FISHERIES DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORKpublications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/... · The Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries

Report EUR 27681

Cristina Castro Ribeiro

The DCF Reporting and Implementation Cycles and the Data End-user

Feedback

2 0 1 5

FISHERIES DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK

2

CONTENTS

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Rational: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

The END-USER’s Feedback ............................................................................................................................................. 4

The Feedback from the Data End-users in 2015 ............................................................................................................ 5

Suggestions to streamline the end-user feedback for the future ................................................................................ 15

What content should the end-user feedback have and where to address these contents in the IT PLATFORM? ... 15

THE DATA Transmission It Platform .......................................................................................................................... 16

References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18

3

SUMMARY

Every year the Member States Data Collection (DCF) Annual Reports and Data Transmission to the data end-users are

evaluated by the STECF regarding the (a) the execution of the National Programs approved by the Commission; and (b)

the quality of the data collected by the Member States. For that, besides the Annual reports on the activities

developed by each MS, also the data end-users should provide feedback on the data received, and identify data issues

and problems. This important process should be seen as positive input to streamline the collection and transmission

of data and to foster incrementally higher quality standards to the EU MS data. To be efficient, it is also of importance

that the feedback received from the end-users is detailed enough to allow a proper assessment and the identification

of the linkage between data gaps/issues and the reason for such gaps/issues at the source.

In this report the conclusions from STECF EWG 1510 on the ways to improve the annual end-user feedback are further

explored and detailed with the aim of supporting future exercises and in specific to aid on the dialogue between the

Commission and the DCF data end-users.

RATIONAL:

The Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector, Reg. (CE) 199/2008

(DCF), with the detailed rules of application laid down by the Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008

defines that yearly the Member States should submit by electronic means an annual report of the implementation of

the National Program of the year before, to present the annual execution of the program and specifying the outcomes

of the planned actions.

Alongside with this submission, also the transmission of the DCF data by the MS to the data end-users, taken place in

the year before, should be reported annually. The report on the data transmission is mutually done by the MS and by

the data end-users. The MS report is part of the MS’ Annual Reports (AR). Equally, the end-users should provide

annually the feedback on the quality of the data they have received and any issue that might have arose from these

data – Data transmission Issues (DT).

The assessment of these two elements (AR and DT) with respect to their scientific validity should be done by the

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in accordance with the provision of the Reg(CE) N.

199/2008, article 7. Therefore, every year, the STECF dedicates one of its Expert Working Group (EWG) to access the

MS Annual reports and the data transmission issues. The last STECF Expert Working Group (EWG) took place in

Gdynia, Poland, in June 2015. This was the STECF EWG 1510 on the Evaluation of MS AR and Data Transmission Issues.

Apart from the regular assessment of the AR and DT, this EWG was also requested to carry out an analysis of the

Annual Report and data transmission exercises as to identify feedback to be provided to end-users in order to improve

the way in which they provide data transmission feedback to the Commission in future (Tor 3.1).

The conclusions established under ToR 3.1 by the EWG 1510 have been submitted to the STECF plenary. Regarding the

data transmission in 2014 and the format/content of the feedback received from the end-users, the STECF has

concluded as follow:

“STECF concludes that the online platform for DT issues should continue to be used and improved by the

EWG suggestions (section 7.1.2). Considering the various problems with the evaluation of DT issues identified

by the EWG, STECF urges the Commission to review and amend the formats and procedures used for the

end-user feedback on DT in dialogue with the end-users, taking the suggestions compiled by the EWG

(section 6.1 and Annex 6) into account. “

For the future the Commission foresees to change its approach of monitoring Member States' implementation by

giving priority to preventing cases of non-compliance and finding early remediation to failures. This is foreseen to be

4

achieved through giving more attention to systemic issues leading to failures to submit data, and through closer

cooperation with end-users regarding their feedback on Member States' delivery of data. (COM(2015) 294 final)

The present report builds on the findings and conclusion from the STECF and adds to these the technical details to aid

on the dialogue between the Commission and the end-users in support of the foreseen improvements.

THE END-USER’S FEEDBACK

Reg. 199/2008 defines ‘end-users’ as bodies with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data

in the fisheries sector. In 2015 the EWG 1510 was requested to assess the feedback for the transmission of scientific

data from the Member States (MS) to the following end-users:

� DG MARE – Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

� GFCM – General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

� IATTC – Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

� ICCAT – International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

� ICES – International Council for the Exploitation of the Sea

� IOTC – Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

� JRC – Joint Research Center (on behalf of STECF)

� RCM – Regional Coordination Meetings

� WCFCP – Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

But how this feedback does enter in the DCF Process? The image below depicts how the implementation of the DCF

takes stock of the end-user feedback and how the implementation and reporting cycle are interconnected.

5

FIGURE 1 - THE ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORTING CYCLES OF DCF. THE INPUT /OUTPUT FLOW BETWEEN CYCLES.

One of the main points from the end-user feedback is that it provides insight and highlight issues that can be used in

the future to streamline and improve the MS activities in support of the production their data. However, to this end, a

clear identification between the final data products, those data the end-user receives, and the activities to produce

them as explained in the National Programs and Annual Reports, needs to be delineated. This requires that feedback

on these data is thorough and objectively presented.

THE FEEDBACK FROM THE END-USERS IN 2015

The EWG was requested to assess 813 issues in 2015 raised by 9 different end-users as shown in table below. In 2014,

STECF EWG 1407 had to address 429 issues. Even though both STECF EWGs fully accomplished the task of assessing

the data transmission issues, some of those issues were only roughly evaluated, or in some cases, it was impossible to

comment due to a lack of information. Therefore no actions were recommended or issues remedy due to the lack of

understanding between the parts involved.

6

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY TABLE OF THE DATA TRANSMISSION ISSUES ADDRESSED TO THE STECF EWG1510 FOR ASSESSMENT. (IN STECF1513)

Important to this analysis is also the characterization of the process of feedback-gathering from end-users in 2015 and

the IT instances that are currently involved. For the 2015 exercise for the first time an IT platform was developed and

used in support of this process. The main goal of this new tool is to facilitate exchange of information on data

transmission issues between MS, End Users, STECF, MARE; ensure transparency on the process and permit a proper

storage of the information flow along the years.

The IT platform was developed by the Joint Research Center, JRC, under its Administrative Arrangement with DG

MARE. This IT solution is based on the open source portal software Liferay, also used for the Data Collection and

STECF websites and is accessible from the following address: http://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/compliance. The

access to the platform is provided with the data collection websites credentials (user name in lower caps). For the MS

these are the same as the credentials used for other interactions with EU/JRC-DCF web tools. For the data End-users

specific log in has been created for this specific purpose. Figure 2 presents two images of the It platform, one in

consulting mode and the other in editing mode.

The management of the accesses to the platforms is done with different profiles containing specific rights & roles.

These are:

• MS see their country and edit MS comments,

• DG MARE sees all, edits “DG MARE assessment/decision”,

• STECF EWG sees all, edits “STECF comments/assessment”,

• End users see the issues they raised; edit “End user comments”.

End-user Data Call Nr.data Issues

DG MARE Seabass/Effort 3

GFCM Task 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 38

IATTC 1

ICCAT

T1FC: Fleet Characteristics, T1NC:

Nominal Catches, T2CE: Catch and

Effort and T2SW/CAS: Catch-at size 32

ICES

Expert groups: AFWG; HAWG, WGBIE,

WGBFAS, WGCEPH, WGCSE, WGDEEP,

WGHANSA, WGMIXFISH-ADVICE,

WGNEW, WGNSSK, WGWIDE 512

IOTC

Coastal fisheries , Long-line fisheries

and size data 3

JRC

Aquaculture, Effort, Fleet economics,

Mediterranean and Black Sea and

Processing Industry 159

RCM

Baltic, North Atlantic and North Sea

and Eastern-arctic 58

WCPFC Total 7

813Total

JRC (on

behalf of

STECF)

7

FIGURE 2 - VIEW OF THE IT PLATFORM. IMAGE ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE PLATFORM ON THE CONSULTATION MODE,

WHEREAS FIGURE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE EDITING MODE.

Even though the platform was implemented early 2015, not all end-users have made use of it while providing their

inputs to the Commission. The feedback from most end-users, except JRC and DG MARE, were received in different

formats and then converted and inserted manually in the IT platform either by DG Mare or by JRC staff.

CONCLUSION FROM STECF 1513 (STECF EWG1510)

The STECF EWG 1510 was requested to assess the Data transmission issues regarding the year 2014 and feedback

given by the end-users, as well as comment on this feedback, with the view to improve the way in which end-users

provide data transmission feedback to the Commission in future. From this analysis the concluding comments from

the EWG are:

1) Timeliness: End-users should automatically create a date stamp when MS responded to the data call, to

prevent discrepancies between submission date reported by MS and date stamp reported by end-user.

2) End-user feedback to MS: end-users should specifically address the failure to the MSs referred to in the

comment, and send the comment solely to the relevant MSs, to prevent unnecessary burden of responses for

other MSs.

3) Formulation of end-user feedback: The data call originator (e.g. end user/working group and/or stock

coordinator) should be involved in the creation and evaluation of data transmission, to specify on what data

was requested but not provided, the impact this had on the assessment and what action would be required

to remedy the gap. It is the responsibility of the chair of each Working Group or the end user to ensure that

accurate information on data gaps are clearly highlighted in the working group report.

8

4) Data calls in relation to data collection and international agreements: End-users should be aware that wish

lists for data not covered by MSs’ data collection under the DCF neither by international agreements the

European Commission is part of (e.g. requirements of more stringent sampling plans, sampling of the

slippage fish, species not covered neither by DCF or RFMOs, species requested on a lower taxonomic level

that requested under DCF, etc.) are not data transmission failures and that requirements of modification of

the DCF should be discussed and addressed to the Commission and RCMs. (note: This can be sought as part

of the end-user input for a future end-user driven DCF as it is foreseen the recast DCF will be.)

5) Data omissions: If a MS has informed the end-user that due to issues beyond their control they are unable to

collect certain data, and in spite of this communication, the end-user continues to request the data, then only

in the first year this can be announced as a data transmission failure, and should not be repeated in following

years. Data should not be further requested from the MS in the ensuing years.

6) Persistent non-compliance: Repeating year after year non-compliance on the same issue by a given MS needs

to be addressed. Some kind of procedure should be implemented in order to prevent persistent non-

compliance. On the other hand, it is encouraging if a given MS improves from year to year, actually putting an

effort in complying with the guidelines. There should be a way for the STECF/COM to check next year if issue

for not collecting data has being remedied by MS.

With the aim to prepare a more in-depth analysis of end-user feedback in 2015, to best support improvement of

feedback in the future, the first five points addressed in STECF EWG 1510 were translated into five questions; answers

to each of these questions per end-user were prepared.

Since point number six goes beyond the scope of this exercise this was not translated into a specific question and

therefore the individual end-user feedback will not be assessed for this specific point. This is however a point related

with the data transmission platform that in some extent is tackled if the IT platform is well used and the data issues

well informed.

The five questions are:

1. Timestamp for the data reception available?

2. MS concerned identified?

3. Data & variables, type of issue and issue severity, identified?

4. Issues go beyond DCF requirements?

5. Issues repeatedly arose?

The answers to these five questions and for each end-user are compiled in table 2.

9

TABLE 2- ANALYTICAL PRESENTATION OF THE DATA END-USER FEEDBACK ON THE MEMBER STATES DATA SUBMISSION DURING 2015 REGARDING THE 5 MAIN POINTS IDENTIFIED BY THE STECF EWG 1510.

End-

user

1. Timestamp

for the data

reception

available?

2. MS concerned

identified?

3. Data & variables, type of issue and issue

severity, identified?

4. Issues go beyond DCF

requirements?

5. Issues repeatedly rose?

DG

MARE No Yes

Data &

variables

Data groups were identified but not

the variables. The issues identified

were on catch and effort data but

without identification the variables

requested, if days at sea, fishing

days, volume/value of landings, etc.

Not Applicable Not Applicable. Ad-hoc data call.

Type of

issue

The type of issues was identified

according to the following

categories and as foreseen in the

database: quality/timing/coverage. Severity The impact the issues had on the

meeting/working group/final output

were identified according to the

categories in the database.

GFCM Yes Yes

Data &

variables

Data groups were identified but not

the variables or even the species

and gears for which the data are

missing. Example: “ 44% complete -

no data on total effort, catch or

landing value, discard value, by-

catch value of fishing periods, no

data on catch/landing value and

CPUE/LPUE value of main associated

species”

GFCM requests different

levels of aggregation

compared to DCF. This has

been putted forward from

MS as a justification for the

missing data.

Not applicable. The yearly data

to be provided in each calendar

year is set to be for the

reference year n-2.

Type of

issue


according to the follow categories

and as foreseen in the database:

quality/timing/coverage.

10

End-

user

1. Timestamp

for the data

reception

available?

2. MS concerned

identified?




requirements?


Severity The impact the issues had on the




IATTC No Yes

Data &

variables

Neither the data groups nor

variables missing were identified.

The only data issue raised states no

“data for longliners”.

No

The yearly data to be provided

in each calendar year is set to

be for the reference year n-1.

Therefore this shouldn’t be

applicable. However it’s not

clear whether the issues raised

do respect only the

transmissions in 2014 of 2013

data.

Type of

issue




quality/timing/coverage.

Severity The impact the issues had on the




ICCAT No

Partly; Since the

correctness of this

identification has been

challenged (Denmark and

Netherlands were

identified as missing data

countries, however it

seems they have not

activity in these kind of

fisheries).

Data &

variables

Most of data and variables

identified, however for some issues

the species missing data are not

clearly identified) e.g. “large tuna

species”.

Several issues related with possible

lack of quality very vaguely

described, eg. “questionable data

quality for all fleets and gear

groups”

No

The yearly data to be provided

in each calendar year is set to

be for the reference year n-1.

Therefore this shouldn’t be

applicable. However it’s not

clear whether the issues raised

do respect only the provision of

data in 2014 of 2013 data.

Type of

issue

Part of the issues vaguely described.

Issue regarding the possible lack of

data quality/coverage need to be

further informed. Not enough the

statement “questionable data

quality “.

11

End-

user

1. Timestamp

for the data

reception

available?

2. MS concerned

identified?




requirements?


Severity No information on the impact the

issues had on working

groups/meeting or even the data

were afterwards used.

ICES No

Partly; Since in some

circumstances the issue

doesn’t fit at all the MS

addressed.

e.g comments from

WGWIDE addressed

repeatedly to several no

relevant MS.

Data &

variables

Part of the issues addressed with

complete information. However

some issues related to quality lack

detail. Examples:

“anb-78ab: Accurate estimates of

growth parameters are needed to

facilitate the development of an

analytical assessment.”

Some comments are outside

the DCF scope, even

suggesting the enlargement

of the DCF with

complementary data

collection (surveys, new

species not included in

Decision EU/2010/93 or

concerning recreational

fisheries, etc.). These are

important issues but instead

they should be addressed to

the proper fora (either

Commission or RCMs/RCGs)

and not separately to MS.

Not clear if the issues are only

about the provision of 2013

data or if more years are

included in the analysis.

Type of

issue

The types of issues were identified

according to the following

categories and as foreseen in the

database: quality/timing/coverage.

Issue regarding the possible lack of

data quality/coverage need to be

further informed. Not enough the

statement that quality is insufficient

if any suggestion or benchmark is

proposed is not satisfactory.

Severity The impact (severity) of each issue

in the working-group/meeting

work/final outcome identified

according to the scale in the IT

platform. (low/medium-low-

medium)

IOTC No Yes

Data &

variables

Data was identified; however the

variables missing in specific were

not always identified.

No




12

End-

user

1. Timestamp

for the data

reception

available?

2. MS concerned

identified?




requirements?



Type of

issue




quality/timing/coverage. Severity No information on the impact the

issues had on working

groups/meeting or even the data

were afterwards used.

JRC (on

behalf

of

STECF)

Yes Yes

Data &

variables

- The identification of the data type

and variable are mostly identified;

however still lack of detail in the

reference years/areas or gears and

fleet segments prevent a full

comprehension.

Example: National level capacity

data provided for the active fleet

only; data on inactive vessels

missing, inconsistent with fleet

segment level data.

Impact: Suggests incomplete

coverage of the DCF data

- Several issues regarding quality are

not sufficiently informed to allow a

proper assessment.

Example: Effort data and Catch data

(Landings, Discards) are

inconsistent: large effort values in

some years-areas-gears are

accompanied by very low or no

catches at all.

No

Yes. Several issues had been

already identified in the

feedback from previous years.

These issues have been

addressed to the MS for

reaction, in the past. This

repetition should be avoided.

Type of Several issues were not classified on

13

End-

user

1. Timestamp

for the data

reception

available?

2. MS concerned

identified?




requirements?


issue their nature or were misclassified.

Timeliness issues mismatched as

quality issues.

Example: Considerable amount of

data submitted on 08/09/2014, well

after the deadline- QUALITY

Severity The severity of each issue in the

final outcome identified according

to the scale (low/medium-low-

medium). Additionally to the

severity of the issue, the specific

impact each data issue had in the

meeting/work was identified.

RCM No Yes

Data &

variables

Data very generically identified. It

lacks the specification of the

variables/species/fleets.

Several issues related with

MS willingness to submit

data to Regional databases

due to data confidentiality

issues.

Also several issues that

derive from technical

constraints in the database

that might not be directly

linked to an issue at the

source.

Type of

issue

Most issues classified as coverage

reflect technical issues that might

arise due to differences in the way

data is extracted. It seems several

technical issues are not actually a

result from MS data delivering but

instead issues with the regional

database.

Example: the number of species in

age samples in the RDB differed

between before and after the

extraction of sample records with no

information from the RDB (England)

Severity The impact these data gaps might

have in the RCM output haven’t

14

End-

user

1. Timestamp

for the data

reception

available?

2. MS concerned

identified?




requirements?


been identified.

WCFCP No Yes

Data &

variables

Data gaps not always sufficiently

identified, data groups and variables

missing;

Example: no data for longliners

(minimum of 5% is required) ; no

size data provided by any fleet

segment (operational

data/aggregated data?)

The issues identified might

go beyond the DCF scope.

Example: data on

branchlines between floats.

This variable is not yet listed

as a DCF variable; doubts

may arise.





Type of

issue

Issues classified according to its

nature (coverage, quality and

timeliness). Though only coverage

issues have been raised.

Severity The impact each issue might have

had on the end-user work has not

been identified neither translated in

terms of its severity.

15

SUGGESTIONS TO STREAMLINE THE END-USER FEEDBACK FOR THE FUTURE

In the sequence of what has been present along the previous section of this report, there are two main actions

that will need to take place in the future to foster higher quality to this annual exercise. One is on how best

describing each data issue and where these contents should be addressed in the IT platform; this is described

in the following point. The second action is about the optimisation of the IT platform. This IT Platform has

proven to be of major relevance and however the tool itself isn’t thoroughly explored in this report, the main

conclusion from STECF EWG about the needed enhancement are here included. These conclusions on the

specific enhancements were added to the last point of this report.

WHAT CONTENT SHOULD THE END-USER FEEDBACK HAVE AND WHERE TO ADDRESS THESE CONTENTS IN THE

IT PLATFORM?

TABLE 3 - CONTENTS OF THE DCF END-USERS FEEDBACK AND HOW TO DESCRIBE THEM IN THE IT PLATFORM

Information Content IT Platform field

Identification of the end user End user designation. <end-user> A dropdown list

facilitates the identification of the

data end-user. The end-user

identification is connected with

the log-in credentials.

year The year the data call was

launched. In case of a RFMO, the

year in which data was submitted.

In principle it will always be the

year before the exercise takes

place.

<Year>

Member State concerned Identification of the Member State

the issue is addressed to. If more

than one MS is involved, then the

issue should be repeated as many

times as the number of different

MSs.

<Country>

Clear identification of the data call Data calls: enter the name of the

data call to allow for a proper

identification of the issues,

referring to the data call document

(eg official letter). Example ICES

data call on VMS data to OSPAR

(VMS-OSPAR).

RFMO should identify the

form/task of the

statistical/scientific data program

the issue is related to.

<id_call>

Detailed information about

missing data

In order to allow for a proper

identification of the data, the

following information should be

included :

the data group e.g Effort

data/landing data/biological data,

etc.

<data>

16

Information Content IT Platform field

the variable(s) e.g. fishing days/

days at sea, length data, age data.

the reference year(s): 2012

the fleet segment/fishery: e.g OTB

the specie: e.g COD.

Issue A concise description of the issue

should be added. If it is a data gap

or a delay in transmission that

should be noted together with the

identification whether such event

had impact on the working group

or final data product.

If the issue is related to low

coverage or questionable quality of

data, the problem should be

described and the benchmark to

attain in future identified.

<issue>

Type of issue A proper classification of the issue

must be entered.

<Issue_type>: A dropdown list


category (possible values: Quality;

coverage, timeliness and

unknown)

Severity of data failures The severity of the data failure

should reflect the impact it had on

the working group or output. It

should be supported by proper

identification.

<Issue_type>: A dropdown list


severity (possible values: high,

medium-high, medium, low and

Impact on the WG performance*)

* This category is meant to be used for timeliness (issue type = timeliness) of the data provisions, this

additional category (“Impact on the WG performance”) is to classify situations when the late submission of

data had impacted the regular work of the data end-user. This new severity class corresponds to the highest

classification (i.e., more severe than “high”).

THE DATA TRANSMISSION IT PLATFORM

This new tool, implemented to support the exercise of collecting feedback on the data transmission issues and

the follow up of the process therein, got a very positive feedback from the MSs, STECF pre-screeners and some

end-users. Main comments were that it is efficient and easy to use. The tool allows end-users to fill in

apparent data failures in the platform, standardizing the presentation of data failures by all end-users and

guarantees to have a complete description of the problems in data transmission. However, it has been only

used by the pre-screeners and not by the STECF Expert Working. While its feasibility and value has been

demonstrated for the tool to be of full use by the EWG and other end-users, and across the full array of data

calls, some enhancements will be needed. This is vastly an IT-based endeavor and it should be explored how

the tool could be fully developed, implemented and maintained.

One of the features that will foster the IT platform usage and to be in place already for 2016 is a template

(Excel file) to be made available to the end-users to support the upload of the end-user feedback to the IT

platform hosted by JRC on behalf of DG MARE. Together with the template, the criteria of specific fields will be

provided, as well as basic instructions to use the template (e.g. only include one MS per issue).

EWG recommendations for the future:

“The IT tool must allow the selection of issues “filters” based in every of the column with relevant

information , and not only select issues based on “DG Mare Decision”, “Country”, “Year”, “Issue

Type” and “Severity”. Also to ensure a proper comparison of the issues, the comments and

17

assessments, the user interface must allow the visualization of several lines at the same time. The

look and feel of the interface should be similar to a spreadsheet.”

18

REFERENCES

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Evaluation of 2014 MS DCF Annual Reports

& Data Transmission (STECF-15-13) . 2015. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27410

EN, JRC 96975, 287 pp. http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/1002766/2015-07_STECF+15-13+-

+Evaluation+of+2014+DCF+AR+and+DT_JRC96975.pdf

European Commission. 2015. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

COUNCIL concerning the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data

in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (recast)

(COM(2015) 294 final).

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of 2013 MS DCF Annual

Reports & Data Transmission (STECF-14-13) 2014. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,

EUR 26811 EN, JRC 91550, 257 pp. http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/768107/2014-

07_STECF+14-13_Evaluation+of+2013+AR+and+Data_JRC91550.pdf

19

European Commission

Joint Research Centre

Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC)

Contact information

Castro Ribeiro Cristina

Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute of the Protection and Security of the

Citizen (IPSC), Maritime Affairs Unit G03, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy)

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel.: +39 0332 78 9329

JRC Science Hub

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

Legal Notice

This publication is a Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science

service.

It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output

expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor

any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

JRC97782

EUR 27681

ISBN 978-92-79-54251-0

ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

doi:10.2788/1666

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015

© European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

20

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.

It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu.

How to obtain EU publications

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu),

where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice.

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents.

You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.

21

ISBN 978-92-79-54251-0

doi:10.2788/1666

JRC Mission

As the Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre’s mission is to provide EU policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support throughout the whole policy cycle. Working in close cooperation with policy Directorates-General, the JRC addresses key societal challenges while stimulating innovation through developing new methods, tools and standards, and sharing its know-how with the Member States, the scientific community and international partners. Serving society

Stimulating innovation

Supporting legislation

LB

-NA

-276

81-E

N-N

Documents

FISHERIES DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORKpublications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/... · The Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries