COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER REPORT OF …...EVALUATION OF 2005 NATIONAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) NO 1639/2001 Ispra 3 -7 July, 2006 This

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

ADVANCED COPY pending SEC number

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER REPORT OF

THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICCOMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF)

SUB-GROUP ON RESEARCH NEED (SGRN) EVALUATION OF 2005 NATIONAL DATA

COLLECTION PROGRAMMES UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) NO 1639/2001

STECF opinion expressed during plenary meeting held in Ispra from 6-10

November 2006

This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area.

CONTENTS 1 Terms of reference .................................................................................1 2 STECF opinion......................................................................................1 Annex REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF) SUB-GROUP ON RESEARCH NEED (SGRN) EVALUATION OF 2005 NATIONAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) NO 1639/2001 Ispra 3 -7 July, 2006 ....................................................................................3

1 TERMS OF REFERENCE STECF should deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the SGRN-06-02 meeting of July 3-7.

2 STECF OPINION STECF reviewed the SGRN report on “Evaluation of 2005 National data collection programs undertaken under Commission regulation (EC) NO 1639/2001”. “STECF noted the recommendation by the subgroup on the need for a dedicated web site for presenting sampling and other technical procedures in connection with data collection and that a meeting be convened under the auspices of STECF-SGRN to facilitate its design. This meeting should not focus on presenting new information, but focus on the way existing information is presented. Therefore, only a small group of experts would be necessary, i.e. the Chairman of the PGCCDBS, the SGRN chairman, JRC expert(s) and if necessary a few other specialists.

STECF suggests that the meeting be held after the meeting of the ICES PGCCDBS and before the next STECF Plenary, i.e. in March 2007.

The suggested ToRs for the meeting are as follows:

1. Specify the structure of an Internet website entirely devoted to the DCR, including all the relevant information already available on the JRC website.

2. Develop web pages allowing access to descriptions of the sampling procedures and the statistical methodologies developed for each of the parameters required under the framework of the DCR

3. Establish country specific web pages to gather all relevant information concerning the sampling procedures and the statistical methodologies as suggested by ICES PGCCDBS (2007).

4. Consider the possibility to track all the amendments made to the methodologies in order to be able to connect a DCR implementation year with the ad hoc information.

5. Specify the content for an international webpage summarising all information by country.

STECF notes that the absence of a reliable source of comprehensive landings statistics for Mediterranean fisheries is problematic for the specification of sampling activities in the framework of the DCR and needs to be addressed. While FAO landings statistics database is widely used as a reference, the large discrepancies between officially reported statistics to FAO and those reported under the DCR prevent their use in the Mediterranean. It is highly desirable for the provision of reliable assessments and advice that representative statistics on catch and effort for fisheries in the Mediterranean are readily accessible. STECF suggests that the appropriate forum to address this is the GFCM.

STECF notes the increasing need for international fleet-disaggregated (and/or metier) fishery data and that it is not addressed as such in the current FAO landings statistics database.

STECF considered the point raised that on some occasions, sampled data has been used for enforcement or regulatory purposes, leading to a withdrawal of co-operation and thus non compliance with the requirements of the DCR. STECF agrees with SGRN and stresses that these data should only be used for scientific purposes and that MS should ensure that primary data are dealt with in a confidential way (article 9, 1639/2001) but that aggregate data should be accessible to all interested parties.

Page 2 evaluation of 2005 national programmes

SGRN recommended that data summaries in connection with ICES assessments be compiled in such a way that allows for more efficient quality evaluation. STECF wishes to receive convenient (or manageable) feedback on the appropriateness of data collected under the DCR for stock assessment and management plan evaluations from advisory bodies so that it can give advice, specifically to each considered MS, on which data should be collected and to which sampling effort. Furthermore, STECF also recommends that other regional (international) fishery organisations (e.g. GFCM, ICCAT, NAFO) consider providing such feedback.

STECF shares the concerns of SGRN that the increasing importance given to the quality of the data collected in the framework of the new DCR goes together with the search of clear and objective criteria for their evaluation. SGRN must continue to have high objectives of impartiality and equitability in the evaluation of DCR achievements. STECF supports the workshop planned in 2007 on raising procedures for discards as proposed by ICES PGCCBS and agreed by SGRN, and stresses the importance that this workshop be opened for experts from other regional fishery organisations.

ANNEX REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF) SUB-GROUP ON RESEARCH NEED (SGRN) EVALUATION OF 2005 NATIONAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) NO 1639/2001 ISPRA 3 -7 JULY, 2006

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

ADVANCED COPY pending SEC number

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC

COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF)

SUB-GROUP ON RESEARCH NEED (SGRN)

EVALUATION OF 2005 NATIONAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION

(EC) NO 1639/2001

Ispra 3 -7 July, 2006

This report will be evaluated by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in its plenary session of 6-10 November 2006

This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area

STECF-SGRN – Evaluation of 2005 technical reports - Page 3�

3

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

1.1.1 STECF Members

Messina Gaetano

1.1.2 Invited experts

Adamidou Angeliki Anderson John Arneri Enrico Carpentieri Paolo Costello Liam Derkacs Ricards Di Natale Antonio Folmer Ole Grift Rob Hatcher Aaron Jardim Ernesto Klepper Rainer Kornilovs Georgs Koutrakis Manos Martin Paloma Millner Richard Motova Arina Myllylä Timo Newton Andrew Ní Chonchúir Gráinne Peter Guenter Quincoces Abad Iñaki Redant Frank Ringdahl Katja Sabatella Evelina Statkus Romas Stransky Christoph Vasiliades Laurendios Vigneau Joel (Chair)

1.1.3 STECF secretariat

Beare Doug

1.1.4 European Commission)

Cervantes Antonio Pertierra Juan-Pablo

Page 4� STECF-SGRN – Evaluation of 2005 technical reports

4

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Sub-Group on Research Needs (STECF-SGRN) met in Ispra, from July 3rd till July 7th, 2006, with the following Term of Reference:

The Sub-group shall evaluate how Member States (MS) get to implement Council Regulation No. 1543/2000. The analysis shall be done on the basis of Technical Reports submitted by MS. The main aim is to deliver a critique review of the situation by evaluating what MS had proposed in their National Programmes for 2005 and what they have finally achieved. The Subgroup shall also underline whether the achievements are in line with the international obligations of the EU in regards to the Regional Fisheries Organizations. The Sub-group shall feel free to make any comment, suggestion or critique, but also to be pragmatic in this approach. In particular, SGRN is requested to evaluate National Technical Reports and provide advice on the measures taken by each MS, the appropriateness of the methods used and the results achieved as regards data collection and management


5

2 THE EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 ORGANISATIONAL ASPECTS

The Technical Reports submitted to SGRN were examined in 5 sub-groups, 1 sub-group being composed of economists who analysed the section on economic data of the fleet (Module J) and the section on the processing industry (Module K), the remaining sections (Modules C-I, Databases, National and international co-ordination) were analysed by 4 sub-groups. Each of the biologists sub-groups received 4 to 5 Technical reports. A process was developed which ensured that each sub-group received a mixture of Technical Reports from all the RCM regions, mixing small and large data collection programmes, and avoiding situations where experts could have been asked to analyse the Technical Report from their own country. All sub-groups had common guidelines on which aspects of the Technical Reports they had to address in particular. The findings of the different sub-groups were then discussed in plenary.

The Technical Reports were to be written and summaries of collected data were to be provided following guidelines put together by SGRN and available on the JRC website. The evaluation process and the comments by MS (section 4) strictly followed the structure of the guidelines to facilitate the comprehension of SGRN comments and analysis.

To keep the evaluation process consistent, SGRN has elaborated its comments taking into account all information available from internal and external sources :

Internal consistency : reference to former general comments, comparison with the 2005 National programmes, follow-up of the guidelines and follow-up of the recommendations made in December 2004 with regards to the 2005 National Programmes.

External consistency : cross-checking ad hoc information of the Technical reports with the eligible list of meetings (see section 3.10) and ICES data summaries (see section 3.11)

As in the previous years, SGRN particularly focused on the extent to which MS had met, or had tried to meet, the DCR requirements. For those parts of the DCR where the DCR requirements can be translated in terms of actual numbers (e.g. number of stations or vessels to be sampled, number of fish to be measured for length and age, etc.), MS were considered to have complied with the DCR if they had achieved more than 90 % of its requirements. However, the fact that SGRN has introduced this 90 % threshold to evaluate the levels of achievement does not mean that MS should only try to achieve 90 % of the DCR requirements. Ultimately, MS should keep trying to achieve the full 100 % of the requirements.

For several Modules of the DCR, MS have proposed to do (considerably) more than what is required by the DCR, in order to maintain or increase the quality of the data series concerned. This particularly applies to sampling for length and age of stocks that are under an EC recovery plan or whose data series are used for tuning purposes. Quite often, MS also applied for and have been granted additional funding to perform such sampling in excess of the DCR requirements. In SGRN's opinion, the submission of such proposals and their subsequent acceptance by the EC implies that there is a moral obligation for the MS to at least try to achieve the proposed level of sampling, even though there is no formal obligation to do so. In line with this, in its evaluation of the achieved levels of sampling, SGRN has made a distinction between the DCR targets (i.e. the sampling levels formally required by the DCR) and the so-called "national targets" (i.e. the sampling levels proposed by the MS themselves, in as much as these exceeded the DCR requirements).

Generally speaking, when a MS failed to meet the requirements of the DCR, this may be due to two major reasons: (i) anything that could be classified as "force majeure" (e.g. bad weather conditions or damage to sampling gear during a survey, fishers refusing to have their landings sampled or to take sea-going


6

observers, temporal closures of fishing areas, etc.), and (ii) anything that could be classified as "lack of initiative" or "poor organisation". In SGRN's opinion, "force majeure" is an acceptable reason for non-compliance with the DCR requirements, while lack of initiative and poor organisation are not.

In evaluating the 2005 TR, SGRN has decided to put a question mark (?) as a response to the question whether the DCR targets were met, when data collection was not designed in a way as to to achieve a certain precision level. By doing so, SGRN wants to stress the need for MSs to carefully scrutinise their data collection systems and to begin a quality evaluation of their data (see section 3.5).

The guidelines imposed new mandatory sections e.g. follow-up of RCM recommendations (see section 3.3, information on databases, and a section for free comments on the DCR process. SGRN paid particular attention to these sections and systematically responded to the comments made. SGRN has elaborated a general comment in response to an increasing number of comments on the need for the development of common tools to evaluate the precision levels and the non efficiency to develop this at a national level (see section 3.5).

The compliance with the guidelines, that lead to better clarity and homogeneous structure of reports, enabled SGRN to evaluate properly the actions undertaken. The four days duration of the meeting proved to be short, essentially with regards to the increasing number of MS in the evaluation process (+6 from last year). Next year’s meeting should extend at least by half a day.

2.2 SGRN APPRECIATION AND COMMENTS

In its evaluation of the Technical Reports, SGRN has addressed several issues, related to (i) the report, its structure and its presentation in general, and (ii) each Module section of the DCR separately. For each MS, SGRN's assessment of the achievements is summarised in two tables: firstly a table with overall "ratings" and comments on the Technical Report as a whole, and a secondly an extensive table with Techical Report section-specific "ratings" and comments. The achievements under the Minimum Programme (MP) and under the Extended Programme (EP) are given side by side in the text table in order to provide a comprehensive view of the MS actions. The terminology used by SGRN in answering the questions and its meaning is given below:

Specific for the Extended Programme column

/ MS has not set up a programme for this module

Generic for all the questions

Yes if the answer to the question does not suffer exceptions neither ambiguity. Mostly if the answer to the question is Yes but not in totality or with exceptions. Partly if only a significant part (generally less than half) of the relevant actions have been

undertaken., or not all information were given when specified in the question. No if no or only a marginal part of the actions have been undertaken, or no information were

given. NMS No Major Shortfalls, and hence no need for an explanation. ? if SGRN was incapable of drawing a final conclusion NA if MS did not apply for any actions for the specific section. Derog. if MS obtained derogation for the specific section


7

2.3 SPECIFIC COMMENTS RELATED TO SECTIONS ON ECONOMICS AND PROCESSING INDUSTRY

A. Vessel segmentation not as required by the DCR. MS are reminded that the definition of "commercial fishing fleet" is set out in Article 2.2 of the DCR, and that the coverage of data collection by segment should be as set out in Appendices III and IV to the DCR. See previous general comments “On population coverage and segmentation for economic data collection” (SGRN December 2005).

B. Use of thresholds (usually defined in terms of vessel gross revenue) to classify vessels as “inactive” or “non-commercial” and to then exclude them from data collection. There is no provision for this under the DCR. See previous general comments “On population coverage and segmentation for economic data collection” (SGRN December 2005).

C. Insufficiently clear and detailed information on sampling and data collection methodologies so that SGRN is unable fully to judge whether final samples are likely to be randomly selected and (hence) representative of the segment in question. See previous general comments “On sampling information and precision levels for economic data” (SGRN, December 2005).

D. Reliance on voluntary provision of economic data, e.g., using voluntary panels or the voluntary return of postal questionnaires. In most cases this is unlikely to produce representative (unbiased) data. SGRN recommends the use of truly randomised sampling protocols wherever possible.

E. Economic indicators should be estimated/calculated as indicated in the DCR (where applicable) or with regard to normal economic practice and advice contained in SGECA (STECF) reports (Paris 2004 and Brussels 2004).


8

3 EVALUATION OF THE 2005 TECHNICAL REPORTS GENERAL COMMENTS

3.1 DEADLINES AND TRANSLATION PROBLEMS

SGRN notes that 8 Technical Reports did not respect the 31st of May deadline, 6 of them falling short by one or two days, and two (French and UK) were made available only during the first day of the meeting, although the French TR had been sent by the MS 3 weeks before. Such a delay is unacceptable as it impedes the preparatory work and analysis that is necessary prior to the meeting. For the completeness and equitability of its work, SGRN insist that, in future, MS scrupulously respect the deadline.

SGRN also notes that two reports (France and Spain) were submitted in languages other than English. Since there was insufficient time to translate these reports prior to the meeting of SGRN, the reports were read and evaluated in their original version by those experts capable of these languages. This also implies that not all experts present at the meeting could fully evaluate these Technical Reports.

The reference to species in the tables were expressed either with their English common name, or with their French common name or with their scientific Latin name. SGRN recommends that, in the future, MS use the scientific Latin name for all species in the tables.

3.2 ON THE QUALITY OF THE TECHNICAL REPORTS

In general, SGRN was pleased to note the improvement of the Technical Reports compared to previous year's submissions. An overview of the overall quality has been summarised in the text table below.

NA Yes Mostly Partly No Compliance with the guidelines 14 4 1 All necessary tables present in the report 17 2 All necessary information present in the report 6 11 2 Individualisation of the RCM regions 8 8 1 1 1

There are still countries having major shortfalls in the elaboration of the Technical Reports, and an effort needs to be done to better explain the actions udertaken, and the remedies to avoid the shortfalls in the future . SGRN re-iterates its standpoint that the Technical Reports should be as concise as possible, while at the same time providing all the information that is necessary for the evaluation of the MS's achievements

3.3 ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF RCM RECOMMENDATIONS

Rationale of the request to report on follow-up of RCM recommendations

With regards to the request to MS to report on their follow-up of RCM (Regional Co-ordination Meetings) recommendations, SGRN first of all wishes to recall the rationale of this request.

The RCMs were established to improve the overall quality of the data collected in support of the CFP, through task and cost sharing, data pooling and, in general, all bilateral, regional and pan-European initiatives that can help increasing the accuracy, effectiveness and cost efficiency of data collection. As such, the RCMs are an integral part of the DCR-machinery, and it is in the MS' general interest to duly consider the RCM's recommendations and to closely follow up their initiatives and concerted actions.

Although there is no formal obligation to do so, a MS's agreement with the recommendations of a RCM or with its initiatives to set up concerted actions, implies that the MS takes the necessary steps to implement these recommendations and to participate in the proposed concerted actions. In line with this,


9

MS are requested to provide evidence in their Technical Reports (c.q. their NP proposals) of the steps they have taken (will take) in response to the RCM recommendations and initiatives.

To that aim, MS are requested:

(i) to list the appropriate recommendations from all relevant RCMs in their Technical Report (c.q. NP proposals), and

(ii) to give a brief description of the responsive actions that were (will be) taken.

Again, it should be stressed that only those recommendations need to be listed which explicitly apply to MS, either individually or as a group.

In doing so, MS may have to go back several years in time and refer to RCM reports of more than one year ago. Most of the RCM recommendations and proposed actions will only take effect in the year following the actual meeting of the RCM and the actions taken by MS will only become visible in the Technical Reports that are submitted two or three years later.

Avoiding proliferation

Some MS commented on the fact that the RCMs are issuing too many recommendations, that following these up implies a considerable extra workload for the MS, and hence, that many recommendations are not being taken any further.

SGRN shares this concern, but it also is of the opinion that it is the RCMs' and their participants' collective responsibility to avoid a proliferation of loosely worded recommendations which then run the risk of never being given any further consideration. It is important to remember that the National Correspondents are invited to attend the RCMs, and that it is one of their tasks to make sure that their country does not commit itself to tasks which it cannot execute. And, conversely, to make sure that their country does perform the tasks to which they committed during the meetings of the RCMs. Also, it is the responsibility of the RCMs to make sure that their recommendations primarily serve the aim for which the RCMs were established, i.e. the improvement of the accuracy, effectiveness and cost efficiency of data collection through regional co-operation.

SGRN sees no need to establish an extra body that would be given the task of filtering and endorsing the recommendations issued by the RCMs. This task is already assumed by the Liaison Meeting. If adequately scheduled respective to both the meetings of the RCMs and the start of the new NP year, the Liaison Meeting should be in a position to provide the final list of recommendations sufficiently well in time to allow MS to take them into account when deploying their data collection plans for the year(s) to come.

3.4 ON THE TRIENNIAL UPDATES OF OTHER BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS

SGRN notes that there is confusion on the interpretation of the requirement to triennially update the estimates of "Other biological parameters". In SGRN's opinion there are several ways of organising data collection on these parameters in compliance with the requirements of the DCR:

(i) Data are collected annually but reported every three years.

(ii) Data are collected and reported once every three years, with fixed years for the collection of all data types, for all species (e.g. 2002, 2005, etc.).

(iii) Data are collected and reported once every three years, with an alternating system for the different parameters or for different stocks, e.g. 2002, 2005, etc. for growth for all species; 2003, 2006, etc. for sexual maturity for all species; and 2004, 2007, etc. for fecundity for all species, OR 2002, 2005, etc. for all parameters for one third of the species; 2003, 2006, etc. for all parameters for another third of the species; and 2004, 2007, etc. for all parameters for the remaining third of the species.

(iv) Etc…


10

Regardless of which system is chosen, it is advisable that MSs collecting data in the same region adopt compatible approaches (not only in the timing of their data collection, but also with regards to the methodology applied), so that comparability and compatibility of the data is maximised and redundancy is avoided. The RCMs have an important role in this process. SGRN notes that RCM North Sea and RCM NEA have taken the initiative of compiling the existing information on sexual maturity with a view to optimising data collection. SGRN strongly supports these initiatives and encourages other RCMs to do likewise.

3.5 ON PRECISION LEVEL AS A DCR TARGET

The EU Regulation 1639/2001, amended by 1581/2004, explicitly requests that part of the data be collected according to certain precision levels. From the beginning of the DCR, the methods to achieve the requested objectives have been difficult to implement, and only a few countries, for some of the parameters, have tried to develop such an approach. In response to this difficulty, ICES PGCCDBS has set up workshops (WKSCMFD 2004 and WKSDFD 2005) to address the issue of agreed methodologies for precision estimates. The outcome of these workshops was the development of a common set of tools, to be elaborated by a core team of statisticians and software developers, which would be capable of producing solutions adapted to each of the parameters included in the DCR. The proposal was to begin this task with the biological parameters such as the volume of discards, the length and age structure of landings and discards, and the "other" biological parameters.

SGRN is strongly supportive of any action aiming at improving co-ordination, harmonisation and convergence within Europe, such as the Common Open Source Tool (COST) and the implementation of regional databases with hooked-up quality evaluation tools (such as FishFrame). In addition, SGRN has no doubts that the establishment of a core team of statisticians to elaborate solutions will help improving the quality of the collected data by each individual MS.

Nevertheless, SGRN is of the opinion that a number of standard statistical methods are available and the absence of common procedures to calculate precision levels should not be used as an excuse for not providing estimates in the Technical Reports. (also see the general comments on precision levels in the June 2004, December 2004 and June 2005 reports of SGRN). All data collected under a sampling programme should be the object of careful examination, including basic exploratory analysis and simple estimates of precision (calculation of CV, implementation of resampling technique, …). Moreover, the development of common tools and their further utilisation would greatly benefit from the experience gained from actions already taken by MSs on this issue.

3.6 ON THE DEROGATION RULES REGARDING LOW LEVEL OF LANDINGS

In the case of decreasing landings of a species, for instance from stocks under recovery plans or stocks below standard biological limits, the strict application of DCR rules can result in a decrease in the number of samples carried out and in the quality of the estimates. Even in the case of achieving a specific precision target, the market length and age sampling could be less accurate and the fishing mortality estimates could be unreliable, e.g. such as in the case of a species not being landed but catches continue to be discarded.

SGRN proposes that MS should undertake to sample to precision levels rather than on the basis of historical landings so that the mortality estimates derived from catch age and length sampling are accurate and achieve a high precision for the individual species and stocks affected.

3.7 ON THE NEED FOR A DEDICATED WEBSITE FOR THE DCR

The process of collecting data requires the elaboration of sampling procedures, the description of the parameters and the description of raising and precision calculation methodologies. The results and the quality of the collected data are highly dependent on the procedures and methods used. As a consequence, the sampling design must be provided each year to the Commission in the NP proposal and statistical


11

methodologies must be provided both in the TR and in the NP proposal. SGRN is of the opinion that this heavy reporting duty can be considerably eased by the development of a website dedicated to the sampling procedures and statistical methodologies used by each MS. The comprehension of the international collection programmes would also benefit from a webpage summarising all the countries design information as suggested by ICES PGCCDBS (2006) regarding the quality approach.

SGRN recommends convening a meeting on this issue together with the Commission, the JRC, a representative of ICES, the chairman of PGCCDBS, the chairman of SGRN, an expert on quality assurance and experts in the provisions of the DCR from each RCM region. The terms of reference of such a meeting should be :

a) Elaborate the structure of an internet website entirely devoted to the DCR, including all the relevant information already available on the JRC website.

b) Elaborate a webpage acting as a reference for the Mediterranean landings data.

c) Elaborate webpages allowing access to the sampling procedures and the statistical methodologies developed for each of the parameters required under the framework of the DCR

d) Elaborate country specific webpages to gather all relevant information concerning the sampling procedures and the statistical methodologies as suggested by ICES PGCCDBS (2006).

e) Consider the possibility to track all the amendments made to the methodologies in order to be able to connect a DCR implementation year with the ad hoc information

f) Elaborate an international webpage summarising all information by country.

3.8 ON THE FINAL STATUS OF THE NATIONAL PROGRAMMES

In its evaluation of the Technical Reports, SGRN has to refer to the NP Proposals when comparing achieved with planned sampling activities. However, the versions of the NP Proposals available to the SGRN are not always the final versions, as the proposals may have been changed during the bilateral agreements between the MS and the Commission, following their evaluation at the December meeting of the SGRN.

SGRN recommends that the changes to the NP Proposals that were agreed during the bilateral negotiations be laid down in an addendum to the NP Proposal, and that these addenda be made available on the JRC data collection website.

3.9 ON THE USE OF DCR DATA FOR OTHER THAN SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE

The purpose of the DCR is to provide the data necessary to evaluate the state of fishing resources and the fisheries sector. In complying with this, MS often have to obtain information on the activities of individual vessels, and on the economic performance of different sectors of the industry. This information is collected in confidence and is only intended to be used for scientific purposes. In many cases, the data are only obtained with the cooperation of the fishing industry or fish processing sector. However, there have been a number of occasions in which the data have been used for enforcement or regulatory purposes and this has led to a withdrawal of cooperation and seriously compromised the ability of MS to comply with the requirements of the DCR.

SGRN stresses that sensitive data which has been collected only with the cooperation of the fishing industry such as discard or economic data should only be used for scientific purposes and MS shall take all necessary measures to ensure that primary data collected under the DCR are dealt with in a confidential way (Article 9, 1639/2001).


12

3.10 ON THE ELIGIBLE LIST OF 2005 MEETINGS

CO-ORDINATION MEETINGS 2005

1/ Data collection National co-ordination

2/ Data collection: International regional co-ordination Baltic North sea North-East Atlantic Mediterranean waters NAFO

3/ International Planning Groups on data collection PGCCDBS Plenary meeting (Ostende, Belgium) Workshop on precision level (Sukarietta, Spain) Workshop of fleet segmentation (Nantes, France) Workshop on small scale fisheries (Kavala, Greece) Workshop on economic data (IREPA, Italy) Workshop on eel (Stockholm, Sweden)

Workshop on age reading on sardine (IPIMAR, Lisbon) Workshop on age reading on whiting (CEFAS, Lowestof) Workshop on age reading on herring (Finish Institute, Finland) Workshop on age reading on blue whiting (DIFRES, Denmark) Workshop on age reading on Baltic Sea Cod (Kleipeda, Lithuania) Workshop on age reading on Greenland Halibut (St John's, Canada)

4/ International Planning Groups on surveys at sea ICES International Bottom Trawl Surveys Working Group (IBTS) ICES Planning Group on Aerial and Acoustic Surveys for Mackerel (PGAAM) ICES Planning Group for Herring Surveys (PGHERS) ICES Planning Group on Surveys on Pelagic Fish in the Norvegian Sea (PGSPFN) ICES Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys (WGBEAM) ICES Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS) ICES Working Group on Fisheries Science and Technology (WGFAST) ICES Working Group on Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg Surveys (WGMEGS) MEDITS (Mediterranean Trawl Surveys) Working group (IFREMER, Nantes) Planning Group for the Atlantic (North east) and Mediterranean tuna tagging (Italy)

Although it is not mandatory to attend all the meetings on the list above, SGRN wants to stress that these meetings are all dealing with co-ordination, harmonisation and improvement of the quality of the data. It is therefore in the interest of the collation of international datasets that all the MS involved participate or at least provide all relevant information to such meetings. MS are expected to participate in all general workshops and those meetings and workshops that are relevant for the regions/species where the fleets of the MS are fishing in/for and planning groups for the surveys in which the MS is involved. In the Technical Reports, SGRN will appreciate comments on the actions taken to provide the ad hoc groups with all the requested information and data.


13

3.11 ON ICES DATA SUMMARIES

As part of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and ICES, the assessment working groups have been requested to complete a form summarizing the detailed provision of data by all countries and report on problems or deficiencies. This starting process is meant to ensure the feed-back from the end-users to the people in charge of the sampling programmes, with SGRN having the responsibility to check the compliance with the provision of the DCR and deal with any problems (PGCCDBS, 2006). SGRN also agrees with PGCCDBS proposition to forward the ICES reports on data provision and deficiencies to the appropriate RCMs. This would allow SGRN, in its December meeting and based on the RCM analysis, to recommend relevant actions to be undertaken by MS in their NP proposal for the following year.

During this session, SGRN has tried to see if the current tables provided by the assessment working groups contained the necessary information in a workable way. The attempt to use this information has proven to be difficult, because (i) the information was presented in a multitude of spreadsheets with a coding system that was not easy to understand and (ii) there were established inconsistencies in the information contained in the tables.

The inconsistencies SGRN has found in the tables where as follows:

Data provided to the WG but not reported as such in the summary table (information given by the SGRN experts and checked in the WG report)

Internal inconsistency such as data not reported as being provided to the WG but used in the stock assessment, or more generally, the presence of blank cells that were difficult to interpret.

SGRN acknowledges that the feed-back process is a significant contribution towards a better quality and cost efficiency in the European data collection programmes. However, SGRN is of the opinion that in order to work more effectively, there is a need for simplification of the process. In the first instance, it would benefit both the assessment groups and the MS if a common table could be used for both recording the data sent and acknowledging the data received. Moreover, as this kind of information is not likely to radically change from one year to another, the establishment of a dedicated website could be a good solution to this problem.


14

4 EVALUATION OF THE 2005 TECHNICAL REPORTS COMMENTS BY MS

4.1 COUNTRY: BELGIUM

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 29/05/2006 Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly

Are actions by RCM regions sufficiently well individualised ? Yes

General SGRN comments on MS's technical report:

SGRN has appreciated the presentation of the actions undertaken but some minor points needed additional clarification and would deserve more attention in the future.

b. Comments by section of the Technical report

SECTION 3 : PRECISION LEVEL SGRN

Appreciation See

com

men

t 3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Yes 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS

SECTION 4 : DATA TRANSMISSION SGRN

Appreciation See

com

men

t

4.1 Were all data transmitted to international expert groups as and when requested ? Yes

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? NA 43 Other relevant issues raised by MS

1 - Precision available for about half the parameters. SGRN was informed that at the time of submission of the Technical Report the precision levels had not been calculated.


15

SGRN

appreciation SECTION 5 : MODULE C - FISHING CAPACITIES

MP EP See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 2 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 3

5.2, 5.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS / 5.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN

appreciation SECTION 6 : MODULE D - FISHING EFFORT

MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Mostly / 4 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / 5 (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 3

6.2, 6.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS 6.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN

appreciation SECTION 7 : MODULE E - CATCHES AND LANDINGS

MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 7.1, 7.3 Were DCR targets met ? Yes /

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 3 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Discards

7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 6

2 - Combination of demersal trawlers 12 – 24m and 24 – 40m is acceptable, given the less than 10 vessels rule. This extension is not an official rule but is acceptable, given the small number of vessels involved (4 in total).

3 - <10m vessels were not specifically mentioned in the Technical Report, however the NP proposal states that Belgium does not have any vessels <10m. To be specified in the future TR.

4 - The collection of fuel consumption data is running one year behind schedule. One fleet component (even though it is small) is not covered.

5 - It was not clear in the text whether the data was collected exhaustively or by sampling. This information was found in the tables, and SGRN would appreciate to see a full explanation in the text.

6 - For the majority of species the sample size seems to be sufficient but in absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. see general comment on precision level as DCR target.


16

Were national targets met ? Mostly / 7 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 3

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes 8

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? NA /

Were national targets met ? NA / 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA SGRN

appreciation SECTION 8 : MODULE F – CATCHES PER UNIT EFFORT

MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes Yes 9 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

8.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS SGRN

appreciation SECTION 9 : MODULE G – SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION SURVEYS

Priority 1 Priority 2

See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? Demersal Young fish survey Yes / Beam trawl survey Yes /


SGRN

appreciation SECTION 10 : MODULE H – LENGTH AND AGE SAMPLING

MP EP Se

e co

mm

ent

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly /

Were national targets met ? Mostly / 10

7 - Achieved 67% of the planned trips on the Nephrops fleet in FU 5. The explanation for such a shortfall has been accepted by SGRN.

8 - Belgium states that it will not continue discard sampling in the Nephrops FU5 fleet in 2006. SGRN was informed that this fishery has almost disappeared, and accepts it a case of “force majeure”. Belgium needs to elaborate on how it intends to increase coverage for discard sampling in the beam trawl fleets.

9 - Following the SGRN December 2005 recommendation, MS has sampled for brown shrimp in Belgian coastal waters under the Minimum Program, although it is mentioned under the Extended Programme in the NP proposal.

10 - Sampling levels achieved in accordance with DCR required levels, however Lophiidae needs to be reported seperately for L. budegassa, and L. piscatorius. Also, 3 out of 14 stocks did not reach either the DCR or National targets for age sampling.


17

10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

Discards 10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes /

is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /


appreciation SECTION 11 : MODULE I – OTHER BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING

MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 11 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Sex ratios 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 11 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Sexual maturity 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 11 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Fecundity 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? NA / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /


appreciation SECTION 12 : MODULE J – ECONOMIC DATA BY GROUP OF VESSELS

MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 12

11 - The planned actions have been realised but in absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. See general comment on precision level as DCR target. See also general comment on the triennial periodicity for the other biological parameters.

12 - SGRN comments:

Poor coverage of fleet segments. See section 2.3-A.

Questionnaires are apparently returned on a voluntary basis. Final samples cannot be considered random and unbiased. See section 2.3-D.

Book value rather than insured value is being used for estimating vessel capital values. Leased equipment is double counted. See section 2.3-E.

Some key economic indicators (e.g., income, employment) appear to be missing altogether in Table 12.2.


18

12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 13 12.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 13

SGRN

appreciation SECTION 13 : MODULE K – PROCESSING INDUSTRY

MP EP

See

com

men

t

13.1, 13.3 Were DCR targets met? NA / 13.2, 13.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /

13.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA

SECTION 14 : DATABASES SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? Yes 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS

SECTION 15 : NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATION

SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

15.1 Is there sufficient information on national co-ordination? Yes

15.2 Is the participation ensured to the important international meetings and workshops ? Yes

15.3 Are the RCM recommendations well followed through ? Yes

SECTION 17 : COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS AND REFLECTIONS

SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ? No

13 - For all missing information related in comment above, further information to be provided by MS.


19

4.2 COUNTRY: CYPRUS

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 01/06/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly

Are actions by RCM regions sufficiently well individualised ? NA


The Cypriot Technical Report is a well-structured document that contains most of the information to allow a proper evaluation of the achieved data collection. SGRN appreciates that the MS experienced some difficulties in "catching up" with the requirements of the DCR, and that this has affected the execution of some parts of the data collection programme in 2005. SGRN however expects that these logistic problems will be overcome by the end of the year and that in 2006, Cyprus will be in a position to fully comply with its data collection obligations.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? No

1

3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS

1 - On page 6 of the Technical Report, it is said that "No methods were used for calculating precision level estimations, since for most modules a precision level was not needed." SGRN understands that Cyprus was not in a position yet to provide precision estimates for several parameters (e.g. Other biological parameters, where precision estimates are only required when the triennial updates are being made), but reminds the MS of its obligation to provide precision estimates for all parameters that are updated annually (e.g. estimates of fishing effort and landings). Also see general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

SGRN was informed that landings and effort data for vessels < 12 m are derived from production reports. Since there is a time lag in the provision of these reports, it is impossible to calculate precision levels before the deadline of May 31st for the submission of the Technical Reports. SGRN can accept this, but expects the MS to provide the precision levels in its next Technical Report together with the information on the methods used.


20


appreciation See

com

men

t

4.1 Were all data transmitted to international expert groups as and when requested??

Yes

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? NA 4.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN


See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 7.1, 7.3 Were DCR targets met ? Mostly /

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? / 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

2

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

2 - There are several contradictions in the text and the tables of the Technical Report with regards to landings. E.g., in the text on page 13, it is suggested that all fleet segments (i.e. including the < 12 m vessels), were covered by the data collection system for landings, but in Table 3.1, there are no precision levels for this fleet segment.

On page 13 of the Technical Report, it is said that catch data were collected for recreational and game fisheries, but on page 14 it is mentioned that Cyprus obtained derogation for this part of the DCR. SGRN was informed that there is a typing error on page 13 of the Technical Report and that the information on page 14 is correct.


21

Discards 7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? /

Were national targets met ? No / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No /

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

3

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Recreational and game fisheries

7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Derog. / Were national targets met ? Derog. /

7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? Medits Yes / 4 Tuna Tagging Yes /

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

3 - Cyprus planned discard sampling in 2005 but seemingly was unable to complete the planned discard sampling programme. In principle, this is not a shortfall, since in the Mediterranean, updates of discards are required every three years only. Also, SGRN was informed that Cyprus has informed the Commission on the non-execution of the discard sampling programme in 2005 and on its shift to 2006, and on the subsequent acceptance of the proposed shift by the Commission. See general comment on the final status of the National programmes and general comment on precision level as DCR target.

4 - In its December 2004 Report (SEC-2005-255), SGRN made an overview of historical participation by new MS in existing surveys (see general comment on Historical participation on new MS in Priority surveys). In this overview, Cyprus was not listed as a "historical" participant to the MEDITS survey. In the same report (see general comment on New surveys), SGRN stated that it "is of the opinion that no new surveys can be included in the DCR, neither with Priority 1 nor with Priority 2 status until the next revision of the DCR, regardless of the use that is made of the survey data." In a way, the extension of the MEDITS survey with 25 new stations - as proposed and executed by Cyprus - could be considered as a "new" survey. However, it should also be noted that neither the External Evaluators nor the SGRN have picked up the proposed extension of the MEDITS survey in the evaluation of the Cyprus NP Proposal for 2005. Implications to be considered by Commission.


22

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




Discards 10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? No /

Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? No / 6


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 7 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Sex ratios

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 7 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Sexual maturity


11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Fecundity



5 - There is a major shortfall in the number of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) measured, but the explanation given and the remedial actions proposed are acceptable.

6 - SGRN notes that the proposed pilot study on discards was not performed in 2005 but will be in 2006. See also comment 3.

7 - Sampling for Other biological parameters fell short of the national targets, but the explanation given and the remedial actions proposed are acceptable. See also general comment on precision level as a DCR target.


23

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 8 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 9

12.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No SGRN

Appreciation SECTION 13 : MODULE K – PROCESSING INDUSTRY

MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


15.2 Is the participation ensured to the important international meetings and workshops ? Mostly 10

15.3 Are the RCM recommendations well followed through ? NA


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ? None

8 - SGRN comments :

The population should be the fleet register as defined in the DCR. See section 2.3-A The data collection methodology overall is not clear, in Table 12.2 “exhaustive” is used for all

segments even where there is 10% sampling. See section 2.3-C The accepted methodology is not used for estimating capital values. See section 2.3-E

9 - Information on all fleet register should be further provided by MS and sampling methodology should be clarified.

10- Participation to important international meetings / workshops was ensured, except for the Workshop on precision level (Sukarietta, Spain) and the Workshop of fleet segmentation (Nantes, France), which both were of potential importance to Cyprus. See also general comment on the eligible list of meetings 2005.


24

4.3 COUNTRY: DENMARK

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 31/05/2006 Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly



SGRN has appreciated that the TR is generally well organised and follows the guidelines. Some areas could benefit from further explanation.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? No 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? No 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS Yes

1


appreciation See

com

men

t 4.1 Were all data transmitted to international expert groups as

and when requested ? Yes

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? NMS 43 Other relevant issues raised by MS

SGRN


MP EP See

com

men

t


5.2, 5.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

1 - No precision level for the biological and economical information because of a lack of international common standard. See general comment on precision level as DCR target.


25



MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? No / 2 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /

6.2, 6.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 6.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

2

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t


Were national targets met ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


Discards 7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 3

Were national targets met ? Partly / 4 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No /

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 5

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? ? 6

2 - Fuel cost and quantity are collected together with the economic information, but no precision is calculated nor foreseen to be calculated.

3 - Needs clarification concerning the Nephrops discard sampling programme as they are not mentioned in the table.

In absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target.See general comment on precision level as DCR target..

4 - Achievement rates under the 90% rule : Danish seine in the North Sea (50%), Danish seine in IIIa (83%), Demersal in IIIa (87%), Demersal trawl in the North Sea (67%), Demersal trawl in 22-24 (84%)

5 - SGRN accepts the need for more staff for going at sea as observers, but does not believe that leaflet on their own is a sufficient solution.

6 - In the light of the first pilot study, SGRN, in its December meeting (SEC 2005/255) saw no need to set up a routine sampling programme for this fishery. However, in view of the uncertainties over the estimates of the number taken in this fishery in the recent years (recreational component of the total


26

Were national targets met ? Yes 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS



MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? IBITS ? / BITS ? / Atlan/Scand. herring survey ? /

7

NS herring acoustic survey Yes / 9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /



MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 8 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Discards

10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes /

10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? / / 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? /

catch varies from 4% in the NP, 7% in the TR and 14% in the consultance report), SGRN recommend to carry out a new pilot study to clarify the estimates.

7 - The number of days at sea in the NP Proposal by survey are not consistent with those in table 9.1. SGRN recommends that MS provides a clear summary of what was achieved in the surveys rather than what was planned, in particular for the ASH survey for which MS was the co-ordinator. Details of the participants from each MS should be reported.

8 - SGRN considers that reasons for the observed shortfalls are well explained and that the actions suggested to remedy the situation are acceptable


27

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 9 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Sex ratios

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 10

Sexual maturity 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /


Fecundity 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? No / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 11 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /


9 - All actions planned were achieved, but in absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. See general comment on precision level as DCR target.

10 - In the long term planning (table 11.1), there are a number of data which are not foreseen to be sampled and no explanation is provided. To be clarified by MS.

11 - The comments are as follows :

It appears that around 2/3 of the fleet are excluded through the application of a gross turnover threshold, although the level is not given. This is explained but not justified. The final samples do not appear to be random. See section 2.3-A, B and C.

SGRN notes that lease payments are included in operating costs. Also, that estimated vessel capital values include fishing rights (the DCR provides no clear guidance here). SGRN notes that fixed costs include “net interest payments”. If this means actual payments to banks this is not right. See section 2.3-E.

Income, employment, repair/maintenance costs not in Table 12.2.

12 - SGRN insists that MS strictly follows the provisions of the DCR. Information on all vessels belonging to fleet register should be further provided by MS. For all missing parameters in table 12.2, information should be provided by MS.


28

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

13.1, 13.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 13 13.2, 13.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

13.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes


appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



15.3 Are the RCM recommendations well followed through ? Partly 15


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ?


According to the Technical Report Denmark has set up a comprehensive data collection programme for the total processing sector. Indicators which cannot be calculated currently are raw material use and capacity utilisation.

The group is aware of the ongoing discussion (e.g. in SGECA-06-01: Processing Industry and Aquaculture: Review of Economic Issues) in which was proposed to skip ‘capacity utilisation’ and to further investigate appropriate methods to estimate raw material use. If the total population is surveyed the sampling strategy in the standard tables 13.2 should be indicated ‘exhaustive’ instead of ‘stratified random’. If stratified random is the right term, further explanation is necessary.

14 - MS did not participate to the meeting on Small-Scale fishery (Kavala, 2005). See also general comment on the eligible list of 2005 meetings.

15 - Stages of bilateral talks on foreign landings are unclear, since there is no reference to either a formal agreement or protocol in the TR


29

4.4 COUNTRY: ESTONIA

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 31/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly



Clear distinction has to be made between DCR requirements and national activities not eligible under the DCR like for example actions taken under the denomination test fishing.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? No 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? No 2 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS


appreciation See

com

men


and when requested ? Yes 3


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes /

1 - No precision levels are estimated because of the lack of an international agreement on the methodology. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

2 - Table 3.1 is wrong, precision levels are required but not estimated by the MS

3 - The MS should give an explanation of what is referred to as test fishing


30

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 5.2, 5.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /



MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 4


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 7.1, 7.3 Were DCR targets met ? Yes ?

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes ? 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS ?

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ?

5

Discards 7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? /

Were national targets met ? ? / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? /

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

6

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Yes Yes

Were national targets met ? Yes Yes 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes Yes

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

4 - SGRN assumes that collection of data for this module includes vessels <10 m. Further information to be provided by MS.

5 - Actions are undertaken under EP without any mention in the NP proposal for 2005. To be clarified by MS.

6 - Insufficient information is given on the methods used for discards estimates. See also comment 3 regarding the reference to test fishing. Table 7.1 does not follow the guidelines. Further information to be provided by MS


31

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 7 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? Herring acoustic Survey (July) Yes / Herring acoustic Survey (Sept-Oct) Yes / BITS (first quarter) No / 8 BITS (Nov) Partly / 9


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly NA 10

Were national targets met ? Yes Mostly 11 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes Yes

10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No Yes 12

7 - Two CPUE data series were used in assessment groups, although the NP Proposal indicates that Estonian CPUE data are only used at a national level. SGRN recommends that MS checks if these two CPUE series follow the rules specified in the SGRN December 2004 report (On CPUE series for tuning purposes and associated length and age sampling), and if so they should formally include them in their NP proposal. Further information to be provided by MS.

8 - MS did not participate to the first quarter BITS survey as defined in the NP proposal, and no explanation is given for the omission.

9 - Achievements lower than expected was due to force majeure

10 - [MP] MS fell short for sampling for length for 1 stock out of 4, for sampling for age for 1 stock out of 3.

11 - [MP] MS fell short for sampling for length for 2 stocks out of 9, for sampling for age for 2 stocks out of 8.

[EP] MS fell short for sampling for length and for age for 2 stocks out of 5.

12 - SGRN is doubtful whether the use of fishermen to measure the fish is likely to improve the quality of the data.


32

Discards 10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Partly /

is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? No / 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /


13

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly ? 14 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No Sex ratios

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly Yes 14 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No Sexual maturity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly Yes 14 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No Fecundity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /



MP EP Se

e co

mm

ent

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 15 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

13 - Tables 7.1 and 10.3 are not consistent (for example, bottom trawl in NAFO is missing in table 10.3). SGRN understands that no information is available concerning the discards part as measurements and ageing is done for the unsorted catches. SGRN insists that MS follows the provision of the DCR.

14 - [MP] Tables 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 are not internally consistent. In Table 11.2, under length at age, Salmo trutta is missing, and under sex ratio, Anguilla anguilla and Salmo salar are included and not considered in the long-term planning. Table 11.3, under sexual maturity Salmo salar is included and not considered in Table 11.1. See also general comment on precision level as a DCR target.


The segmentation is not according to the DCR. SGRN insists that MS follows the provisions of the DCR in running its National Programme. See section 2.3-A.

The overall sampling methodology is rather unclear : is it random? SGRN notes that no precision levels are given in Table 12.2. See section 2.3-C.


33



MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? Partly 16 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

15.1 Is there sufficient information on national co-ordination? Yes 17


15.3 Are the RCM recommendations well followed through ? No 19


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


16 - Data base under construction

17 - Reference to national coordination is missing from Table 15.1. Further information to be provided by MS

18 - Attendance at the precision level meeting would have been beneficial when considering the actions requested in sections 3.1 and 3.2. see general comments on the eligible list of 2005 meetings.

19 - No follow-up of the recommendations made by RCM Baltic in January 2005 has been described. SGRN insists that MS undertakes actions in response to RCM recommendations


34

4.5 COUNTRY: FINLAND

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 01/06/06Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly



Overall, the Finnish Technical Report is a well-written document that includes most of the information required for a proper evaluation of the MS's achievements. SGRN however, is not supportive of the approach taken by the MS with regards to its discard studies, where the focus is entirely on species, rather than on fleet segments.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Yes 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS


appreciation See

com

men

t

4.1 Were all data transmitted to international expert groups as and when requested?

Yes


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 2

1 - Precision levels are provided for most parameters, only a few are missing, viz. for fuel consumption and economic data on fishing vessels.


35


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? No / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /

6.2, 6.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 3 6.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / Were national targets met ? ? / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? /

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ?

4

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Yes Yes

Were national targets met ? Yes Yes 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS


2 - SGRN assumes that the < 10 m vessels were included in the sampling programme, although there is no explicit reference to them in the Technical Report (as is requested in the Guidelines). Further information to be provided by MS.

3 - From the explanation given on the lack of data on fuel consumption, it is unclear whether the data were not collected or not provided to the Finnish NP co-ordinators. The proposed action to remedy the shortfall in the collection of fuel consumption data implies a profound change in methodology. To be followed up by SGRN.

4 - Table 7.1 in the Finnish Technical Report does not contain the right information. Table 7.1 should give planned and achieved sampling levels by fleet or fleet segment, not by species. Correct information to be provided by MS.


36

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? BITS Yes / Herring Acoustic Derog. / Sprat Acoustic Derog. /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes Yes

Were national targets met ? Mostly Yes 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Mostly Yes

10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ? 5

Discards 10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Derog. Yes 6

Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? Derog. Yes 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Derog. NMS


5 - MP: Deviations from aim not sufficiently well explained for salmon (Salmo salar). To be clarified by MS.

6 - Finland extensively reports on the achievements of a pilot study on salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta) discards in the long line fisheries, but does not include information on the follow-up that will be given to this pilot study. Full information to be provided by MS for consideration by the SGRN at its December 2006 meeting.


37

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? NA / 7 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Sexual maturity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 8 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA Fecundity




MP EP

See

com

men

t



7 - Actions not planned in NP proposal. See general comment on the triennial periodicity for the other biological parameters.

8 - Finland did not plan sexual maturity studies on Baltic Sea salmon (Salmo salar), although this is required by the DCR (see Appendix XVI in EC Regulation 1581-2004). This omission however, was not picked up by the External Evaluators, nor by the SGRN. SGRN insists that Finland considers including sexual maturity updates for Baltic Sea salmon in its NP proposals from 2007 onwards.


An income threshold has apparently been used to define the study population but no details are given. Over 2800 vessels belonging to the EU fleet register appear to be missing in the economic survey. See section 2.3-B.

Insufficient information on costs survey methodology (reference is made only to the NP proposal). It appears that samples are voluntary (self-selecting) from postal surveys. See section 2.3-C and D.

10 - SGRN insists that MS follows the provisions of the DCR. Information on all vessels belonging to fleet register should be further provided by MS.


38

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

13.1, 13.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly Yes 11 13.2, 13.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS



appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? No 12 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



The methodology was not described in the Finnish Technical Report as requested in the guidelines. See general comment on the need for a dedicated website for the DCR.

Prices/product and capacity utilisation are not covered. To be clarified in the future TR

The report does not address the problem of combining different sources (register database and phone interview) to a consistent data base. To be clarified in the future TR

12 - The achievements in terms of database development clearly fell short of what was planned and there is little information on what has actually been achieved in 2005. To be clarified by MS.

13 - Participation to important international meetings / workshops was ensured, except for the Work-shop on fleet segmentation (Nantes, France), which was of potential relevance to Finland. See also general comment on the eligible list of 2005 meetings.


39

4.6 COUNTRY: FRANCE

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission. 06/06/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly



The report contained several inconsistencies. See also general comments on Deadlines and Translation Problems.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? No 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Partly 2 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS


appreciation See

com

men


and when requested? Yes


1 - The only information provided in Table 3.1 concerns module E discards and some species in module H. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

2 - Only methods for discards and length and age compositions of the landings are provided.


40

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes No Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes ?

5.2, 5.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS No 5.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

3

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? ? / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? ? /

4




MP EP

See

com

men

t




7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 5 Were national targets met ? Partly / 6 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 7

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 8

3 - It is not clear when the sampling based on the new questionnaire will be implemented. To be clarified by MS

4 - It is unclear whether data gathered for effort are exhaustive. To be clarified by MS

5 - The precision level is given for only one fishing segment. In absence of precision estimates for most of the fishing segments sampled, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

6 - 9 out of 15 fishing activities were undersampled.

7 - SGRN assumes that the reference to small-scale fisheries include vessels <10 m. To be clarified in the future TR


41

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 9 Recreational and game fisheries

7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Yes / Were national targets met ? NA /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t





See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? IBTS 1st Quarter Yes / Western IBTS 4th Quarter (EVHOE) Yes / Sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel acoustic survey Yes / 10 MEDITS Yes / Channel Groundfish survey Yes / PELMED Yes

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ? 10

SGRN


MP EP Se

e co

mm

ent

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly Yes

Were national targets met ? Mostly Yes 11

8 - France claims that tropical tuna are assessed in collaboration with Spain but only a brief reference to tuna collaboration can be found in the Spanish 2005 Technical Report. To be clarified by both France and Spain.

9 - SGRN notes the steps taken by the MS to rectify shortfalls in the sampling but still questions whether these will be sufficient to meet the targets

10 - It was noted that the coverage area has been changed for 2005. It is unclear whether this design change was agreed with the relevant WG. It is not specified whether this temporary change in survey design will have an affect on the time series. To be clarified by the MS.

11 - For length sampling 9 out of 48 stocks (excluding the tuna fisheries) failed to meet the 90% threshold; 4 out of 25 stocks for age sampling. Calculation excludes stock only requiring very low numbers.


42

10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No NA 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

12

Discards 10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes /

Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? No / 13 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 13 SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 14 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ? Sex ratios

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 14 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ? Sexual maturity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 14 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ? Fecundity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /


12 - [MP] For the majority of the deficiencies, explanations are given but no remedies to prevent the shortfalls in the future are provided. However, no explanation is given for the absence of ageing for mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in ICES area IV, plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in ICES area VIIe , Roundnose Grenadier (Coyipahenoides rupestris) in ICES area VI, blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in area VI. SGRN insists that MS follows the provision of the DCR.

13 - SGRN does not agree with the MS assumptions that age at length distribution in the discards fraction of commercial catches is the same as that in research vessels catches at all time of the year. SGRN insists that MS follows the provision of the DCR and includes age sampling on the discards in its NP without further delay.

14 - Inconsistency between Tables 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 – e.g. scientific and common species names are mixed. See general comments on deadlines and translation problems.

In absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. see general comment on precision level as DCR target. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

15 - There is no long term planning (Table 11.1) shown for anchovy and sardine fecundity in the Technical Report. To be clarified by the MS.


43

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 16 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 17



MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? Yes 18 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





There was generally insufficient detail about sampling/data collection methodology to judge the quality of data collection.

It appeared that a number of large vessels had been omitted because segments with less than 20 vessels were excluded.

It also appeared that no data were collected for the Mediterranean.

Errors included fleet numbers in the text and in Table 12.1 that did not correspond, and entries in Table 12.2 for unsampled segments. See section 2.3-A and C.

17 - SGRN insists that the TR gives a full and accurate picture of what was done by MS. The completeness of data collection for all segments to be clarified by MS. Errors in the tables to be revised by MS.

18 - SGRN noted that MS collaborated with JRC over the web services pilot project


44


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ? Yes 19

19 - The proposal of collecting individual weights of fish should be considered during the September 2006 SGRN meeting on the review of the DCR.

4.7 COUNTRY: GERMANY

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission. 31/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Yes


General SGRN comments on MS's technical report :

SGRN thinks the report was generally well written and that the information was easy to obtain.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Partly 2 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS

1 - Some methods are under development. See general comment on precision level as DCR target.

2 - The method is described in a rather concise manner but details on how to calculate standard error (s) are missing, although such methods are dependent on the parameters to estimate. Germany estimates confidence limits (not CV’s), in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation.


45


appreciation See

com

men

t


Yes

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? Yes 43 Other relevant issues raised by MS

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




3 - SGRN assumes that the < 10 m vessels were included in the sampling programme, although there is no explicit reference to them in the Technical Report (as is requested in the Guidelines). Further information to be provided by MS.


46

Discards 7.5 Were DCR targets met ? Partly /

Were national targets met ? NA / 4

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? / 5 7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Partly / 6 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 7

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Yes / 8

Were national targets met ? Yes / 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /



MP EP

See

com

men

t





See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? Baltic International Trawl Survey Yes / Baltic Herring Acoustic Survey Yes / Baltic Sprat Acoustic Survey Partly / 10

4 - The target is to sample as many segments as possible, with 40-45 trips a year. The precision has been calculated and, often, do not reach the required level. The MS follows the guidelines in 1639/2001 App. III, with sub-strata on gear types but as a result many strata are covered by only one or two trips. In a previous general comment “on Precision levels for discard estimates” (SEC-2005/255), SGRN suggested MS to try to achieve the highest precision possible within the constraints of excessive cost, and that this problem [of achieving the DCR precision level] will need to be considered in the revision of the DCR.

5 - This is not clear from the report. To be clarified by MS.

6 - There are two deviations from aim ;

1) no vessels <10 m (not explained, reiteration of the comment of last year’s SGRN report) ;

2) problem of non-random sampling (well explained).

7 - No actions provided. Further information to be provided by MS.

8 - SGRN appreciates that a pilot study is already in progress that is only required for 2006.

9 - An additional fleet was proposed in the NP 2005 but data series was not accepted by STECF and so it is not reported in the TR.

10 - The acoustic tracks achieved 65% of the planned distance because of technical problems.


47

International Bottom Trawl Survey 1st quarter Partly / 11 International Bottom Trawl Survey 3rd quarter Yes / Atlanto-Scandian Herring Acoustic Survey NA / 12 North Sea Herring Acoustic Survey Yes / North Sea Beam Trawl Survey Yes / Demersal Young Fish Survey Yes / International Hydro-Acoustic Oceanic Redfish Partly / 13


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 14

Were national targets met ? Mostly / 15 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /


10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / 16

10.2, 10.4 Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII ? Yes /


11 - Total number of hauls did not reach what was planned (86% for fish hauls and 70% for MIK hauls) due to bad weather conditions.

12 - Survey conducted by Denmark..

13 - The same technical problems as for Baltic Sprat Acoustic Survey caused a delayed start.

14 - 5 out of 28 stocks for length and 1 out of 12 for age were not sampled to DCR requirements.

15 - 5 out of 28 stocks for length and 1 out of 28 for age were not sampled to national requirements.

16 - It was difficult for SGRN to check if all species were adequately sampled as Appendix Table 7 is not provided in the NP proposal. This is a reiteration of last year’s comment. MS should be aware that all tables dealing with technical part of the report should be provided separately from the financial form.

17 - In relation to access to vessels, SGRN cannot assess if the legal remedy reported will be sufficient. See the previous comment on accessibility and compensation of commercial fishing vessels (SGRN Dec 2005 report) where SGRN reminded MS that they have the obligation to provide access for sea-going observers to any fishing vessel. SGRN recommended also, that this should, if possible, be done through co-operation with the fishing industry, which has proven its effectiveness in many MS.


48

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 18 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Sex ratios

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Sexual maturity


11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Fecundity




MP EP

See

com

men

t



18 - MS states that precision will be provided after the triennial period. see general comment on the triennial periodicity for the other biological parameters.


There appeared to be no sampling of some segments e.g., large beam trawlers. See section 2.3-A. To be clarified by MS.

Generally voluntary responses were used (non-random samples). See section 2.3-D.

20 - SGRN insists that the TR gives a full and accurate picture of what was done by MS. The completeness of data collection for all segments to be clarified by MS.


49

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



MS is currently not able to provide data on processing enterprises below 20 employees. For enterprises with more than 20 employees three indicators are missing: raw material use, investment (asset), and financial position.

MS has carried out additional surveys to receive the missing data but because of very low response rates this data still cannot be provided.

To avoid further shortfalls i.e. to increase the response rate Germany is testing financial incentives for completely filled questionnaires.

22 - Germany is in favour of the development of a common tool to estimate precision. This endorses SGRN’s earlier remarks, see general comment on precision level as DCR target.


50

4.8 COUNTRY: GREECE

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 31/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Mostly Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables ? Mostly Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly



The Greek Technical Report is a reasonably well-structured document, which does however miss some important pieces of information (see the comment below and the footnotes by section underneath) and which has too many redundant tables, particularly on the scientific evaluation surveys.

Tables 11.2 and 11.3 on Biological parameters were missing in the Greek Technical Report. Also, several of the standard tables are not in the right settings/version (the report contains two tables of the 2004 set of standard tables, instead of the most recent, 2005 version).



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? No 2 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS


appreciation See

com

men

t


Yes

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? NMS 4.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS

1 - No precision estimates provided for discards and economic data. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target

2 - No detailed information is provided by MS.


51

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes /

3

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 6.2, 6.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /


Appreciation SECTION 7 : MODULE E - CATCHES AND LANDINGS

MP EP

See

com

men

t


Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 3



Were national targets met ? Yes / 5

3 - In Greece, data on fishing effort, catches and landings are primarily obtained from sampling programmes at the landing sites of the vessels. Greece provides information on the numbers of vessels sampled per fleet segment and on the precision levels achieved. In analogy with the data required from other countries on e.g. their discard sampling programmes, SGRN would like to also see information in future Greek Technical Reports on the percentage coverage of total fishing effort per fleet segment (i.e. the relationships between the effort of the vessels sampled for effort and landings, and the total effort of the corresponding fleet segments).

4 - The discard sampling programme did not include the coastal fishery > 12 m in area 2.2 but the explanation given is acceptable.

In absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

5 - Table 7.1 has entries in column "% fishing trips covered" for two fleet segments only. SGRN insists that in future Technical Reports, this information be provided for all fleet segments.


52

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Derog. /

Were national targets met ? Derog. / 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /



MP EP

See

com

men

t





See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? Swordfish tagging Yes / MEDITS Yes / 6 Anchovy / Yes

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN


MP EP Se

e co

mm

ent

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 7



6 - SGRN reminds the MS that in section G.18 of the Guidelines it is stated that "There is no need to provide extensive narrative reports of the surveys with lists of participating scientists, day-to-day accounts of activities, etc. If essential to the evaluation of the report, they should be given in annex." SGRN considers that none of the tables given in Annex II of the Greek Technical Report are essential to its evaluation, and therefore should be omitted from future Technical Reports.

7 - Nephrops: SGRN is of the opinion that the current level of sampling is reasonable for estimating length composition of the landings. However, based on the experience of expert groups such as the ICES Working Group on Nephrops Stocks, SGRN has serious doubts that 3,100 length measurements of Nephrops is sufficient to identify age groups (see bullet point 1 on page 17 of the Technical Report).


53

Discards 10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes No

Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? NA NA 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS



MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth



Sex ratios



Sexual maturity



Fecundity



8 - Only Table 11.1 with the long-term planning for Other Biological Parameters is included in the Greek Technical Report, while Tables 11.2 and 11.3 are missing. SGRN was informed that the collection of these data has been undertaken but insists that the obligation to report updates for biological parameters every three years only, does not relieve a MS from the obligation to report achieved sampling every year. Also, the version of Table 11.1 in the Greek Technical Report is the old one, not the most recent one that came with the 2005 version of the Guidelines. See general comment on the triennial periodicity for the other biological parameters.

In absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.


54

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



15.3 Are the RCM recommendations well followed through ? ? 11


Unclear sampling methodology: It is not made clear within the text how MS estimates their planned sample for each fleet segment. The fact that the achieved sampling is always superior to the target sampling is questionable, especially in the case of stratified sampling. The (large) coastal under 12m sector has too low a sample rate to achieve precision. Also, there is a difference between the total number of vessels in the fleet register and in the technical tables. It appears that around 5,000 vessels have been excluded from the population. See section 2.3-A and C.

Segmentation: National segmentation is used, not segmentation according to the DCR. There is no consistency between Tables 12.1 and 12.2 for fleet segmentation. See section 2.3-A.

Estimation of economic parameters: It is unclear what method MS is using to calculate vessel (asset) values - replacement value? Two approaches were mentioned in the text but it was not clear which one has actually been used or which is preferred. See section 2.3-E.

It was not clear whether data collected really referred to 2005 as stated in Table 12.2.

10 - Methodology and inconsistencies in the tables to be clarified by MS. Concerning the population to sample, SGRN insists that MS follows the provisions of the DCR.


55


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


11 - There is no information on the follow-up of RCM recommendations in the Greek Technical Report. SGRN insists that MS undertakes actions in response to RCM recommendations

4.9 COUNTRY: IRELAND

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 31/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Yes



SGRN considers that the report was generally well written and that the information was relatively easy to obtain for the evaluation.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Yes 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Yes 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS


appreciation See

com

men

t

4.1 Were all data transmitted to international expert groups as and when requested ?

Yes

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? / 43 Other relevant issues raised by MS


56

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes 1 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 2


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




7.5 Were DCR targets met ? Mostly / 3 Were national targets met ? Partly / 4 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 5

1 - Parameter part of the economic estimates. See comments on section 12. 2 - SGRN notes that data for <10m vessels are reported as being estimated from a pilot study. However,

SGRN was informed that this is an error and that the study is fully integrated into the main sampling programme, allowing the MS to fulfil the requirements of the DCR. SGRN suggests that the term ‘pilot study’ is removed from the report in future.

3 - The precision has been calculated and, often, do not reach the required level. In a previous general comment “on Precision levels for discard estimates” (SEC-2005/255), SGRN suggested MS to try to achieve the highest precision possible within the constraints of excessive cost, and that this problem [of achieving the DCR precision level] will need to be considered in the revision of the DCR.

4 - All but one survey did not achieve 90% of what was planned in 2005 5 - SGRN were informed that 10 Irish fleets were identified as contributing significantly to discarding,

and these have been targeted and sampled. In 2005 this programme did not include any vessels <10m.


57

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Yes /




MP EP

See

com

men

t





See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? International Norwegian Herring Acoustic Survey Yes / North west Herring Acoustic Survey Partly / 6 International blue whiting survey Yes / Celtic Sea Herring Acoustic Survey Yes / Western IBTS Q4 Groundfish Survey Mostly / 7 Deepwater Trawl Survey Yes / Juvenile Plaice survey No 8 Nephrops UWTV survey Yes

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Mostly / 9 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

6 - Only 54% of the planned tracks were surveyed. SGRN was informed that the survey occurred during an extended period of extremely bad weather, and the acoustic tracks had to be shortened. This is a situation beyond the control of the MS.

7 - 88 % of the planned hauls were executed. SGRN re-iterates that 90% is a threshold and not a target and notes that the MS should aim for 100 % of the planned sampling effort. SGRN was informed that this was the first year for Ireland in the new, deeper stratum during the IBTS groundfish survey. The MS concluded from experience that its expectations on the number of hauls achievable in this stratum (given the distance between them) was unrealistic. In order to address this, the MS will invest time in acquiring information on additional clear tows in this area to reduce the distance between survey tows. This will allow the MS to reach the required level of sampling.

8 - This survey was in the NP proposal and was not carried out because the Northern Shelf WG stated that data would not be used for assessment purposes. Since this is a priority 2 survey, SGRN sees no objection for this.

9 - Deviations for Herring Acoustic Survey were not explained. Further information to be provided by MS.


58

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Mostly / 11 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? yes 12

Discards 10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes /

10.2, 10.4 Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII ? Yes / 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t






11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Fecundity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? NA /

10 - In 4 out of 48 stocks targets were underachieved.

11 - There is no explanation for undersampling of Nephrops in functional unit 14. However, SGRN was informed that Nephrops from FU14 and FU15 are landed together, and due to the negligible landings (approx 58t in 2005) from FU14, it is essentially impossible to separate them from the overall landings in this area. Other stocks sufficiently explained.

12 - Explanation only given for albacore tuna. However, SGRN were informed that The MS has taken the step of basing some staff in the major fishery ports, in order to allow for more frequent and efficient sampling, and will enable better access to samples. This move should address any remaining gaps in the Irish sampling programme.

13 - Planned actions were achieved, but in absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. See general comment on precision level as DCR target.

14 - Planned actions were achieved, even if MS fell to reach the precision level 3 for most of the stocks.


59


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 15 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /



MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



The achieved sample rates appeared very low compared to planned samples as well as to the total population. Samples were voluntary and hence cannot be considered as random. The proposed incentive to boost the sample size is a good idea. Coverage of many segments was poor. See section 2.3-D.

No methodology described for the calculation of fixed costs (particularly depreciation). See section 2.3-E. to be clarified by MS

16 - See general comment on the use of DCR data for other than scientific purpose.


60

4.10 COUNTRY: ITALY

a. General comments




The MS has taken initiatives in order to comply better with the DCR and improve quality of data (establishment of a working group reviewing statistical methods for sampling, new sampling designs, etc…). SGRN views this as a very positive step.

For some sections, “Deviations from aim” and “Actions taken to remedy shortfalls”, are not written in an explicit way.

b Comments by section of the Technical report


appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Yes 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS 2


appreciation See

com

men

t

4.1 Were all data transmitted to international expert groups as and when requested? Yes


1 - Precison available for about half the parameters (6 out of 11). The MS states that at the time of submission of the Technical Report the precision levels had not been calculated. See also general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

2 - SGRN sees no contradiction between the philosophy of the DCR and MS views on the concept and the use of precision levels. This approach should be taken forward during the September 2006 SGRN meeting on the review of the DCR.


61

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 3 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? / 4


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Mostly / 5 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? ? / 6 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 7


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t


Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 7 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /


7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 10

3 - SGRN assumes that the DCR target were met but found unclear whether the survey is shifting to a routine sampling programme or not. To be clarified by MS.

4 - Vessels below 10 m are not specifically mentioned within this section of the Technical Report. Further information to be provided by MS

5 - Parameter part of the economic estimates. See comments on section 12.

6 - Species specific effort is not explained sufficiently. To be clarified by MS.

7 - Vessels below 12m are included. SGRN assumes that vessels below 10m are included in this segment. Further information to be provided by MS.

8 - Since species specific effort is not sufficiently explained SGRN can not evaluate shortfalls.

9 - There is an effort to improve results by changing survey design, but the MS technical report is unclear. To be clarified by MS.


62

Were national targets met ? Mostly / 11 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 7

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Yes /

Were national targets met ? ? / 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

12



MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly Yes 14 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No NA 15




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? MEDITS Yes / TUNA TAGGING Mostly / 16 SWORDFISH TAGGING Partly / 17 GRUND / Yes

10 - In absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. see general comment on precision level as DCR target.

11 - Sampling reached the target for 15 out of 23 fishing fleet segments. Moreover, trawlers where not sampled in the study of 2005, since trawlers only need to be sampled on a triennial basis. However it is unclear from the report when the last sampling of trawlers took part. Table 7.1 is to be revised. SGRN insists that information in the text and in the tables are in accordance and follows the provisions of the guidelines. To be clarified in the future TR.

12 - Methodology well described and results impressive but SGRN can not evaluate if national targets were met since the planned national sampling scheme is missing in the NP proposal and Technical report. Further information to be provided by MS

13 - A procedure to improve the quality of data collected (new software and systematic control of data collectors) was followed during 2005. See also comment 12.

14 - In the NP proposal for 2005 a CPUE series for blue fin tuna traps was included. This CPUE series is not mentioned in the Technical Report. Further information to be provided by MS

15 - See comment 14. For the CPUE series mentioned in the Technical Report there were no deviations from aim.

16 - 24 out of 33 (72%) pop up tags where deployed. Map is missing. To be added in the future TR

17 - 32 out of 150 spaghetti tags were deployed. Map is missing. To be added in the future TR


63

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 18

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t


Were national targets met? Mostly / 19


Discards 10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App.XII/XIII? ? / 20

Is there age information for species of App.XII/XIII? ? / 21 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 22



MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 24

18 - No specific actions to avoid shortfalls are presented in the Technical Report. To be clarified by MS.

19 - Target was achieved for 22 out of 23 stocks. Tuna was the one not achieved.

20 - There are length samples (35) of App. XII species. It is unclear if the MS sample all species in appendix XII or if they sample according to a restricted list as indicated in table 7.1. There are inconsistencies in naming of the fleet segments between table 7.1 and 10.3 making comparisons between the two very difficult. See also comment 11. To be clarified by MS.

21 - There are age samples (20) of App. XII species. See also previous comment.

22 - Discard sampling scheme was delayed in 2005 due to a new sampling design. Deviations from aims are not well explained. It is unclear to what extent the implementation of a new discard sampling design affected the MS planned sampling levels. It is also unclear whether any discard sampling was carried out prior to the shift in sampling design. The MS justifies the delay in sampling with the expectation that the new survey design will result in the achievement of better precision levels. However no precision levels are provided for discards. Due to this SGRN cannot evaluate if the new sampling design is successful and justifies the shortfalls in the discard sampling programme. Further information to be provided by MS.

23 - No actions are explicitly proposed to remedy the shortfalls in the discard sampling, including problems getting observers to sea. See also previous comment.

24. - For the majority of species, the sample size seems to be sufficient; however for some species such as Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus) and black-bellied angler (Lophius budegassa) sample size are low.

In absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. see general comment on precision level as DCR target.


64

11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? / 25 11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes 26

Sex ratios 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 24 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 25

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes 26 Sexual maturity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 24 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 25

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes 26 Fecundity




MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 27 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /



MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t

25 - MS states that a new sampling design has been adopted since the third quarter of 2005 in order to achieve a better precision level. SGRN supports the initiative taken by MS.

26 - MS has established a working group to review statistical methods for biological sampling. SGRN views this as a very positive step and recommends to report on the outcomes of these analysis in the next TR.

27 - The comments are as follows : Some more detail about sampling methodology would have been useful (even if already in the NP

proposal). From Table 12.1, the sample rate appears a little low for some segments. SGRN notes that the over 40m vessels are not included in the surveys. SGRN insists that MS

follows the provisions of the DCR. Information on all vessels belonging to fleet register should be further provided by MS


65



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

15.1 Is there sufficient information on national co-ordination? Yes 28


15.3 Are the RCM recommendations well followed through? Yes 29


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections? No

28 - No aims, summaries or conclusions are included. Further information to be provided by MS

29 - The RCMs initiatives and recommendations are described. To some extent it is however unclear if the MS has taken action/will take action to follow the recommendations. To be clarified in the future TR.


66

4.11 COUNTRY: LATVIA

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission. Yes Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Yes



SGRN was impressed by the quality of the Latvian Technical Report. The report was well-structured, closely followed the overall structure suggested by SGRN and contained all the necessary information for the proper evaluation of the achieved sampling.



appreciation See

com

men

t



appreciation See

com

men

t


? 3

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? 3 4.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS

1 - Precision available for about half of the parameters. See general comment on precision level as DCR target

2 - SGRN agrees with the suggestion made by the MS that "The calculation of precision levels would be more convenient and comparable between MS if a common software will be developed and distributed to national institutes involved in this work."

3 - See general comment on ICES data summaries.


67

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Mostly / 4 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /

6.2, 6.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 6.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 4

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 5 Were national targets met ? Mostly / 6 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

4 - SGRN notes that all fleet segments have been covered, except for the > 40 m vessels, due to a lack of co-operation from the fishermen. There is no information in the Technical Report on how the MS envisages to remedy this shortfall.

5 - SGRN assumes that there is a typing error in Table 7.1. In this table, it is stated that all App. XIII species were covered by the discard sampling programme, but not the App. XII species. In Table 10.3 however, only App. XII species are listed. To be clarified by MS.


6 - There are some minor shortfalls in the numbers of discard trips achieved for cod gillnet fishery and cod trawl fishery (see Table 7.1), but these are sufficiently well explained.


68

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Recreational and game fisheries

7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Derog. / Were national targets met ? Derog. /

7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t





See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? BITS first quarter Yes / BITS fourth quarter Yes / Herring Acoustic Survey Yes / Sprat Acoustic Survey Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t Landings

10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes Yes 7 Were national targets met ? Yes Yes


Discards 10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / 8

Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / 8 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

7 - [EP] : SGRN appreciates the initiative taken by the MS with respect to the length sampling of turbot (Table 10.2), but in view of the type of investigations undertaken, it considers that the results should be reported as part of modules F or G and not as "sampling of landings".

8 - With regards to at sea sampling in the flounder fisheries, SGRN sees very little use of only sampling unsorted catches. In the absence of data on the retained portions of the catches, such data are not suitable to provide estimates of the discards. To be clarified by MS.


69



MP EP

See

com

men

t



11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 9 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / ç 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /





MP EP

See

com

men

t


12.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes 12

9 - The planned actions have been realized but in absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state on the achievement of the DCR target. see general comment on precision level as DCR target.


It is not clear whether the samples are truly stratified random or voluntary and hence self-selected (no precision levels given). Final sample rates are very low, in one case zero. See section 2.3-C and D.

The segmentation in Table 12.1 is not in line with the DCR. See section 2.3-A.

There are parameters missing in Table 12.2.

11 - Further information on methodology and all missing parameters in table 12.2 should be provided by MS.

12 - Whether the proposed new methodology will improve the representativeness of the data cannot be judged at this point.


70

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


15.2 Is the participation ensured to the important international meetings and workshops ? Partly 13



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ? 14

13 - Participation to important international meetings / workshops was only partly ensured. There was no Latvian participation in the following meetings: Workshop on precision level (Sukarietta, Spain), Workshop of fleet segmentation (Nantes, France), Workshop on small scale fisheries (Kavala, Greece), Workshop on economic data (IREPA, Italy) and Workshop on eel (Stockholm, Sweden), all of which were of potential importance to Latvia. See also general comment on the eligible list of meetings 2005

14 - SGRN understands that changes in the deadlines for the submission of the NP Proposals and the Technical Reports will be discussed as part of the revision of the DCR.


71

4.12 COUNTRY: LITHUANIA

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission. 03/05/2006 Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Partly [a] Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Mostly Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Partly [b]

Are actions by RCM regions sufficiently well individualised ? NA [c]


SGRN appreciates that this is Lithuania’s first Technical Report submission.

[a] MS does not fully follow the provisions of the guidelines, e.g. sections for precision levels and data transmission are missing. For most sections, “Deviations from aim” and “Actions taken to avoid shortfalls” are missing.

[b] There was lack of information in most of the sections of TR

[c] MS has been granted for an exceptional derogation for not collecting data in NAFO and CECAF area in 2005. SGRN reminds that the pilot studies carried out in 2006 has to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting



appreciation See

com

men

t 3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? No 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? No

1



appreciation See

com

men

t


Yes

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? NA 2

1 - MS does not give any precision levels in Standard table 3.1. The information on precision levels are inconsistent between the different tables. SGRN was informed, that the precision levels included in Standard tables 10.3, 11.2 and 11.3 were inserted there mistakenly. To be clarified by MS. See also general comment on precision level as a DCR target.


72

43 Other relevant issues raised by MS No SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 3 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? / 4


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? No 7 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? ? / 8 (iii) for specific fishing effort ? ? / 9 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 10


2 - The information about transmitted data is included in Standard table 4.1, but there is no corresponding section in the TR. See also general comments on ICES data summary.

3 - TR does not include any information about the fleet segmentation. Further information to be provided by MS.

4 - Data collection on <10m vessels was not specifically mentioned either in the Technical Report, or in the NP proposal (<12 m category for coastal fisheries is mentioned in the NP proposal). To be clarified by MS.

5 - TR does not include any chapter about deviations from aim. Further information to be provided by MS.

6 - TR does not include any chapter about actions taken to avoid shortfalls. Further information to be provided by MS.

7 - MS states that fuel consumption data is not available.

8 - TR does not include any information about the fleet segmentation and about the type of techniques used. Further information to be provided by MS.

9 - TR does not include any information about specific fishing effort. Further information to be provided by MS

10 - Data collection on <10m vessels was not specifically mentioned in either the TR, or in the NP proposal. To be clarified by MS.


73

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 7.1, 7.3 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 11

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 10 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 5

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 6 Discards

7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 12 Were national targets met ? Partly / 13 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 14

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 15

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? ? /

Were national targets met ? ? / 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No /

16



MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 17 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 5


11 - TR does not include any information about catches and landings in MP. Further information to be provided by MS

12 - In absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target

13 - MS did not reach the National targets for discards sampling in 3 out of 4 fleet segments in number of hauls (and 2 out of 4 fleet segments in number of trips)

14 - MS states that only vessels over 24 m were included in monitoring discards.

15 - The Technical Report does not include any chapter about actions taken to avoid shortfalls. Further information to be provided by MS

16 - SGRN recommended to MS to start a pilot study on recreational fisheries of cod in 2006. Based on the TR it seems that MS started the pilot study already in 2005, although it is not stated clearly in TR. However, no detailed data is given in TR. SGRN reminds that this study has to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting.

17 - The relevant section and data in standard table 8.1 are missing. Further information to be provided by MS.


74

SGRN



See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? BITS 1st quarter Mostly / 18 BITS 4th quarter Yes / Herring acoustic survey 2nd quarter Yes / Herring acoustic survey 4th quarter Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 19

Were national targets met ? NA / 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /

10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 20 Discards

10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes /

Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII?? Yes /

10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

18 - The two days planned were achieved but only 4 out of 6 hauls were realised.

19 - DCR targets for length were partly achieved. There are no sample numbers reported for Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), even though this species appears in the NP proposal. SGRN has been informed that this is a misprint and refers to planned sampling for Flounder (Platichtys flesus). In addition the targets for age were only partly achieved. In particular Cod (Gadus morhua) in IIId, under a recovery plan, was poorly sampled (40%) for age.

20 - No solutions outlined to remedy shortfall in age sampling. Further information to be provided by MS.


75

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t










MP EP

See

com

men

t



21.- The planned actions has been realised but in absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. See general comment on precision level as DCR target..

22 _ Lithuania states that it did not collect sex ratio information because measurements were taken from gutted fish in the ports.


Segments in Tables 12.1 and 12.2 do not accord with those specified in the DCR. See section 2.3-A

Insufficient detail about survey methodology. Voluntary return of survey questionnaires so not random sampling. See section 2.3-C and D.

24 - No proposals on how to improve the data collection effort. Further information to be provided by MS.


76

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

13.1, 13.3 Were DCR targets met? NA / 25 13.2, 13.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /



appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? NA 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS No


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

15.1 Is there sufficient information on national co-ordination? No 26




SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



So far, only three indicators are available: income, total production cost, and employment. Further efforts are necessary to comply with the DCR. The approach is only described very roughly as ‘There were made some investigations on collection of fish processing data in 2005’ which is insufficient information for this review process.

Remark to data security: according to the NACE code 15.20 definition of fish processing, factory vessels do not belong to the fish processing sector, thus there would be no need for MS to include this kind of activity.

SGRN reminds that the pilot study has to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting.

26 - No information was given on any national coordination meetings. Further information to be provided by MS.

27 - The MS did not participate to PGCCDBS nor to the workshops presented under PGCCDBS, with the exception of age reading workshops on cod and herring. See general comment on the eligible list of 2005 meetings.

28 - MS did not provide any information on actions taken in response to RCM recommendations. SGRN insists that MS undertakes actions in response to RCM recommendations.


77

4.13 COUNTRY: MALTA

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission. 31/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly



This is Malta’s first Technical Report and it complies well with the STECF-SGRN guidelines 2005. Overall, the Technical Report is a well-written document that includes most of the information required for a proper evaluation of the MS's achievements. However a list of the appropriate recommendations from the relevant RCM, with a description of Malta’s responsive actions are not provided.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Partly 2 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS 3


appreciation See

com

men

t


1 - Precision available for about half the parameters. The MS states that at the time of submission of the Technical Report the precision levels had not been calculated.

2 - There are some details provided by the MS on the methodology used to calculate precision levels, however this could be expanded upon.

3 - According to MS, the use of the precision level in the estimating process given in the DCR does not seem to be particularly suited to the case of Mediterranean small scale fisheries, due to the frequent changes in the use of gears and the activity. If these precision levels were to be considered, the sampling size would be so large that the sampling scheme could be considered as a census. The precision level relating to estimates could be considered prior to defining the sample size. SGRN strongly states that the DCR requirement applies to all MS and regions. SGRN also recalls that this issue has been dealt with in some reports (Small-scale fisheries 2005, fleet-based approach 2006).


78

4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? Yes 43 Other relevant issues raised by MS 4

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



5

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? ? / 6 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t


Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA Discards

7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 7 Were national targets met ? ? /

4 - MS relates that data are archived in respective databases and are available for any eventual request for data transmission.

5 - Data on fishing capacities are collected from the vessel register, which SGRN assumes contains information on vessels <10m, however the MS does not make specific reference to the < 10m vessels in this register. Further information to be provided by MS.

6 - No achieved precision level calculated for specific fishing effort. See general comment on precision level as DCR target.

7 - A pilot study was carried out by the MS. SGRN reminds that this study has to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting.


79

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? / 7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 7

Were national targets met ? ? / 7 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /



MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? Medits Survey Yes / Tuna Tagging Survey Yes / Grund Survey No

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS No 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

8

SGRN


MP EP Se

e co

mm

ent

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly /

Were national targets met ? No / 9


Discards 10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species in App. XII/XIII? ? / 10.1, 10.3 Is there age information for species in App. XII/XIII? ? /

Were national targets met ? ? / 7

10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /

8 - The planned EP Grund survey was not performed in 2005 and no explanation is given. To be clarified by MS.

9- For length sampling, only 1 out of 3 species reached the planned sampling targets. For age sampling, no species reached the planned sampling targets.


80



MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 10 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS /



11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ? 12 Sexual maturity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 13 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA /

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ? 12 Fecundity




MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? No / 14 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 15


10 - It is stated that MS will provide results after a three year period that will end in 2007. SGRN agrees with this approach. See general comment on the triennial periodicity for the other biological parameters

11 - Sex ratio information was not collected for swordfish.

12 - SGRN does not have the expertise to state whether the approach proposed my MS on maturity staging for tuna and swordfish is adequate or not. SGRN suggests that the Commission asks ICCAT for advice on this issue.

13 - Sexual maturity information was not collected for swordfish.


This does not conform with a DCR data collection exercise: no information or methodology on vessel earnings, fixed costs, employment and financial position; the fleet is apparently segmented into under and over 10m vessels only.

The text and the tables differ significantly in many respects.

15 - Data collection on module J is compulsory and must be the object of a full sampling coverage. SGRN insists that MS follows the provisions of the DCR.


81

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? Yes 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS Yes


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


16 - New member states have to provide a pilot study by October 2006 which will be seperately evaluated at the end of 2006. The report describes the steps taken so far and announces a more advanced report by October 2006.

17 - It is stated in the TR that all relevant RCM recommendations has been followed through, but the list of these relevant recommendations with a description of Malta’s responsive actions have not been provided. SGRN insists that MS undertakes actions in response to RCM recommendations

18 - Malta supports the move from annual to tri – annual reports for the DCR.


82

4.14 COUNTRY: THE NETHERLANDS

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission. 30/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? Yes

Are actions by RCM regions sufficiently well individualised ? Mostly


SGRN has appreciated the organization and the presentation of the information, but found it difficult to disentangle the actions undertaken in each of the RCM regions.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? No 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? No

1



appreciation See

com

men



4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? Yes 43 Other relevant issues raised by MS

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



1 - SGRN is unaware of any permission regarding the non-estimation of precision levels. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.


83

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN

Appreciation SECTION 7 : MODULE E - CATCHES AND LANDINGS

MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 7.1, 7.3 Were DCR targets met ? Yes Yes

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes Yes 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA NA


7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? ? 2 Were national targets met ? Yes Yes Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No No 3

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes Yes 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

Recreational and game fisheries / 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? Yes /




MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes Yes 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes Yes



3 - Discards sampling programme only refers to beam trawlers and large pelagic trawlers.


84

SGRN



See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? IBITS Yes / NS Herring acoustic survey Yes / Blue whiting Acoustic survey Mostly / 4 Mackerel egg survey Yes / Sole Net Survey Yes / BTS Yes / Demersal Young Fish Survey Yes / Herring Larvae Survey Yes


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes Yes

Were national targets met ? Mostly Mostly 5 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes Yes


10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes Yes

is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes Yes 6 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes Yes



MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? ? 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? ?

7

4 - MS fell short in achieving the planned acoustic grid (76% of achievement)

5 - National targets were set at a higher level than DCR targets. MS fell short to meet these targets for some stocks (8 out of 24 in the MP), but none of them are under recovery plan or used for tuning purpose.

6 - SGRN has been informed that the lack of age sampling information on the pelagic freezer trawler fleet is a mistake in the report.

7 - Slight inconsistency between tables 11.1 and 11.2 (for example, herring, sole). To be clarified by MS.


85


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? ? 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? ?

6


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? ? 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? ?

6


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? ? 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No No


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 9 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /


SECTION 13 : MODULE K – PROCESSING INDUSTRY

SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


8 - In table 11.1, fecundity should have been planned for horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) and mackerel (Scomber scombrus), in 2004 and 2007. SGRN is aware that the extension to the North Sea of the tri-annual mackerel egg survey occurred in 2005. However, according to table 11.3, no fecundity study was conducted in 2005. To be clarified by MS.


There is incomplete coverage due to vessels excluded as “inactive” by a threshold of Euro 50,000. SGRN notes, however, that some attempt was made to survey inactive vessels in 2005 and a further (postal) survey will be undertaken in 2006. Sampling involves the use of voluntary panels and is therefore not random: the problem of a representative sample is acknowledged in report. See section 2.3-A, B and D.

With regard to economic parameters: should quota rentals (and fines) be included in “other operational costs”? These are not economic costs (SGRN notes that the DCR not very clear on this). All capital values are estimated by replacement value but this is defined as “book value” which is an accountancy measure. See section 2.3-E.

10 - SGRN acknowledges the intention by the MS to improve the coverage of the fleet in 2006.


86

MP EP




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ? 15

11 - The comments are as follows : The Dutch module K on the fish processing industry starts with “A target population of 290 fish

processors and wholesalers was selected…” which raises two questions: (i) Does the target population deviate from the total population? If yes, what is the total

population and what are the reasons for defining a target population? (ii) The DCR clearly focuses on the processing sector and does not consider wholesalers.

The Dutch population framework is currently not in accordance with the DCR. The Dutch approach combines different sources: SN Business statistics, Business statistics

collected by Chamber of Commerce, Landing statistics, Statistics of international trade, and LEI surveys on the fish processing industry. Different data sources which have been created for different purposes may create problems when combined. Data quality should be addressed by MS.

12 - Further information and clarification should be provided by MS. 13 - MS did not participate to Small Scale fisheries in Kavala. See general comment on the eligible list of

2005 meetings 14 - An exhaustive list of the RCM recommendations was not provided so it was impossible to evaluate

the fullness of the MS response. SGRN insists that MS undertakes actions in response to RCM recommendations

15 - SGRN notes the MS recommendation that there should be a more stringent review of RCM recommendations. see general comment on the follow-up of RCM recommendations


87

4.15 COUNTRY: POLAND

a. General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? 31/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Mostly

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? Yes

Are actions by RCM regions sufficiently well individualised ? Partly

General SGRN comments on MS's technical report: − SGRN noted some inconsistencies between the data collected and data transmitted.

− The TR does not separate data collection by RCM region although four regions should have been identified (See table page 31 in the 2005 guidelines for Technical Reports).

− SGRN appreciates the conciseness of the report but would welcome a bit more detailed information in the next report.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Yes 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Yes 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS 1


appreciation See

com

men

t


Yes 2


1 - Poland estimates CV’s (not confidence limits) and acknowledges that calculation is still in an early phase since this is the start of their NP.

2 - SGRN assumes that landings were transmitted (because age composition was transmitted) but that this was not reported in the tables of the TR.


88

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? / (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t





7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No


Were national targets met ? Yes /


4 - 1 fleet out of 3 was undersampled.

5 - SGRN was pleased to note that Poland proposed to carry out a pilot study for cod although this is not required until 2006. SGRN reminds that this study has to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting.


89


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t





See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? BITS q1 Yes / BITS q4 Yes / Herring Acoustic Survey Yes / 7


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




Discards 10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / 9

10.2, 10.4 Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII ? Yes /


6 - MS has no CPUE series and hence, there is no target.

7 - SGRN insists that MS uses the correct naming of surveys

8 - Target for cod (Gadus morhua) age data in IIId under a recovery plan was not met (71%).

9 - This action is part of the pilot study. See comment 5.


90

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 10 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 10 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 10 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /





MP EP

See

com

men

t



10 - SGRN agrees with the approach taken by MS. See general comment on the triennial periodicity for the other biological parameters.


The survey methodology is unclear. How were questionnaires distributed/returned by post? If returns are voluntary, this will affect the representativeness of results. See section 2.3-C and D.

EU scrapping premiums are used to calculate vessel value. This is not consistent with the DCR or practice in other countries. The economic reasoning behind this needs to be explained. See section 2.3-E.

It appears that the deep sea trawlers have been excluded. See section 2.3-A.

12 - Further information and clarification should be provided by MS


91

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? NA 14 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS

SECTION 15 : NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAl CO-ORDINATION

SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



15.3 Are the RCM recommendations well followed through ? Partly 15


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


13 - The Technical Report does not describe the applied methodology very well. It seems that the questionnaire survey bases on voluntary participation but it should be clearly stated. Problem of self selecting voluntary surveys. While cost items are explicitly mentioned it is not clear to the group whether raw material quantities, prices and capacity utilization are also collected. More detailed definitions as requested by the guidelines are not presented. If a survey addresses the entire sector, a stratified approach could be preferable in order to obtain a relatively higher coverage of large scale enterprises.

SGRN reminds that this study has to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting.

14 - There is no information on funding from the NP proposal 2005.

15 - The TR reports only one recommendation that had follow up and SGRN notes that there are more recommendations that are applicable to the MS. Further information to be provided by MS.


92

4.16 COUNTRY: PORTUGAL

a. General comments




The Portuguese Technical Report generally followed the structure suggested by SGRN, but the internal organisation of the sections could be improved. Explanations on the reasons for the non-compliance with the DCR and/or the national sampling targets were often poor or unclear and should be improved in future reports.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Partly 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Yes 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS


appreciation See

com

men




SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



1 - Precision levels provided for all parameters, except for economic data on fishing vessels. See general comments on precision level as a DCR target


93

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Mostly / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Mostly /

2

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 6.2, 6.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /



MP EP

See

com

men

t





2 - There is a shortfall for vessels > 12 m in ICES IXa, owing to a delay in the recording of the relevant logbook information in the database. The MS states that this will be remedied in the nearest possible future.


4 - For the crustacean and the bottom trawler fleets in IXa, Portugal is using a well-underpinned system for allocating sampling effort, using Neyman's allocation method. This resulted in pre-defined numbers of samples to be taken by region and by fleet segment (viz. 27 for the bottom trawlers and 11 for the crustacean trawlers). In practice however, sampling levels exceeded the pre-defined numbers of samples to be collected, without any explanation given. To be clarified by MS. In the text, there is no explanation given for the low level of sampling achieved in the small scale fisheries with mobile gears (53-54 % achieved), nor for the over-shooting of the targets for the small scale fisheries with passive gears. To be clarified by MS. With regards to the comments on precision levels on page 19 of the Technical Report, SGRN wonders how conclusions can be drawn on the "variability of the catches between trips" and "the heterogeneity of the fleets" if only one vessel is being sampled per fleet segment (see Table 7.1). Further information to be provided by MS. There is insufficient information in the Technical Report on the pilot study conducted by DRPM on the fisheries for small pelagics, black scabbard and tuna. SGRN reminds that the results of this study have to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting.


94

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

4

Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? ? /

Were national targets met ? ? / 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? /

7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? ?

5

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes / 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? Sardine DEPM Yes / Western IBTS 4th quarter Yes / Sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel acoustic survey Yes / Flemish Cap groundfish survey, NAFO Yes / Tuna Tagging No / 6 Sardine Acoustic Survey, SAR / Yes Nephrops / Yes Groundfish Survey / Yes

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes NMS 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 8

5 - There is insufficient information in the Technical Report on the pilot study on recreational fisheries in CECAF. SGRN reminds that the results of this study have to be forwarded to the Commission by October 31st 2006 for subsequent evaluation by SGRN in its December 2006 meeting.

6 - The tuna tagging survey fell short of its targets in 2005, but no action is suggested on how this will be remedied in the future.


95

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 7

Were national targets met ? Partly / 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Partly /


Discards 10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes Yes

Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? Partly No 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No NA


9

7 - With regards to ICES Sub-area IXa, SGRN generally accepts the explanations given for the deviations in the achieved sampling levels, except for red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) where only 10 % of the planned numbers for length were achieved, megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) where only 5 fish were measured for length on a planned total of 2080 and cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) where only 34 % of the planned numbers were measured (see Table 10.1). Also, SGRN understands that planned sampling levels have been identified following an analysis of precision levels in previous years. In that context, SGRN has difficulties to understand why achieved sampling levels for species such as hake (Merluccius merluccius) 120,000 measured for 51,500 planned are so heavily over-shooting the targets.

For NAFO, SGRN understands that the discontinuation of a regularly sampled vessel has put some constraints on the sampling programmes for length and age. However, in view of the fact that both NW Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in the NAFO area are heavily over-exploited, Portugal should have looked for alternative sampling opportunities. SGRN also notes that Portugal is not proposing any action to remedy this shortfall in the years to come. Further information to be provided by MS.

8 - Although remedies to all shortfalls were not provided, SGRN notes that the MS has started a review process of the sampling intensities for market sampling, and would like to be informed of the outcome of this analysis in the future TR.

9 - MP: With regards to at sea sampling in the NAFO area, SGRN sees very little use of only sampling unsorted catches. In the absence of data on the retained portions of the catches, such data are not suitable to provide estimates of the discards. To be clarified by MS.

MP: For the long-line fishery, SGRN notes that the numbers in the column "Unsorted catch" are identical to the numbers in the other columns, and therefore assumes that this is a repetition. SGRN urges MS to follow the provision of the Guidelines in the future (Cf. section G.19).


96

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 10 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? / 11

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No Sex ratios

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 10 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? / 11

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No Sexual maturity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 12 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ? / 11

11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No Fecundity




MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 13


11 - NAFO area: There has been no sampling for length-at-age, nor for sex ratio in cod (Gadus morhua) in the NAFO area, but the explanation given for this shortfall is unclear. Apparently, labour conditions on the vessels fishing in the NAFO-area prevent the observers from collecting gonads for sexual maturity studies, but according to SGRN, this should not prevent them from collecting otoliths or from sexing the animals. To be clarified by MS.

12 - NAFO area: The information provided on cod in the NAFO-area is very confusing. According to the DCR, triennial updates of sexual maturity for cod (Gadus morhua) are required, but there is no sign of this in the long-term planning in Table 11.1. In Table 11.3 however, it is stated that sampling for sexual maturity is done on-board commercial vessels, but also that sexual staging is not possible on-board of commercial vessels. To be clarified by MS.

13 - The comments are as follows : There is insufficient detail on sampling methodology. It appears that a postal survey was used

with voluntary returns. There was incomplete coverage due to non-returns and “staff problems” (vessels fishing in ICES X), but overall fleet coverage was also low. See sections 2.3-A, C and D.

Economic parameters: The methodology for estimating capital values of vessels was unclear. The problem with collecting employment data was not explained. See section 2.3-E.

Non-standard tables were used and the correspondence between Tables 12.1 and 12.2 was not clear. DCR segments not used in Table 12.2. It was not clear why precision levels were recorded as “NA”. See section 2.3-A


97

12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 14 12.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t



15 - Participation to important international meetings / workshops was ensured, except for RCM NAFO and the Age reading workshop on blue whiting, which were both of potential relevance to Portugal. See also general comments on eligible list of meetings 2005.

16 - Portugal only refers to one RCM recommendation, viz. the one on the use of underwater TV surveys for Nephrops. There are however, several other RCM recommendations that apply to this MS and on which nothing is said in the Technical Report. SGRN insists that MS reports on actions in response to RCM recommendations


98

4.17 COUNTRY: SPAIN

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 31/05/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Mostly

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Partly



- SGRN notes that although the TR was submitted on time, it was only available in Spanish

- Some tables such as those on Module I were not clear and in addition, SGRN notes that there are many reiterations of last year’s comments.

- There is only a brief note regarding collaboration with France on tuna fisheries. This collaboration is mentioned in the TR of France. Nevertheless, more details should be provided in the Spanish TR on tuna, in sections 7.6 (Catches and Landings), 8.1 (CPUE) and 10.1 (Length and age).

- SGRN also is of the opinion that the report could be condensed, both physically (e.g. by applying single instead of double-spacing) and contents-wise. Also, the methodological descriptions of the surveys could be shortened.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? No 1 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Partly 2 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS

1 - Table 3.1 does not provide any information about the achieved level of precision, except for discards where level 1 is achieved for only a few species. see general comment on precision level as DCR target

2 - There are no references to the methods used for catches, effort and capacity.


99


appreciation See

com

men

t


Yes


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t



SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Partly / 4 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 7.1, 7.3 Were DCR targets met ? Mostly / 5



3 - The TR does not explicitly state if vessels < 10 m were sampled. However, SGRN was informed that all professional fishing vessels are exhaustively covered including vessels < 10m.

4 - Parameter part of the economic estimates. See comment on section 12.

5 - the parameter value of the landings is estimated by a survey and the results are still not available.


100


Were national targets met ? Partly / 7 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? ? / 8


Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 9

Were national targets met ? ? 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? ?


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes 10 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS




See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? IBTS (Cantabrico) DEMERSALES 2005 Yes IBTS (Golfo de Cádiz) ARSA1105 Yes PELACUS0405 Yes BIOMAN Yes SAREVA 0405 (DEPM sardine) Yes MEDITS Yes Flemish Cap Groundfish Survey No 11

6 - Precision estimates have been calculated but did not reach the target of level 1 In a previous general comment “on Precision levels for discard estimates” (SEC-2005/255), SGRN suggested MS to try to achieve the highest precision possible within the constraints of excessive cost, and that this problem [of achieving the DCR precision level] will need to be considered in the revision of the DCR.

7 - National targets were not met for 10 out of 23 fleet segments.

8 - There is no information on discard sampling in this segment. Further information to be provided by MS.

9 - In last year’s report, no information was provided by the MS on the recreational fishery. In the current TR, the information is lacking again, although in the NP proposal, sampling of the recreational tuna fishing in the Mediterranean was planned. Further information to be provided by MS.

10 - Yes, except for one, viz. "baca" in Division VIIIc.


101

Marcado de atunes (sólo con fines de evaluación) No

Marcado Pop-up Satellite No Marcado Convencional Cantábrico No Marcado Convencional BFT Mediterráneo No Marcado SWO Mediterráneo No

12

ARSA 0305 Yes Porcupine05 Yes 3NO Groundfish survey Yes

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes 13 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly 14

Were national targets met ? Mostly 15 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes


10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes

10.2, 10.4 Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII ? Yes 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

11 - The number of CTD hauls is under-achieved. Also, the sampling design for the CTDs was changed. SGRN acknowledges that these changes are unlikely to have had an effect on the outcome and the reliability of the survey data.

12 - SGRN notes that there is a recurrent and significant underachievement for this programme.

13 - Although the deviations are explained, SGRN did not accept the reasons given in relation to the tuna tagging because they are related to organisational problems that could have been anticipated and dealt with by the MS.

14 - Data should have been collected for Aristeomorpha foliacea and Pagellus erythinus. SGRN notes that the abundance of Aristeomorpha foliacea in area 1.1 is very low, and assumes that this has been the reason for the shortfall. SGRN also notes that this species is not mandatory in the revised regulation. Pagellus was not sampled because the landings were <200 tonnes.

It is unclear from the report if separate data are being collected for Lophius spp, red mullet and rays, all of which should be separated by species. However, SGRN was informed that these species are all collected separately.

15 - Several stocks were undersampled, but the explanations given were acceptable.


102

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? 16

11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes 11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

Sex ratios 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? 15

11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes 11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

Sexual maturity

11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? 15


Fecundity 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? / 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes /



MP EP

See

com

men

t


16 - SGRN noted that samples were collected but that data for many species and areas were lacking from Tables 11.2-11.3. Missing information to be provided by MS.

It is very difficult for SGRN to determine which species will be reported on in a given year and SGRN suggests that this should be stated explicitly by the MS and coordinated through the appropriate RCMs. Also see general comment on the triennial periodicity for the other biological parameters.

SRGN noted inconsistencies between the long term planning (Table 11.1) and the actual collection (Table 11.2 and 11.3). For several species, the MS proposed sampling under the long-term planning in Table 11.1, but there is no information in Tables 11.2 and 11.3 on the sampling achieved in 2005.

17 - The comments are as follows : The description of the sampling and data collection methodology is generally inadequate and very

unclear. The coverage of the fleet overall and by segment is not clear. It appears that a number of segments may have been omitted. See sections 2.3-A and C.

The methodology for the estimation of a number of economic parameters (e.g., fixed costs) is not transparent. See section 2.3-E.



103



MP EP

See

com

men

t




appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ? Yes

19 - The TR only refers to recommendations from the 2005 RCMs. These recommendations are not applicable to the current TR. The MS should have referred to the 2004 RCM meetings (NEA September 2004, RCM MEDIT September 2004). Missing information to be provided by MS. Also see general comment on the follow-up of RCM recommendations.


104

4.18 COUNTRY: SWEDEN

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 01/06/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Yes



SGRN thinks the report was generally well written and that the information was relatively easy to follow for the evaluation.



appreciation See

com

men

t



appreciation See

com

men

t


Yes


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t


1 - No precision levels presented for discards. See general comment on precision level as a DCR target.

2 - Sweden estimates CV’s (not confidence limits).


105


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Partly / 3 (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes /


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t




7.5 Were DCR targets met ? ? / 4 Were national targets met ? Mostly / 5 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 6





3 - Parameter part of the economic estimates. See comment on section 12.


5 - Targets for Cod in area IIIbd and Nephrops directed trawl fisheries in area IIIaN were not met.

6 - SGRN was informed that the main fleet <10m was sampled. To be clarified in the future TR.

7 - MS appeared to have met DCR requirements but there is no mention of the seine net fishery. To be clarified by MS.


106

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t





See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? BITS first quarter Yes / BITS fourth quarter Yes / IBTS first quarter Yes / 8 IBTS third quarter No / 9 Herring acoustic survey Yes / 10 Atlanto/ Scand. Herring Survey Yes / 11


SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly Yes 12

Were national targets met ? Mostly Mostly 13 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes


8 - An intercalibration exercise was executed but not planned in the NP proposal.

9 - In the NP proposal an extra 7 days were proposed to review the MS’s sampling design but these days was not reported in the TR. To be clarified by MS with reference to SGRN comments in 2004 report of the evaluation of 2005 NP proposal (section 3.20.5).

10 - MS was able to finish the survey in only 10 days instead of the planned 15 days.

11 - SGRN accepts that each MS participating to this survey refers to the full report in the Danish TR.

12 - Sprat in IIIb-d is under-sampled for length and over-sampled for age.

13 - [MP] Target for sampling cod ages in IIIaN, IIIaS and IIIbd all under a recovery plan was not met due to the fisheries restrictions.

[EP] Target for pikeperch was not met (43% in both age and length). SGRN accepts the explanation

14 - MS to clarify how the sampling programmes will be adjusted to take account of area and time closure of fisheries.


107

Discards

10.1, 10.3 Is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes

10.2, 10.4 Is there age information for species of App XII, XIII ? Yes



MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? ? 15 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? ? 15 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? ? ? 15 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS


11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? NA NA 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA NA



MP EP Se

e co

mm

ent

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly Partly 16 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No No 17


15 The planned actions have been realised but in absence of precision estimates, SGRN cannot state upon achievement of the DCR target. see general comment on precision level as DCR target.

16 - No economic data was collected from vessels earning less than ~8,500 euros (estimated to exclude about 2/3 of the fleet), nor from pelagic trawlers under 24m (although this is not clear in the tables). There was almost no information on sampling methodology. There were apparently voluntary questionnaire returns, so the data could not be considered random. Segmentation was not according to the DCR and is different in text and tables. See sections 2.3-A to D

17 - SGRN insists that MS follows the provisions of the DCR. Information on all vessels belonging to fleet register should be further provided by MS.

18 - SGRN notes that a pilot survey of under 12m vessels was undertaken and there was a future intention to cover all registered vessels. SGRN acknowledges the intention by the MS to improve the coverage of the fleet in 2006.


108

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

13.1, 13.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly - 19 13.2, 13.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes -

13.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? -


appreciation See

com

men

t

14.1 Are databases sufficiently well described ? NA 20 14.2 Other relevant issues raised by MS


SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t

Is there any comments, suggestions and/or reflections ?


The Swedish data collection covers the entire sector. Most of the indicators can be provided with the exception of raw material use, packing cost, prices per product, and capacity utilisation.

The problems have been identified at SGECA-06-01: Processing Industry and Aquaculture: Review of Economic Issues. In 2006, Sweden further investigates methods to obtain raw material use. According to MS the other shortfalls cannot be solved

20 - There is no information on funding from the NP proposal 2005.


109

4.19 COUNTRY: UNITED KINGDOM

a. General comments

Date of the Technical Report submission to the Commission 03/07/2006Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? Mostly Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? Yes Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2005 National Program? Mostly

Are actions by RCM regions sufficiently well individualised ? No


Overall, the UK Technical Report is a well-written document including most of the information required for a proper evaluation of the MS's achievements. Moreover the TR mostly complies with the STECF-SGRN guidelines 2005. However, the TR was received in delay.



appreciation See

com

men

t

3.1 Are precision levels provided for all parameters ? Yes 3.2 Are methods sufficiently well explained or referenced? Yes 3.3 Other relevant issues raised by MS Yes 1


appreciation See

com

men

t


4.2 Are reasons for non transmitting the data acceptable ? NA 43 Other relevant issues raised by MS NO

1 - MS states that the SGRN needs to provide advice on the most appropriate method for calculating precision on biological parameters and that precision estimates should not be based on the results from a single country but on the best stock estimate from a number of countries combined. SGRN draws the MS's attention to the fact that several workshops have addressed the issue of precision already, and have come up with recommendations on methods to be used for the calculation of precision levels for different types of data, but it agrees that this has not resulted yet in international standardisation. SGRN also notes that the upcoming COST project will address quality control and precision level calculation in a more fundamental and comprehensive way, and that the issue of regional precision levels as an alternative to the current system of national precision levels will be discussed during the upcoming revision of the DCR.


110

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

5.1, 5.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly Mostly Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes ? 2 5.2, 5.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes Yes 5.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No 3

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

6.1, 6.3 Were DCR targets met (i) for fuel consumption ? Yes (ii) for fishing effort by type of technique ? Yes / (iii) for specific fishing effort ? Yes / Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes / 6.2, 6.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS / 6.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Landings 7.1, 7.3 Were DCR targets met ? Yes NA Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? Yes ? 4 7.2, 7.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS Discards 7.5 Were DCR targets met ? Mostly / 5 Were national targets met ? Mostly / 5 Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? No / 6

2 - UK states that the collection of data is exhaustive for all vessels (<10m as well as vessels >10m). The text and tables within the Technical Report are however confusing. To be clarified by MS.

3 - Even though the MS has taken initiatives to remedy shortfalls related to the inactive fleet, the initiatives did not solve the problem. The MS does not suggest any new solutions. SGRN reminds the MS of the definition on "inactive" vessels that was agreed in the approval of EC Reg. 1581/2004 and recommends that the MS adopts this definition. Also see report of Paris meeting of SGECA in May 2004.

4 - [EP]: MS does not clarify if any data were collected for vessels < 10m under the EP. To be clarified by MS.

5 - No discard sampling was performed in Northern Ireland due to a total lack of cooperation from the industry. SGRN notes that the situation is the same as in 2004 and that attempts to improve the situation have not yet succeeded in fully restoring cooperation.


111

7.6 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Recreational and game fisheries 7.7, 7.9 Were DCR targets met ? NA / Were national targets met ? NA / 7.8, 7.10 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA / 7.11 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

8.1, 8.3 Were DCR targets met? Yes Yes 8.2, 8.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS NMS 8.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN



See

com

men

t

9.1, 9.3 Were DCR targets met ? 7

IBTS 1st quarter (English International Bottom Trawl Survey) - North Sea Yes

IBTS 1st quarter (Scottish International Bottom Trawl Survey) Yes

IBTS 3rd quarter (English International Bottom Trawl Survey) Yes

IBTS 3rd quarter (Scottish International Bottom Trawl Survey)

Yes

Atlanto-Scandian herring survey Yes

NS herring acoustic survey Yes

BTS IVb; IVc; VIId; 3rd Q (English Beam Trawl Survey)

Yes

Demersal Young Fish Survey (English Demersal Young Fish Survey)

Yes

Western IBTS 4th quarter (English Western IBTS) - NE Atlantic and w Channel

Yes

ISBCBTS 3rd quarter (Irish Sea & Bristol Channel Beam Trawl Survey )

Yes

Western IBTS 4th quarter (Scottish Western IBTS) Yes

6 - The MS states that SGRN has accepted lack of sampling on the basis of health and safety issues.

7 - No maps are included for all surveys. Moreover, there are some inconsistencies (DARD/AFBI) between the names of the surveys in the TR text and Tables 9.1 and 9.2.


112

Spawning/pre-spawning herring acoustic survey Yes

Spawning/pre-spawning herring acoustic survey (AFBI) Mostly 8

Dard groundfish Mostly 9

Nephrops TV survey (Inshore) - North Sea Yes

Nephrops TV survey (Offshore)- North Sea Yes

Nephrops TV survey (Offshore)- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes

Nephrops TV survey sea lochs- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes

WCBTS; VIIe; 4th Q (Western Channel Beam Trawl Survey, VIIe, 4th quarter) - NE Atlantic and w Channel

Yes

Dard groundfish - NE Atlantic and w Channel- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes

Dard herring larvae- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes

Dard Mik-net- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes

Dard nephrops-- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes 10

Scottish west coast young fish survey- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes

Scottish rockall survey- NE Atlantic and w Channel Yes

9.2, 9.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes 9.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN


MP EP Se

e co

mm

ent

Landings 10.1, 10.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 11 Were national targets met ? Partly / 12 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Partly / 13

8 - 79 % of transects sampled, but explanation of shortfall acceptable.

9 - 85 % of fish hauls achieved, but explanation of shortfall acceptable.

10 - Only 42 % of planned camera hauls achieved by UK (MS claims that Ireland completed the remaining 68 planned hauls), whereas 100% of the planned fish hauls where achieved.

11 - Only three stocks from 52 didn’t reach the required sampling level (Clupea harengus, IIa,V; Nephrophs norvegicus, VII; and Squalidae).

12 - National targets were not achieved for 18 stocks out of 52. SGRN was informed that the UK is moving towards precision level sampling but that in some stocks, fisheries have declined and it was not possible to achieve the planned sampling levels.


113

10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Discards 10.1, 10.3 is there length information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / is there age information for species of App XII, XIII? Yes / 14 10.2, 10.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NMS / 10.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NMS

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

Growth 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Mostly / 15 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Sex ratios 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? No / 16 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Sexual maturity 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? Partly / 15 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? Yes / 11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes Fecundity 11.1, 11.3 Were DCR targets met? NA / 15 11.2, 11.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? NA / 11.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? NA

13 - No explanation is given about the failure to attain the planned sampling level for ages for some species (especially for Merlangius merlangus and Lophius spp.). Details to be provided by MS.

14 - SGRN has some concerns about the low sampling levels for age in the English component of the sampling programme, as this may compromise the estimates of the age composition of the discards in a number of species.

15 - SGRN supports the UK point of view that regional collaboration and data pooling should be encouraged in order to improve the estimates for "other biological parameters".

16 - Precision levels reported but targets not achieved. SGRN however notes that the non-achievement of the precision levels for sex ratio may be linked to the way the sex ratios are being calculated (i.e. by size class). SGRN supports the UK point of view that an international sampling programme should be implemented in order to reach the required sampling level.


114

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

12.1, 12.3 Were DCR targets met? No / 17 12.2, 12.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 18 12.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? Yes

SGRN


MP EP

See

com

men

t

13.1, 13.3 Were DCR targets met? No / 19 13.2, 13.4 Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? No / 13.5 Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? No


appreciation See

com

men

t



SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t





SGRN

appreciation See

com

men

t


17 - The report states that a survey is now underway (in 2006) but no details are given in the text or Tables 12.

18 - Data collection on module J is compulsory and must be the object of a full sampling coverage. SGRN insists that MS follows the provisions of the DCR.

19 - In the Technical report module K data collection activities are mentioned for the years 2002 and 2004. MS applied for a survey in its NP proposal but, according to the Technical report, MS did not carry out any data collection activity in 2005.

20 - The entire section 15.3 Follow-up of RCM recommendations is missing. 21 - The MS raise the problem of the inactive fleet: “The problems identified with segmentation when no activity

has taken place needs to be reviewed as part of the review of the Regulations”. SGRN stresses that such inactivity behavior is included in the future fleet/fishing activity matrix elaborated during the last fleet based approach meeting (Nantes, June 2006).


115

5 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

5.1 FOLLOW-UP OF THE DISCARD ATLAS.

In February 2006 a meeting was convened in Ispra, Italy from the 1st to the 3rd. The purpose of the meeting was to outline the progress made to date on the proposal for a discard atlas project, to agree the format of the project, with expected outcomes and also to consolidate the team of experts to be involved. The meeting was chaired by Joel Vigneau. It is clear that the Discard Atlas project is extensive and ambitious, and this is illustrated below in the list of outcomes expected from the project. These are:

A comprehensive description of all existing datasets and sampling procedures, including difficulties encountered and ways to resolve them.

A global overview of the overall discard rates by area, by species and fleet, allowing for the identification of major gaps in the sampling coverage.

An analysis of the raising procedures.

Estimates of total discards by geographical area and fleet, for a wide range of species.

A discussion on the driving forces of discarding.

A list of recommendations on how to build a sampling programme and on the potential use of on-board sampling data.

The ethos of the project is that it should encompass all areas and include all member states engaged in discard sampling, as the issue needs to be addressed on a European scale, in order to provide advise which will allow member states to optimise their discard sampling programmes in the future.

A steering committee was established consisting of one discard expert per region and with Lisa Borges as coordinator. The regions are defined as follows, with the associated expert.

Baltic: Katja Ringdahl

North Sea and East Arctic: Andrew Newton

NE Atlantic and CECAF area: Alain Tetard

NAFO area: To be defined

Mediterranean: Paolo Carpentieri

Highly migratory species: To be defined

The NAFO and Highly Migratory species are yet to be represented in the project however the Commission strongly recommended retaining these areas within the project as it was felt that the project would be incomplete without them. Efforts are on – going to find representation for these areas.

Support for the project will also be received from the JRC, in the form of 1 IT and data management expert (Iain Shepherd). 1 expert from ICES will also be available to the project.

The PGCCDBS 2006 meeting proposed discard workshops in order to address some of the issues faced by member states, and objectives and TOR’s were drawn up for these. It was agreed by PGCCDBS that these workshops would only take place in 2007 if the Discard Atlas project was delayed (the initial start date was expected to be in 2007). SGRN was informed that the Discard Atlas project will be only ready to go for tender in 2007, with early 2008 as a realistic projected start date. Because of the anticipated delay, SGRN agreed that the discard workshops proposed by PGCCDBS should be convened in 2007 as planned.


116

Questions arose about the tendering process, and the meeting was informed that there will be a general call for tenders to carry out the project. As this is an open process, there is the possibility for any consultant to apply for the project. The Commission using pre – defined quality criteria will evaluate the tender applications. There were fears expressed of an unknown group being successful during the tendering process, and the Commission felt that this was highly unlikely, as no other group would have the scope to assemble the necessary consortium of experts required.

For a more detailed description of the Discard Atlas, please see the DCR website, under workshops.

5.2 THE FUTURE DCR AND ROLE OF SGRN

On the last day of the meeting, Juan Pablo Pertierra of the EC gave an introduction to the Commission's proposal for the new DCR framework that will be effective 2007-2013 This text is still a draft that will be further presented to the national correspondents and EFARO in a second dialogue meeting to be held in Brussels on July 14th..

The details of the new implementation Regulation will be discussed by independent experts during SGRN-06-03 (Review of Data Collection Regulation) that is planned for September 11-15 but may be postponed till November.

The main features of the proposed new framework are:

Data collected through the DCR will be accessible to any kind of end user (any scientific institution that has a will to analyze the data) following some specific rules;

There will be a period during which data can be hold back by MS after the data has been collected. After this period data must be made available in such a way that personal identification is impossible.

Clear rules will be defined to what end users must respect when requesting and using the data.

The Commission will introduce a penalization system in case some basic requirements are not met. Up to 25% of the EU assistance can be cut concerning deficiencies, e.g. deadlines, failure to provide requested data to an end-user, data with poor quality;

The DCR will stress the importance of data quality. An important clause on the quality of the data will be introduced. If the quality is not enough (based on SGRN advice) MS may get a penalty on the Community financial assistance as well.

The burden for annual proposals will be lightened, and structured on the basis of triennial proposals. However, technical reports and costs statements will still run on an year basis;

There is no more EP, only one core program with a 50% Community assistance;

MS have to provide access to sampling sites (more legal background);

There will be a significant increase on funds for discard sampling and observers at sea;

The Commission stresses on synergy between EC-STECF;

In a first reaction, SGRN was concerned about the role SGRN is given in the new DCR. If SGRN gets a larger role in quality labeling, and when this labeling will define possible penalties, SGRN faces the risk to become a forum to defend national interests. This also calls for the need of objective criteria to judge performance (e.g. through precision levels).


117

5.3 DISCUSSION ABOUT ICES QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF DCR DATA

The chair of the ICES PGCCDBS, Ernesto Jardim, presented his views on the background, current status and future development of data quality assessment, including suggestions for information exchange between the data providers, ICES assessment WGs, Planning Groups and a quality assurance body (see presentation slides in Annex).

The evaluation process, as proposed by PGCCDBS (2006), is based on a first evaluation of the data quality by the stock coordinators in each Assessment WG, making use of the data provided for assessment. A second step should be carried out by one ICES group, that gathers these information together with information provided by the MS and contrasts all the elements with the DCR precision requirements and a set of standards, possibly defined by PGCCDBS and ICES survey Planning Groups.

This process needs to be clear and efficient to all people involved (scientists, industry, managers, etc). One way of achieving these is to make use of web services (see section 3.7). Data collectors should be able to easily report their work in a consistent manner and data users should be efficient and consistent on the evaluation of the quality of the data. The end result would be a transparent process and a clear feedback on the data quality and on the needs of data for advice. In particular such reports should be made public to promote confidence and provide information for managers about the quality of the data used for advice.

The international coordination of sampling dealt by PGCCDBS is mainly referring to methodological issues like calibration of age readings, methodologies for discard sampling, maturity sampling design, etc. The coordination of the field sampling is dealt by the RCM meetings and should be kept there.

Regardless of the fact that the PGCCDBS is operating under the ICES umbrella, non-ICES countries are invited to its meetings to ensure that e.g. MS from the Mediterranean or NAFO countries etc. can participate and to avoid duplication of work on methodology and common standards in other regional fisheries organisations.

The need for concerted development of quality standards and methodology, involving all of these groups, was supported by SGRN.

ANNEX – Presentation on Assessing non-economic data quality by ICES

118


119


120

Documents

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER REPORT OF …...EVALUATION OF 2005 NATIONAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) NO 1639/2001 Ispra 3 -7 July, 2006 This