inform ICES North-Western Working Group on the
uploaded and available redfish data. Latvian national landing and effort data for 2013
were also submitted to FishFrame. The Latvian data from the scientific surveys are
submitted to ICES database DATRAS (two BITS surveys) and the data from the hydroacoustic surveys are submitted to FishFrame acoustics.
VI.2
Actions to avoid shortfalls
There were no deviations from the planned development of the databases. The
data have been processed, analysed and estimated exhaustively.
36
It is planned by the Latvian National Programme 2011-2013 to organise during
three years (2011-2013) one central website serving as an information deposit for all
information related to the data collection Framework. However, it has not been
accomplished yet.
VII Follow-up of STECF recommendations
Recommendations from previous years (2009 -2012) relevant to Latvia:
STECF SGECA recommendations 2009
(SGECA 09-02, Barcelona, Spain Recommendation).
SGECA recommends that MS should carefully assess the impact of nonresponse, especially in the case of census with low response rate.
Due to concerns raised over the implications for data time series if
clustering practices change over time, SGECA recommends that MS to
take this into account when they segment the fleet in order to produce
consistent time series over time.
SGECA recommends that MS assess the comparability of economic
variables over time, include the results in the TR and discuss
inconsistencies in trends.
SGECA recommends that MS indicate the data collection category that
is to be applied for each fleet segment and for each economic variable as
listed in Appendix VI of Council Decision 949/08. SGECA 09-02
identified three different categories of data collection scheme that covers
all the possible typologies of data collection:
A. Census, which attempts to collect data from all members of a
population.
B. Probability Sample Survey, in which data are collected from a
sample of a population members randomly selected
C. Non-Probability Sample Survey, in which data are collected from
a sample of population members not randomly selected.
STECF notes that this classification will facilitate the comparison of
survey methodologies among MS.
STECF also recommends that MS:
 include in their NPs for the period 2011-2013, a methodological
report to describe the sampling strategies. STECF also
recommends that MS adhere to the guidelines for the preparation
of the methodological report given in Table 4.1.1 below (adapted
from the report of the STECF-SGECA 09-02).
include in their annual Technical Reports, the data quality indicators given
in Table 4.2.2
STECF SGRN recommendations 2010
(SGRN 10-02 Evaluation of 2009 Annual Reports related to the Data
Collection Framework 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg)
Clarifications on the way information on sampling rates, sampling
schemes and the according figures has to be provided in Table III.B.1 of
both AR and NP and if this information should refer to clustered or
unclustered segments.
SGRN recommends to clarify how to regard inactive vessels having no
fishing license but being included in the national fleet register.
SGRN recommends quality indicators and figures in Tab. III.B.3 to be
presented in the same way as in Tab. III.F.1.
SGRN recommends to clarify in which way data collection schemes,
quality indicators and related figures should be provided in Tab. III.B.3 in
the case of variables which are calculated or estimated using other
variables which might be collected under different collection schemes.
Responsive actions
CV indicator will be calculated in the
case of census with low response rate
(<70%).
Latvia
follows
SGECA
09-02
recommendation
The analysis of comparability
economic variables has been made.
of
The data quality indicators were included
in Annual Report.
Responsive actions
The information on sampling rates,
sampling schemes and the according
figures was provided in the Table III.B.1.
for clustered and unclustered segments.
The vessels which have no any landings
and effort are identified as inactive. For
the inactive vessels having no fishing
license the capital value and capacity
data were collected.
The quality indicators in the table III.B.3.
and III.F.1. presented in the same way
and the fleet segments are consistent.
Capital value data were calculated for
inactive vessels and calculation method
was provided in the text (section II.B.2
Data quality: Results and deviation from
NP proposal). Capital costs, Capital
37
SGRN recommends to provide quality data in the 2010 AR even though
they are not compulsory.
SGRN recommends that MS should consult with the national statistical
offices in order to improve efficiency and guarantee consistency in the
data collection process. Efficiency can be improved because national
statistical offices could already have information required to be collected
under the DCF. Data consistency will be met if the same definitions are
applied.
SGRN recommends an amendment to the Commission Decision
2010/93/EU, Appendix XII, regarding the number of enterprises in the
processing sector. Enterprises should be segmented or specified by size
category using number of FTEs in each enterprise instead of the number
of employees in each enterprise.
SGRN recommends that MS to follow the specification stated in the DCF
and fully comply with future data calls on economic data related to the
fish processing sector.
Long-Distance Fisheries sampling
SGRN recommends that no derogations should be accepted for collecting
data in distant areas where EU fleets are operating according to fishing
agreement with non-EU Third Countries.
SGRN recommends the relevant MS to attend the RCM LDF
in future if the corresponding MS has a long-distance fishery
in "Other regions" and to be equipped with the necessary data,
background information and mandate to take decisions.
Complete consideration of fishing activities
SGRN recommends that MS should take all fishing activities under their
flag into account when implementing their NP.
value data were reported in the Table
III.B.3 due to the data collected by
questionnaires.
The quality data were provided for each
economic variable.
All processing industry variables were
received from Latvian Central Statistical
Bureau and submitted according to
Appendix XII. The data were collected
by EUROSTAT definition and NACE
rev 2 codes.
The enterprises were segmented by size
category using number of FTEs for each
enterprise.
All reported processing industry data
were provided in the frame of Data
Collection requirements.
Latvia started to collect biological data in
CECAF area in 2010. In 2012 in CECAF
area the sampling was performed by
local observers on the base of
multilateral agreement between
Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the
Netherlands and Poland.
Latvia participated in RCM LDF in
2010-2012.
Taken into account and performed by
Latvia
Reporting of landings vs. retained catches
SGRN recommends using the term 'retained catches'
instead of 'landings' throughout
Precision estimates
SGRN recommends a revision of DCF requirements
with regard to target precision levels (CVs) to be
achieved, as (yet) no MS has been able to reach any of
the required CVs.
STECF SGECA 10-02 recommendations 2010
(Annual Economic Report (AER) 2010 )
SGECA recommends that all MS to thoroughly check the data quality
before submitting them and to use the electronic upload procedure and
eventual built-in automatic quality checks. All MS must to submit data in
the given time frame.
SGECA recommends MS to report problems with the upload of data in
detail to JRC and DG MARE.
Taken into account
SGECA recommends all MS should collect economic and transversal
data regarding the fishing fleet for all fishing vessels in the vessel register
during the reference year, instead of only collecting data on vessels in the
fleet register on the 1st of January in the relevant reference year.
Latvia
collected
transversal
and
economic data for each fishing vessel
which has fishing activity and is included
into fleet register during the reference
year.
STECF SGEGA recommendation 2010
(SGECA 10-03 Review of economic data collected in relation to the DCF,
harmonisation of sampling strategies 20-24 September 2010, Salerno)
Latvia agrees with this statement
Responsive actions
The economic data were checked and
submitted in time stipulated in data call.
The recommendation was taken into
account.
Responsive actions
38
SGECA recommends that MS avoid duplication of sampling effort,
according to statistical best practices. Therefore, in cases where official
statistics on economic data on the processing sector cannot be used to
meet the requirements of the DCF, MS should clearly explain the reason
and justify the use of additional surveys.
All processing industry data were
received from Latvian Central Statistical
Bureau. Additional surveys are not
needed.
SGECA recommends that MS describe definitions and methods used to
collect economic data regardless the source used in order to ensure
transparency.
Definitions and description of methods
used to collect economic data were
provided.
SGECA recommends MS to cross-checking data coming from different
sources (for instance landings coming from logbook and from surveys)
and to use proposed methods to assess the coherence of estimates of
different variables coming from different data sources.
STECF notes that the Perpetual Inventory Method (PIM) to estimate fleet
capital values, as required by the DCF, creates comparable results on the
capital values of fishing fleets among MS. STECF notes that the DCF
requires MS to estimate both replacement and historical values, which
could create ambiguity when one value has to be chosen for economic
analysis. STECF notes that, although valuation at historical prices is usual
in company accounts, it cannot be compared with national accounting or
other economic statistics that are expressed at prices of a single period.
Therefore, STECF recommends use of replacement value in
macroeconomic analyses (as in the case of AER).
The data which comes from different
sources were checked.
STECF SGBRE 10-01 Recommendation 2010
Review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance
between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities 13-17 September 2010,
Edinburg
SGBRE recommendation Consider submitting their annual report in
English, to avoid the risk of poor translation of technical vocabulary.
Some MS reports included graphs in which the text had not been
translated. It would be helpful if MS could themselves translate any
elements, such as text in graphs, which the Commission translation
service will not translate. It might be necessary to advise MS which
elements will not be translated by the Commission translation service.
STECF EWG 11-19 recommendation 2011 (Review of economic data
collected in relation to the DCF and harmonisation of sampling strategies,
2011, Brussels, Belgium.)
EWG recommends that a digressive depreciation scheme should be
applied and the replacement value should be considered as the proper
basis for calculation of depreciation costs.
STECF EWG 11-17 Recommendations 2011
(Review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance
between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities, 7 -11 November, 2011,
Brussels, Belgium)
In their annual reports, MS should make a clear overall statement (or fleet
segment-specific statements) on balance between capacity and
opportunity. This is to encourage MS to acknowledge the current degree
of balance or imbalance between their fleets and their fishing
opportunities. The EWG recommends that MS choose from a range of
statements such as those presented below:
1. Capacity is substantially in excess of opportunity - means that
the fleet is capable of catching (at reference year catch rates) far
in excess of the permitted opportunity, or that the level of
Capital costs data were received from
CSP and were exhaustive.
For Capital value estimations for 2008 2010 the same formulas were used as
applied for calculation of the vessel
scrapping compensation in the frame of
Operational Programme of fleet
reduction (Regulation [EC] No
1198/2006 on the European Fisheries
Fund; COMMISSION REGULATION
[EC] No 498/2007)
Responsive actions
Latvia has submitted full report in
English.
Responsive actions
Depreciation costs data were received
from questionnaires. For Capital value
estimations for 2008 -2010 and for
inactive vessels in 2011 the same
formulas were used as applied for
calculation of the vessel scrapping
compensation in the
frame of
Operational
Programme
of
fleet
reduction
(Regulation
[EC]
No
1198/2006 on the European Fisheries
Fund; COMMISSION REGULATION
[EC] No 498/2007).
Responsive actions
Latvian conclusion on balance or
imbalance between fleet capacity and
fishing opportunities is made according
to mentioned statements.
39
2.
3.
4.
5.
production could have been achieved with substantially less
physical capacity.
Capacity is somewhat in excess of opportunity - means that the
fleet is capable of catching more than the permitted opportunity
Capacity is approximately in balance with the fishing
opportunity. There is either little unused capacity or little unused
opportunity
Capacity is somewhat below the fishing opportunity - means that
there is some unused opportunity due to lack of catching capacity,
which is therefore not delivering possible economic and social
benefits to the MS.
Capacity is substantially below the fishing opportunity - means
that there is a substantial amount of the fishing opportunity that is
not taken up due to lack of fleet capacity, and there are substantial
social and economic benefits that are not being realised by the
MS.
EWG recommends that quota uptake rates should not be used as
indicators of balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunity as it
not an appropriate indicator and its use could in many cases give a
misleading impression of balance.
STECF EWG 12-02 Recommendations 2012
(Review of the Revised 2012 National Programmes and on the Future of
the DCF, 16 – 20 April 2012, Brussels)
Annual Reports 2013 – Reporting of Adjustments to NP
EWG recommends that for Annual Report 2013, all the adjustments
carried out by MSs must be clearly reported to illustrate the activities
implemented in the reference year. This rule has to be applied to all kind
of adjustments (minor, major, substantial etc.) even in case MS have
submitted or not a revised version of the National Program. All these
“adjustments” should then appear in the relevant tables of the Annual
Report Changes in AR tables with respect to the NP tables should be
tracked in red.
Métier Ranking System
According to Commission Decision 93/2010, all MS performing the
ranking system should use the average values of the 2 previous years.
EWG recommends that MS (even if they submitted or not a revised
version of the National Program) use the most update set of values (i.e.
landing values, tons, fishing days) in order to select the métiers to be
sampled.
On the revision of the National Programmes within a Programme Period
EWG recommends that revisions in the text of the NP proposals within
the programme period should be done in a way allowing the reader to
follow the development in the MS. This means that all information valid
for the first years of the triennial programme should be kept and not
deleted. For example, if a pilot study was carried out in 2011 and the NP
for 2012 was revised in accordance with the result from the pilot study,
information about the pilot study should be kept in the text of the NP,
specifying that this was the situation in 2011, and description of the
related modifications should be added, specifying that this was the revised
situation for 2012.
Concurrent Sampling
EWG recommends that for on-shore sampling, MS should continue to
sample the métiers and make sure to cover all the species/stocks where a
demand is formulated by an end-user (or listed in Appendix VII of the
Comm. Dec.), but the methodology used to achieve the goals remains at
the discretion of the MS, provided that it is fully documented and
approved within 23 their NP proposal.
STECF EWG 12-01 Recommendations 2012
(Analysis of the DCF Annual Reports for 2010, 11-15 July, 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark)
List of Meetings Attended
EWG recommends for the AR tables, Table II.B.1 (list of eligible
Not relevant for Latvia
Responsive actions
The adjustments if any are explained
Will be taken into account in National
Program 2013
Taken into account
Taken into account
Responsive actions
Will be taken into account in AR 2013
40
meetings) that is provided by the Commission should be used and all
meetings and not only the meetings attended should be provided.
Derogations Table
EWG recommends that A table including derogations asked for and if
granted or rejected to be included in the AR tables. Adjust Guidelines for
AR to include this.
Tables from NP included in AR
EWG recommends Table III.C.1 and III.C.2 III E 1 should not to be
deleted from the AR. Maintaining the tables are what are expected. This
should be included in the revision of the AR guidelines.
MS Website
EWG recommends that MS set-up a website on their data collection.
They are obliged (by DCF regulation) to do so. No MS mentioned or
referenced in the AR to such websites.
MS unable to conduct a Survey
EWG recommends that in cases that a research vessel is not available for
carrying out a contribution to a DCF survey that MS in question should
demonstrate that it made all necessary efforts to carry out the survey. MS
must make provisions so that such problems do not happen e.g. seek
assistance from other MS or charter a vessel)
AR Template
EWG recommends that files with filters, hidden cells, track changes,
colored cells etc. should not be submitted in AR.
CV for biological parameters at regional Level
EWG recommends that biological parameters and their CVs should be
calculated for shared stocks at a regional level. CVs on national data could
still be provided but not evaluated.
Guide Line Review
EWG recommends that non conformities in the tables of the AR needs to
be explained in the text.
Will be taken into account if introduced
Not relevant for Latvia
It is mentioned in the Latvian AR
Not relevant for Latvia
Not relevant for Latvia
Could be performed at RCM level
Taken into account and followed by
Latvia
VIII List of acronyms and abbreviations
BIAS
BIODATA
BITS
CECAF
CSB
DATRAS
DCP
DCF
EC
EEZ
FAO
FISHFRAME
FTE
FVR
GRAHS
GT
ICES
ICIS
kW
LOA
LSR
LATFRA
MINCIS
Baltic International Acoustic Survey
Biological Data System for Latvian Fisheries
Baltic International Trawl Survey
Central East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia
ICES Database on Trawl Surveys
Data Collection Program
Data Collection Framework
European Commission
Exclusive Economic Zone
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Commercial Fish Sampling Database
Full-time equivalent
Fishing Vessel Register
Gulf of Riga Acoustic herring Survey
Gross tonnage
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
Integrated Control and Information System for Latvian Fisheries
Kilowatts
Length over all
Latvian Ships Register of the Latvian Maritime Administration
Latvian Fish Resources Agency
Mini ICIS – Coastal Fisheries Logbook database
41
MS
NAFO
NEAFC
PGCCDBS
RCM
SD
SGRN
SPRAS
STECF
TAC
VAT
VMS
VPA
WGBAST
WGBFAS
WGBIFS
Member state
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catches and Discards Biological
Sampling
Regional coordination meeting
Sub-division
Subgroup on Research Needs
Sprat Acoustic Survey
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
Total Allowable Catch
Value added tax
Vessel monitoring system
Virtual population analysis
Baltic Salmon and Sea Trout Working Group
Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group
Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group
IX Comments, suggestions and reflections
Latvia would recommend review the demanded precision levels for the new Data
collection framework because they are hardly achievable with the current sampling level.
X References
DG MARE. Report of the 8th Liaison Meeting. 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. 4- 5 October 2011,
Brussels, Belgium. p. 20-30.
DG MARE. Report of the 9th Liaison Meeting. Meeting between the Chairs of the
RCMs, the chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the chair of the Regional
Database Steering Committee, the ICES representative, the Chairs of STECF DCF
EWG’s and PGECON and the European Commission. 24-26 September 2012, Brussels,
Belgium. p. 44.
RCM Baltic 2011. Report of the Regional Co- ordination Meeting for the Baltic Sea. 29
August - 2 September 2011, Charlottenlund, Denmark. p. 22-23, p. 53, p. 65, p. 69.
RCM Baltic 2012. Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Baltic, 10 -14
September 2012, Gdynia, Poland. p. 10, p. 36.
RCM NA 2011. Final report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North
Atlantic. 12 -15 September 2011, La Rochelle, France. p. 12, p. 14.
RCM NA 2012. Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Atlantic.
10- 14 September 2012, Galway, Ireland. p. 24, p. 34.
STECFAnnual Economic Report on the European Fishing Fleet Report. Ispra, Italy. EUR
24554 EN – 2010. p. 309.
STECF SGBRE 10-01. Report of the Working Group on the review of national reports on
Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities
13-17 September 2010, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. EUR 24636 EN – 2010. p. 12.
42
STECF SGECA 09-02. Quality aspects of the collection of economic data - methods of
calculation of the indicators and sampling strategies. 11-14 May 2009, Barcelona, Spain.
24307 EN – 2010. p. 5, p. 11.
STECF SGEGA 10-03. Report of the Working Group on review of economic data
collected in relation to the DCF, harmonisation of sampling strategies. 20-24 September
2010, Salerno, Italy. EUR 24635 EN – 2010. p. 8-11.
STECF SGRN 10-02. Evaluation of 2009 Annual Reports related to the Data Collection
Framework. 5-10 July 2010, Hamburg, Germany. EUR 24535 EN – 2010. p. 25, p. 248249, p. 254.
STECF EWG 11-19. Review of economic data collected in relation to the DCF and
harmonisation of sampling strategies. 7-11 November 2011, Brussels, Belgium. EUR
25150 EN – 2011. p. 16-20, p. 77.
STECF EWG 12-01. Analysis of the DCF Annual Reports for 2010. 11-15 July 2011,
Copenhagen, Denmark. EUR 25250 EN – 2012. p. 17-23.
STECF EWG 12-02. Review of the Revised 2012 National Programmes and on the
Future of the DCF. 16- 20 April 2012, Brussels, Belgium. EUR 25308 EN. p. 16-23.
XI Annexes
Annex 1
Multilateral agreement
Multi-lateral agreement between Germany, Latvia, Lithuania,The Netherlands
and Poland for biological data collection of pelagic fisheries in CECAF waters
Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands and Poland agree to co-operate in the
biological data collection of pelagic fisheries in CECAF waters in 2012 and 2013. This
agreement is in accordance with EC Regulation 665/2008, laying down detailed rules
for the application of Council Regulation 199/2008 and Commission Decision
2010/93/EU.
Having regard the above mentioned Regulations and Decisions and the project
description "Biological Data Collection of pelagic fisheries in CECAF water in
compliance with the DCF" as discussed at the Regional Coordination Meeting for Long
Distance Fisheries in Slovenia, May 2011, the following details apply to this
agreement:
Partners
The following institutes are considered as partner within this agreement:
Member State
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
The Netherlands
Poland
Institute
Johann Heinrich von Thunen Institute (vTI)
Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and
environment
The Fisheries Service under the Ministry of
Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania
Centre for Fisheries Research (CVO)
Sea Fisheries Institute
Contact person
C. Stransky
G. Kornilovs
V. Grusauskas
F.A. van Beek
I. Wojcik
Coordination
The Netherlands coordinate the execution of this multi-lateral agreement. The
Netherlands will contract independent contractor 'Corten Marine Research' (CMR) as
agent between The Netherlands and IMROP, the Mauritanian Fisheries Research
43
institute. CMR will hire Mauritanian observers from IMROP to carry out the actual
sampling. CMR and IMROP will have an agreement in which the mutual obligations
will be formalized; among others that only the additional costs for this specific task will
be priced.
Sampling protocol
Biological sampling is carried on board fishing vessels in CECAF area by Mauritanian
observers. These observers are instructed by CMR and follow the sampling protocol as
described in "Biological Data Collection of pelagic fisheries in CECAF waters in
compliance with the DCF", version 31-05-2011.
Data responsibility
CMR is responsible for data collection, quality control and delivery to the CECAF
pelagic working group of all data collected under this agreement. CMR also reports all
data to CVO and CVO will distribute the data to Partners.
Costs
The total costs for the sampling programme amount € 64,768,= per year. This sampling
programme is eligible for 50% funding under the current DCF. The Netherlands will
include the total costs in its Annual Cost Statement. The remaining 50% of the costs
(€ 32,384,=) is paid for by all partners following a key based on average catches in
2006-2010.
Contributor
Netherlands
Germany
Poland
Lithuania
Latvia*
Share catches
(2006-2010)
30,53%
3,76%
6,07%
32,67%
26,95%
EU (through DCF) -
Contribution
30,53% of 32,384
3,76% of 32,384
6,07% of 32,384
32,67% of 32,384
26,95% of 32,384
Subtotal partners
50% of 64,768
Total contribution
Amount
(€/year)
9,887
1,224
1,966
10,579
8,728
32,384
32,384
64,768
The Netherlands sends each Partner an invoice per year, to which normal
financial conditions apply.
Access to vessels
On top of Council Regulation 199/2008 (Section 2, Article 11), each Partner
ensures access to its fleet for Mauritanian observers under this agreement. Denied
access to vessels does not exempt a Partner from legal or financial obligations.
Term
This agreement commences on January 1, 2012. With exception of financial
obligations, this agreement ends on December 31, 2013. This agreement, with
exception of financial obligations, is subject to dissolve prior to this date in case the
pelagic fishery in the CECAF area by EU vessels closes. Eventual remaining
contributions will be pro rata reimbursed to Partners.
Signatures
Member. State
Name
Function
- Signature
44
Germany
The Netherlands
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Christoph Stransky
National Correspondent Date; 2011-06-23
Dirkjan van der Stelt National Correspondent Date:2011-06-23
Georgs Kornilovs
National Correspondent Date: 2011-06-30
Vytautas Grusauskas Director
Date: 2011-06-30
Ireneusz Wojcik
Date: 2011-06-23
Senior Specialist
45