Report of the RCM NEA

EU Council Regulation 199/2008 Establishing a Community Framework for the Collection,

Management and Use of Data in Fisheries sector for scientific Advice regarding the CFP

Report of the 1st Regional Co-ordination Meeting

for the Mediterranean and Black seas (RCM MED & BS)

2008

Sète, France, 24-28 November 2008

Table of Contents:1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Participants ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Regional coordination in the new DCR framework.................................................. 2 1.3 Terms of reference .................................................................................................... 5 1.4 The geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS region .............................................. 6

Geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS ................................................. 6 1.5 Timing of the RCM................................................................................................... 6

RCM recommendations and updating of the National Programmes .......... 7

2 Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2007 RCM-MED ...................... 7 2.1 Follow-up of 2007 RCM-MED and 2008 LM recommendations ............................ 7 2.2 Presentation of outcomes from 2008 PGMED report............................................... 9 2.3 Presentation of outcomes from 4th PGTT Meeting ................................................ 10

Status of tagging actions for large pelagics under DCR........................... 10 2.4 GFCM stock assessment, data needs and links with DCR data collection ............. 10

3 Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2009-2010 following the new DCR framework..................................................................... 11 3.1 Economic variables................................................................................................. 11

3.1.1 Fishing fleet: Homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra region ............................................................................................ 12

3.1.2 The participation of Economists in RCM ................................................... 12 3.1.3 Quality issues .............................................................................................. 13

3.2 Transversal variables .............................................................................................. 14 3.2.1 Collection of transversal variables .............................................................. 14 3.2.2 Common understanding of effort definition................................................ 14 Transversal variables: Commun understanding of effort definition ......... 14

3.3 Metier related variables .......................................................................................... 15 3.3.1 General issues ............................................................................................. 15 3.3.2 Regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6........................................ 15 Métier variables: Coding procedures – Updating of the SGRN guidelines.................................................................................................................. 16 Métier variables: Updating of the matrix (appendix IV.4 Decision 2008/949/EC)) .......................................................................................... 17 3.3.3 Fishing grounds, shared metiers by fishing grounds and sample

intensities .................................................................................................... 19 Métier variables: Accuracy on geographical origine of landings and effort data............................................................................................................ 21 Métier variables: bilateral agreements on sampling task sharing for blue fin tuna...................................................................................................... 22

3.3.4 Planned sampling programmes on recreational fisheries ............................ 22 3.4 Stock related variables ............................................................................................ 23

3.4.1 General issues ............................................................................................. 23 3.4.2 Task-sharing on ageing and other biological parameters............................ 23 Stock variables: ageing and other parameters task sharing for blue fin tuna.................................................................................................................. 24 3.4.3 Group 3 species ........................................................................................... 24

4 Quality issues.................................................................................................................. 26 4.1 COST Project.......................................................................................................... 26

Métier variables: Naming of the metiers and accuracy on geographical origine of landings and effort data............................................................ 27

4.2 Accuracy workshop (WKACCU) ........................................................................... 27 4.3 Regional database ................................................................................................... 28 4.4 Theme session on data quality at the ICES Annual Science Conference

2009 28

5 Surveys and Ecosystemic indicators............................................................................. 29 5.1 Medias29 5.2 Medits 30 5.3 Black sea surveys.................................................................................................... 30

6 Future Workshops and Studies (added value to DCR) .............................................. 31 6.1 Workshops .............................................................................................................. 32 6.2 Studies32

7 Next 2009 PGMED Terms of Reference ...................................................................... 33

8 Any Other Business – Next RCM-Med&BS venue..................................................... 34

9 Summary of recommendations ..................................................................................... 34

10 References....................................................................................................................... 34

11 Annex 1: Agenda of the meeting.................................................................................. 37

12 Annex 2: List of participants......................................................................................... 39

13 Annex 3: Sofia meeting .................................................................................................. 40

14 Annex 3: National key indicators on marine production sector ................................ 41

15 Annex 4: Sofia meeting report ...................................................................................... 42

16 Annex XXX: XXX.......................................................................................................... 43

17 Annex XXX: XXX.......................................................................................................... 43

18 Annex 3: XXX ................................................................................................................ 43

19 Annex XXX: XXX.......................................................................................................... 43

1 Introduction Ifremer hosted in Sète the fifth (5th) Regional coordination meeting for the Mediteranean Sea and for the first time for the Black Sea. The Chairman, Christian Dintheer welcomed the representatives from EC/DGMARE, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Spain. It was noted that there were no representative from Romania.

The Chairman apologized for the non attendance of the French national correspondent due to former engagements with the industry when the venue of the meeting has been confirmed. He informed the RCM-MED&BS about all his wishes for an open-minded and fruitful meeting.

The EC representative welcomed the participants in the meeting. He underlined the recent changes in the DGMARE organisation and gave assurance to the Member states (MS) that they will not affect the continuation of the DCR machinery.

The RCM-MED&BS proceeds from the new Data Collection Regulation (Council EU Council Regulation 199/2008) establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice regarding the CFP. According to this regulation and without prejudice to their current data collection obligations under Community law, Member States (MS) shall collect primary biological, technical, environmental and socio economic data within the framework of a multi-annual national programme drawn up in accordance with the Community programme. According to EC Regulation 665/2008, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, and its technical Decision 2008/949/EC specifying practical aspects for data collection, actions planned by MS in their national programme shall be presented according to the following regions:

• the Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d), • the North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) and the Eastern Arctic (ICES areas I

and II), • the North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas), • the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, • regions where fisheries are operated by Community vessels and managed by

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation's (RFMO) to which the Community is contracting party or observer.

Regional coordination is recommended at these regional levels and specific meetings (RCMs) are in charge to facilitate it and to identify areas for standardisation, collaboration and task sharing between MS. RCMs are held annually and involve National Correspondents and both biologists and economists from each MS involved in the DCR programme

As a consequence of the new regions definition, the RCM-MED&BS was established in 2008 and arose from the former RCM for the Mediterranean Sea (RCM-MED) and the new joining of both Black Sea coastal Member states Bulgaria and Romania. The agenda for the meeting is given in Annex 1.

1.1 Participants

Avdič Edo XXX, Slovenia Granata Valeria (part) XXX, Italy

Bondokova Asya NAFA, Bulgaria Gutoranow Georgi NAFA, Bulgaria

Carpentieri Paolo MIPAF, Italy Herraiz Isabel IEO, Spain

Cervantes Antonio EC / DG MARE Jadaud Angélique IFREMER, France

Charilaou Charis DFMR, Cyprus Kallianotis Argyris NAGREF, Greece

Conte Plinio (part) XXX, Italy Marčeta Bojan XXX, Slovenia

Dimech Mark MCFS, Malta Merrien Claude IFREMER, France

Dintheer Christian (chair) IFREMER, France Papaconstantinou Costas HCMR, Greece

Farrugio Henri (part) GFCM/SAC Sabatella Evelina IREPA, Italy

Fromentin Jean Marc (part) Ifremer, France Tserpes George HCMR, Greece

Gatt Mark MCFS, Malta Vassilev Milen XXX, Bulgaria

Gonzales Mariá IEO, Spain

Institutional affiliations and contact details about the attendees are given in Annex 2. Christian Dintheer chaired the meeting. Rapporteurs were appointed for each agenda sections.

1.2 Regional coordination in the new DCR framework Within the new Data Collection Framework, the role of the RCMs and their tasks in regional co-ordination are clearly defined: Council Regulation 199/2008:

Article 5: Coordination and cooperation

1. Member States shall coordinate their national programmes with other Member States in the same marine region and make every effort to coordinate their actions with third countries having sovereignty or jurisdiction over waters in the same marine region. For this purpose the Commission may organise Regional Coordination Meetings in order to assist Member States in coordinating their national programmes and the implementation of the collection, management and use of the data in same region.

2. In order to take into account any recommendation made at regional level at the Regional Coordination Meetings, Member States shall where appropriate submit amendments to their national programmes during the programming period. Those amendments shall be sent to the Commission at the latest two months prior to the year of implementation.

Commission Regulation 665/2008:

Article 4: Regional co-ordination

1. The Regional Coordination Meetings referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 shall evaluate the regional co-ordination aspects of the national programmes and where necessary shall make recommendations for the better integration of national programmes and for task-sharing among Member States.

2. The Chair of the meeting shall be designated by the Regional Coordination Meeting in agreement with the Commission for a two year period.

3. The Regional Coordination Meetings may be convened once a year. The terms of reference for the meeting shall be proposed by the Commission in agreement with the Chair and shall be communicated to the national correspondents referred to in Article 3(1) three weeks prior to the meeting. Member States shall submit to the Commission the lists of participants two weeks prior to the meeting.

COM Decision 2008/949/EC:

CHAPTER III: Module of evaluation of the fishing sector:

A. COLLECTION OF ECONOMIC VARIABLES:

2. DISAGGREGATION LEVELS:

(4) In cases where a fleet segment has less than 10 vessels:

(d) Regional Coordination Meetings shall define homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra regions so that economic variables are comparable.

B1. METIER-RELATED VARIABLES:

2. DISAGGREGATION LEVEL:

(1) In order to optimise the sampling programmes, the metiers defined in Appendix IV (1 to 5) may be merged. When metiers are merged (vertical merging), statistical evidence shall be brought regarding the homogeneity of the combined metiers. Merging of neighbouring cells corresponding to fleet segments of the vessels (horizontal merging) shall be supported by statistical evidence. Such horizontal merging shall be done primarily by clustering neighbouring vessel LOA classes, independently of the dominant fishing techniques, when appropriate to distinguish different exploitation patterns. Regional agreement on mergers shall be sought at the relevant Regional Coordination Meeting and endorsed by STECF.

(4) For the purpose of collection and aggregation of data, spatial sampling units may be clustered by regions as referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) 665/2008 after agreement by the relevant Regional Co-ordination Meetings.

3. SAMPLING STRATEGY

(1) For the landings:

(a) The Member State on whose territory the first sale take place, shall be responsible for ensuring that biological sampling occurs according to the standards defined in this Community Programme. If necessary, Member States shall co-operate with the authorities of non EU third countries to set up biological sampling programmes for the landings carried out by vessels flying the third country’s flag.

(d) Precision values and ranking system are referenced at the same level as the sampling programmes, i.e. at the national metier level for data that are collected through national programmes and at regional metier level for data that are collected through regionally coordinated sampling programmes.

(f) When sampling a fishing trip, the species shall be sampled concurrently as follows:

• Each species within a region as defined in Appendix II, shall be classified within a group according to the following rules:

• Group 1: Species that drive the international management process including species under EU management plans or EU recovery plans or EU long term multi-annual plans or EU action plans for conservation and management based on Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy;

• Group 2: Other internationally regulated species and major non-internationally regulated by-catch species;

• Group 3: All other by-catch (fish and shellfish) species. The list of Group 3 species shall be established at the regional level by the relevant regional co-ordination meeting and agreed by STECF.

(2) For the discards:

(c) Precision values and the ranking system are referenced at the same level as the sampling programmes, i.e. at the national metier level for data that are collected through national programmes and at regional metier level for data that are collected through regionally coordinated sampling programmes.

B2. STOCK-RELATED VARIABLES:

5. EXEMPTIONS RULES

(1) The national programme of a Member State may exclude the estimation of the stock related variables for stocks for which TAC's and quota have been defined under the following conditions:

(a) The relevant quota must correspond to less than 10 % of the Community share of the TAC or to less than 200 tonnes on average during the previous three years ;

(b) The sum of relevant quotas of Member States whose allocation is less than 10%, must account for less than 25 % of the Community share of the TAC.

(2) If the condition set out in above point 1(a) is fulfilled, but not the condition set out in point 1(b), the relevant Member States may set up a coordinated programme to achieve, for their joint landings, a joint sampling scheme, or Member States may individually set up other national sampling schemes leading to the same precision.

(3) If appropriate, the national programmes may be adjusted until 1st February of each year to take into account the exchange of quotas between Member States:

(4) For stocks for which TAC's and quotas have not been defined and which are outside the Mediterranean Sea, the same rules established under point 5(1) apply on the basis of the average landings of the previous three years and with reference to the total Community landings from a stock;

(5) For stocks in the Mediterranean Sea, the landings by weight of a Mediterranean Member State for a species corresponding to less than 10 % of the total Community landings from the Mediterranean Sea, or to less than 200 tonnes, except for Bluefin tuna.

C. COLLECTION OF TRANSVERSAL VARIABLES

2. DISAGGREGATION LEVEL

(2) The degree of aggregation shall correspond to the most disaggregated level required. A grouping of cells within this scheme may be made provided that an appropriate statistical analysis demonstrates its suitability. Such mergers must be approved by the relevant Regional Coordination Meeting.

APPENDIX

Appendix II: Geographical stratification by Region

Footnote: Sub-regions or fishing grounds are established by Member States for the first programming period (2009-2010); they may be redefined by Regional Coordination Meetings and agreed by STECF if necessary. This level should be consistent with existing geographical divisions.

Appendix VIII: List of transversal variables with sampling specification Hours fished 2 Number of trips 2Number of rigs 2 Number of fishing operations 2

Number of nets / Length 2 Number of hooks, Number of lines 2Numbers of pots, traps2 Soaking time 2 Footnote: 2) Some adjustments could be proposed by Regional Coordination Meetings

1.3 Terms of reference According to these prior legal requirements, the terms of reference for RCMs have been defined by the EC in agreement with the Chairs. They are in 2008 the same for all RCMs, and as following.

Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 stipulates that "The Regional Coordination Meetings referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 shall evaluate the regional co-ordination aspects of the national programmes and where necessary shall make recommendations for the better integration of national programmes and for task-sharing among Member States".

To achieve this goal, the RCMs in autumn 2008 are requested to:

1. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2007 RCM (follow-up of recommendations) and 2008 Liaison Meeting report

2. Make recommendations in order to harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2009-2010 following the new DCR framework, with particular emphasis on the following:

2.a. Economic variables

Fishing fleet (homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra region; homogeneous understanding of the definitions and protocols to achieve the goals; quality issues)

2.b. Metier-related variables

2.b.1. Ranking system (regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6, especially regarding mesh size ranges per gear type; creation of a regional view on fishing activities; creation of a regional ranking system to assess the Member States obligations and demands for derogation; establishment of sub-regions or fishing grounds)

2.b.2. Landings (sampling agreement for landings abroad; discussion/agreement on concurrent sampling; agreement on merging of metiers for sampling; sampling intensities and data quality)

2.b.3. Discards (creation of a regional view of the discard sampling programmes, identification of gaps and discrepancies for optimising the spatial, time and metiers coverage)

2.b.4. Recreational fisheries (review of the actions proposed in the NP proposals, proposals for regionally co-ordinated actions)

2.c. Biological stock-related variables (sampling intensities and data quality; identification of stocks suitable for international age-length keys and task sharing for ageing; possibilities for extension to regional collection of data for maturity, sex-ratio and mean weights; ensure that exemptions for biological sampling do not exceed 25% of quota/landings for stock; list of Group 3 species)

2.d. Transversal variables (common understanding of effort definitions)

3. Propose actions and where possible conclude regional agreements on the collection of data outlined under ToR 2

4. Quality issues (regional databases, progress on the COST tools and anticipation of their use at national level; outcome of the WKACCU workshop)

5. Studies and pilot projects

6. Any other business

1.4 The geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS region

To precise the new geographical context, short presentations by MS of general description of marine production sector and its monitoring were made as follows : France (by Claude Merrien), Spain (by Isabel Herraiz), Italy (by Evelina Sabatella), Malta (by Mark Dimech), Greece (by George Tserpes), Bulgaria (by Georgi Gutoranow ), Cyprus (by Charis Charilaou ) and Slovenia (by Bojan Marčeta). Short summaries are provided in Annex 3 (please except Cyprus send me your summary).

Among the discussions, some relevant points could be highlighted:

- Some MS already identified some areas for cooperation in the regional level (large pelagic sampling, list of level 3 species, selected fisheries.

- Discussion took place concerning the possibility of including the fishing activities exercised in lagoons in the ranking system procedure, for the selection of metiers to be sampled under the DCR, and also on approaches taken by different MS for collecting information on lagoon fisheries. The various status of the vessels operating in lagoons was also noted. The RCM MED&BS suggests that, as first step, any sampling of fishing activities exercised in lagoons under the DCR should be made on a national basis, as currently this is not always required by the Data Collection framework.

To improve participation of the two new countries from the Black sea in the DCR and RCM dynamics machinery appeared also important to the group. The non-attendance of Romanian experts to the first meeting enlarged to the whole Supra-region “Mediterranean sea and Black sea” strengthened that need. Based on the 2008 Romania and Bulgaria National Programs and 2009-2010 Bulgarian NP, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to be organized a regional meeting between Bulgaria and Romania with the participation of EC DG MARE and RCM MED representative in the beginning of 2009. The necessity of such meeting lays on the need to coordinate Black sea data collection.

Geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

Because the necessity on the need to coordinate Black sea data collection, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to be organized a regional meeting between Bulgaria and Romania with the participation of EC DG MARE and RCM-MED representative.

Follow-up actions needed Venue to be proposed by Bulgarian National Correspondent

Responsible persons for follow-up actions

European Commission

Time frame (Deadline) Beginning of 2009

The recommended meeting took place in Sofia, 22-23 January 2009. Conclusions of the meeting are given in annex XXX Please Georgi send me copy of the final draft with a list of participants).

1.5 Timing of the RCM Ideally the RCM recommendations for co-ordination should be made before the end of October. MS would then have two months to take the recommendations of RCM into account in the MS’s NPs. The year 2008 is exceptional due to delayed implementation of the revised DCR regulation. Given that evaluation of NPs is already ongoing it is recommended that any

modifications suggested by the RCM be addressed with track changes in MS’s NPs before SGRN evaluation in mid-February 2009.

RCM recommendations and updating of the National Programmes RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

Considering the delayed implementation of the revised DCR regulation and the tardy RCM venues in 2008, the RCM-NA recommends that any modifications suggested by the RCM be addressed with track changes in MS’s NPs before SGRN evaluation in mid-February 2009.

Follow-up actions needed


Member States

Time frame (Deadline)

End of January 2009, before evaluation by SGRN.

2 Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2007 RCM-MED

As specified in the meeting agenda and as support to the RCM discussions on regional coordination, three presentations were added to the item around the follow-up of the 2007 RCM-MED and 2008 last Liaison Meeting:

• aims of PGMED and conclusions of March 2008 meeting • conclusions of the last PGTT meeting on tuna and swordfish tagging. • GFCM stock assessment, data needs and links with DCR data collection.

2.1 Follow-up of 2007 RCM-MED and 2008 LM recommendations

A follow up of the main recommendations and actions from the LM (Brussels, 20-22 February 2008) were discussed by the RCM. The Liaison Meeting (LM) between the chair of SGRN, the chairs of the different RCM, the chair of PGCCDBS and PGMED, and ICES and EU/DGMARE representatives is held annually to analyse the RCM reports in order to ensure overall co-ordination between the RCMs. On the basis of the reports, the LM makes recommendations to the Commission.

The RCM-MED&BS rejoiced over the first attendance of the chair of PGMED to the LM. Relevant points to the RCM MED were presented and discussed. The comments by the LM covered the following aspects:

• Fleet based approach and ecosystem approach: regional design and regional protocols for the collection of biological and economic data and for estimating ecosystem indicators in the view of the new DCR.

• Cooperation and coordination between countries at RCM scale with regards to data access and use of biological data, including regional databases development and quality issues (ongoing process and tools).

• Data quality assurance and common exchange format for the information need to the quality evaluation system.

• Future workshops and studies in support of the CFP.

The EC representative clarified to the RCM-Med&BS that the LM should be held not very far after the RCMs meetings. It is to be noted that the 2008 LM met 10 months after the

Mediterranean RCM, and that most of the RCM-MED recommendations were already addressed by the time of the LM.

At the light of the system adopted by other RCMs, LM recommends the chairmanship duration to be two years. In addition, LM recommends the chair to participate in the RCM the third year to ensure the continuity. This opportunity was confirmed by the EC representative.

LM encourages the participation of economists in RCMs. However, LM realises that it is difficult to ensure such broad participation and in order to optimise the situation, LM recommends to STECF/SGECA to appoint economists to RCMs. The LM recommends also the participation of the national correspondents in the RCMs meeting. The EC representative stresses the problem of constancy for presence of economists from one year to another and the role of the NC correspondents to define the national participation in the regional coordination and the helpful contribution their attendance to RCMs meetings would be. Only three NC and two economists attended the 2008 RCM-MED&BS meeting.

Comments for general issues (overview of all RCM) concerning the LM were considering not to process data during the meeting and to work on standardised datasets prepared before. To promote regional database was also suggested by the LM to facilitate work progress during the RCMs. RCM MED&BS agrees with these proposed working methods.

LM notes that the coordination process is ongoing through an acoustic coordination meeting (MEDIAS). The workshop was held in Athens in February 2008 and the involved MS (Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Greece) have included their national contribution to the MEDIAS survey in their national programmes 2009-2010 (see also section 5.1).

LM was informed that the participation to any meetings regarding DCR (RCM, MEDIAS, MEDITS, ICES Planning and Working groups, Workshops…) are eligible in reference to the list of meetings provided by the EC before the end of each year. The EC representative confirms this way of proceeding and adds that the EC would also consider for funding attendance to GFCM working groups with similar rules (2 members by MS). Despite of request of most of MS attending the RCM, no decision was given for funding opportunities considering ICCAT participation.

The RCM-MED&BS noted also the following deadlines and venues : • the results of pilot studies mixed species landings will be presented in

PGCCDBS/PGMED next March. • the need for a recreational fisheries workshop has been taken up within ICES in 2009

with “Workshop on Sampling Methods for Recreational Fisheries [WKSMRF] to be held in Nantes (France), April 2009.

• The workshop on Mullus barbatus and Mullus surmuletus ageing, previously planned to be organised by Greece, will be held in Boulogne-sur-Mer (France) in the 2nd quarter 2009.

• an ICES Workshop on crustaceans (Aristeus antennatus, Aristaeomorpha foliacea, Parapenaeus longirostris, Nephrops norvegicus) maturity stages [WKMSC] will be held in Italy in 2009.

Concerning studies in support of DCR proposed and supported by last RCM-MED, LM gave the following advices:

• Maturity Photodatabase for the Mediterranean: LM noted that the WebGR study has been already published under call for tenders FISH/2007/07.

• Pilot study investigating the feasibility of routine sampling of bluefin tuna calcified structures from the European fisheries for routine estimation of age structure of the catch. Contact person: Enrique Rodríguez-Marín ([email protected]). LM agreed with this proposal. But no outcome given in the 2007 and 2008 calls for tenders.

• Delimitation of swordfish stocks in the Mediterranean. Contact persons: George Tserpes ([email protected]) and Jaime Mejuto ([email protected]). LM suggested that this proposal should be addressed in a research project.

• Harmonization of past acoustic data in the Mediterranean (2002-2006). Coordinator Athanassios Machias ([email protected]). LM noted that this study is included

mailto:[email protected]


in the work programme 2008. The ad’hoc workshop was held in Athens in February 2008 and recommendations inflected in the concerned MS national programmes.

• Harmonization of the collected series of catch and effort data towards a fishery based approach to fishery management in the Mediterranean (2002-2006). Contact person: Mary Labropoulou ([email protected]). LM agreed with this proposal as it is complementary to the log-book analysis (include in 2007 and 2008 calls of tenders) and together would complete the needs.

• Joint study with the industry in the Mediterranean. LM agreed with the rationale, and considered it is up to RCM-Med to elaborate upon and propose the study.

Considering on one hand these advices and on the other hand the LM recommendation to RCMs, about the inflation in the number of recommendations and proposals, for setting up the priorities when proposing studies and workshops (considering the relevance and their added-value for the DCR), and for carefully selecting those which are important for further considerations, the RCM-MED&BS :

• stresses that it is the responsibility of authors of proposals for small scale projects to follow up the submission, namely the comments made by the RCM, the Liaison Meeting and their inclusion or not in the EU work programme for the current year. Only amended proposals in ways given by authorised bodies will be reviewed again by RCM-MED&BS and, if justified, readdressed to LM.

• noted that during the past years the studies published by the European Commission concerned mainly regions other than the Mediterranean. It is anticipated that future studies proposed by the RCM-MED&BS will be included in the list of studies published by the EC.

2.2 Presentation of outcomes from 2008 PGMED report Paolo Carpentieri (PGMED Chairman), small summary of your PPT or comments please if the following Charis’ notes have to be amended

The Chairman of the PGMed presented the outcomes of the 2nd meeting of the PGMed that took place in Cyprus, March 2008 (see Annex XXXX).

ToRs, - information flow models, - common template on landings data (to be used in the preparation of national NPs 2009-2010). - Mixed landings / problem in providing info by species level. PGMed agreed to carry out implementation study on all Group 1 and Group 2 species. - Review Annex 4 (output of Nantes SGRN-SGECA Meeting) - Xxxxx - Applicability of ranking system - Minimum sampling protocol. - Review changes in data collection procedure - Common threshold on allocation of metiers (e.g. when OTB targets demersal species and when deep sea species)

The RCM-MED&BS was informed that the next PGCCDBS/PGMED meeting will take place in Montpellier (France), during the first week of March 2009. The EC representative invited the new Mediterranean MS to participate in the meeting.


2.3 Presentation of outcomes from 4th PGTT Meeting J.M. Fromentin please small summary of your PPT or comments on following paragraphs

Outcomes of the 4th Planning Group on Tuna Tagging meeting (XX XX October 2008, Sète, France) were presented to the RCM-MEED&BS. First a brief history of the creation of the PGTT was provided. The objectives of the planning group were to address key issues in assessment of exploited tuna (and tuna-like) stocks which are currently not covered by routine-based data collection programmes. Such key issues are the migration routes of the stocks, estimates of fishing (and natural) mortality and habitat-based CPUE standardisation. The programmes focused on Eastern Atlantic blue fin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) as well as Mediterranean and Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius) stocks.

Referred to the achievements during the triennial period of the tagging programmes, the recommendations made during the 4th PGTT Meeting are the following:

- As there is no possibility for large pelagics to conduct traditional scientific surveys, all data available for stock assessment derives from commercial data and tagging. A strong recommendation has been set from international body for….

-

It was acknowledged that the funding of such a programme is difficult, as it can be considered either as a routine-based survey, or as a research project. There is a format problem to include the tagging programme in the Data Collection Framework. The SGRN and STECF conclusions and recommendations were also evoked. These conclusions must be taken in account and the RCM-MED&BS encourages the PGTT participants to work in this direction to ensure that this could be in the future again part of DCR The RCM-MED&BS recommends the creation of a steering committee, which will elaborate the data collected during the implementation of the tagging programmes for the triennial period 2005-2007 and produce a final document with a full analysis of the results and proposed follow up. This document should be reviewed by the next RCM-MED&BS, for proposing future actions

Status of tagging actions for large pelagics under DCR RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

Considering that all data available for stock assessment for large pelagics derive from commercial data and tagging and the need to precise the status of tagging operations under the new DCR, the RCM-MED&BS recommends the creation of a steering committee, which will elaborate the data collected during the implementation of the tagging programmes for the triennial period 2005-2007 and produce a final document with a full analysis of the results and proposed follow up.


Final document compiling PGTT conclusions to be reviewed by the next RCM-MED&BS, for proposing future issues


PGGT experts


Autumn 2009, before next RCM-MED&BS venue.

2.4 GFCM stock assessment, data needs and links with DCR data collection

The contribution of the Chairman of GFCM/SAC to the meeting was welcomed by the RCM-MED&BS (see Annex XXXX). He gave an overview on the objectives of the GFCM and the role of the SAC as regards to the field of fisheries and gave suggestions on better use of DCR data from the GFCM’s point of view.

The organisational framework between the two organisations was presented to highlight the importance of the DCR data for the operation of the GFCM. The data from EU DCR is used to

fill the data in the GFCM database together with other non-EU countries for feeding the SGMED and GFCM working groups. The aims of STECF/SGMED objectives were also explained

A description was also given on the structure of the GFCM databases, mainly on the task I and task II statistical matrixes. Reference was made to the GFCM details (website page ?) for more detailed information on the task I sub tasks.

During the discussion, the following points were put forward: • For the DCR to provide necessary funds for better participation from national

scientists in working groups of the GFCM. • Proposal for DCR to fund specific project on assessment of hake/mullet by France

and Spain. • Mechanism needed with GFCM on the actual transmission of data and quality of

info. More collaboration needed between the two organisations to better trace out the information being sent and any possible missing information.

• Regular reminders sent to countries for submitting data.

DGMARE representative confirmed that EC would be able to finance participation in Working Groups considered to have particular importance. The Commission asked for a full list of future meetings to be organised by the GFCM so that to be able to select the ones which are in the community’s interest (especially WG) for financing (2 participants each country).

The Commission requested further details on the type of information that was submitted to GFCM after the WG on stock assessments to check on the outcome and pointed out that the new regulation is very clear in the obligation of each MS for the regular submission of data. It was agreed that, in addition to the GFCM statistical bulletin, ad’hoc information from GFCM on this issue following the different WG would be established. The Commission had otherwise positive comments as regards to the GFCM data matrix and DCR data matrix which have become more compatible following recent meetings.

Some days after the RCM meeting, GFCM/SAC Chairman notified EC and RCM-MED&BS Chair about first priority GFCM meetings to promote as eligible under the 2009 national programmes:

• Sessions of the 4 SAC Sub-Committees (Rome, Nov-Dec 2009), • Working group on stock assessment of small pelagic species (Ancona, Nov-Dec

2009), • Transversal workshop on fishing capacity (Rome, May-June 2009), • Transversal workshop on the GFCM logbook (Rome, May-June 2009), • Workshop on selectivity (Tunis, Sep-Oct 2009).

3 Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2009-2010 following the new DCR framework

Considering the few number of economists (2) and the large dominant biological expertise capacities of the attendance in the meeting, the RCM MED&BS decided not to work by subgroups as initially planned in the agenda. Therefore all discussions were in plenary sessions.

3.1 Economic variables Many of the issues discussed at the RCM-NS&EA (meeting held the week before the RCM-MED&BS one) are relevant also in other regions because they refer to the aspect of the methodology or procedures and protocols. Therefore, and taking into account the low participation of economist and the recommendation of the RCM-NS&EA that its Chair

circulates its first draft related to economic variables to the other RCMs., the RCM-MED&BS reviewed the recommendations from RCM-NS&EA.

3.1.1 Fishing fleet: Homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra region

Clustering is needed to allow sampling to be cost effective. But it is also necessary when fleet segments are too few and a random sample cannot be extracted. Clustering can introduce some degree of bias in the results for the combined segments; therefore a regional methodology should be applied in order to assure that the segments to be clustered are homogeneous.

RCM-MED&BS agrees with RCM-NS&EA that guidelines should be produced by STECF/SGECA for Member States when clustering fleet segments. These guidelines should be produced in the workshop on data quality to be conducted in 2009.

According to the DCR, “Regional Coordination Meetings shall define homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra regions so that economic variables are comparable”.

Spain, Cyprus and Italy clustered their segments for economic sampling in 2009 and 2010. Each of these countries clustered segments according to the length classes. That is, segments with few vessels are merged with a neighbouring length category and not with other segments.

The RCM-MED&BS agrees with this approach and recommends that also other MSs should follow this methodology to cluster only length classes in order to compare economic variables. However, RCM recalls that, according to regulation, MS should justify the clustering on the basis of statistical analysis, which in these three cases was only provided by Italy. Other member states are recommended to provide statistical evidence if clustering of vessels is to be conducted.

Economic variables: Fishing fleet: Clustering RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

The RCM-MED&BS recommends that all MS inf the Supra-region follow the methodology to cluster only length classes in order to compare economic variables, and so doing, give justification on the basis of statistical analysis, as required by the regulation



Member states, SGRN


Updating of 2009 NP, at last implementation of the 2010 NP

3.1.2 The participation of Economists in RCM RCM-NS&EA discussed the role and participation of economists in the RCMs.

The RCM-NS&EA considers that it may not be necessary for the involvement of economists in every RCM meeting, but that if there are specific issues that require the economists’ involvement it would be best to involve the full range of Member States rather than a small group to ensure a wide range of opinions may be represented. Moreover, RCM-NS&EA considers that given the role for SGECA in coordination of methodology, there is not as great a need for economists to meet at the RCMs to coordinate actions, as the collection of economic data does not require the same degree of interaction between Member States as with the collection of biological data.

However the RCM-MED&BS considers more useful to have the full attendance of economists at regional co-ordination meetings. Their involvement is especially necessary if one considers that in the new DCR framework several issues involve an interaction between the biological

and economical data – for example, related to bio-economic modelling and common data calls, or related to the development of data related to the ecosystem approach.

There are several tasks that should be addressed by economists in RCM: i) to produce a document on data collection practices for economic variables to assess

the degree of convergence/divergence in practices across the region ii) to clarify problems with the collection of data for particular variables and to assure a

common interpretation of parameters iii) to draw up a summary table of data sources used and quality measures planned from

the National Programmes as an input to SGECA iv) to allocate economic data at the level of metiers

The RCM-MED&BS considers that these tasks are its responsibility and not that of SGECA because they require national expertise that should be available in RCM. SGECA is attended by independent experts that should address methodological issues and carry out data analysis (like the preparation of the Annual Economic Report). SGECA and RCM are hence complementary bodies with different tasks sharing.

The group also considers that involvement of economists in RCM could facilitate the process of appointments of economists at national level, also considering that specific budget is allocated in NP for the collection of economic data.

The RCM MED&BS recommends the attendance of economists from all the Member States in future meetings of the RCM MED&BS and that member states should ensure the attendance of their national economists.

Economic variables: Participation of Economists in RCMs RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

Considering the tasks that should be addressed by economists in RCM, that SGECA and RCM are complementary bodies with different tasks sharing, and that economics is a mandatory part of the NP, the RCM-MED&BS recommends the attendance of economists from all the MS in future meetings of the RCM MED&BS and that MS should ensure the attendance of their national economists.



Member states


Next RCM-MED&BS

3.1.3 Quality issues The RCM-NS&EA recommends that STECF and SGECA consider whether or how the data quality issues might be included in the work plan for SGECA in either 2009 or 2010.

The RCM-MED&BS agrees with this recommendation and stresses the importance of the future SGECA meeting on data quality which should suggest homogenous methods to assess the quality of economic data.

At the same time, each RCM can contribute to the quality of data in the phase of transmission of data to the European Commission or to other end users. For example, in future RCMs, an analysis of the data calls could be carried out, in order to assure the transmission of data to the Commission and other end users in a consistent format at regional and/or supra-regional levels.

3.2 Transversal variables

3.2.1 Collection of transversal variables The DCR states that: “The degree of aggregation shall correspond to the most disaggregated level required. A grouping of cells within this scheme may be made provided that an appropriate statistical analysis demonstrates its suitability. Such mergers must be approved by the relevant Regional Coordination Meeting”.

In the 2009-2010 NP proposals, no MED&BS MS has merged cells for the collection of transversal variables. Therefore, no approval by RCM is required.

Derogations for some effort variables have been required by some Member States. These derogations will have to be evaluated by SGRN.

The RCM-MED&BS recognizes the difficulties to estimate some effort variables for several metiers, especially for passive gears. Official data sources cannot be used to estimate fishing effort variables at the level of detail required. Different data sources (sampling, surveys, logbook or sales notes) need to be used.

Therefore, the RCM MED&BS agrees with the recommendation made by RCM-NS&EA that the Commission and STECF take note of the concerns with regards to the quality of some of the transversal variables related to fishing effort, and recommends that an assessment of the quality of the data be made before any use of if it.

Transversal variables: Effort data RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

SGRN considers the priorities for collecting these data need to match the rankings of metier for biological purposes, and should bear this in mind when considering requests for derogations in National Programmes.


STECF/SGRN to consider this principle when evaluating National Programmes


STECF/SGRN, EU Commission


February 2009

3.2.2 Common understanding of effort definition Variables listed in appendix VIII of EC Decision 2008/949 have been reviewed.

Capacity and landings variables do not present problems of interpretation.

The following effort variables: Number of fishing operations, Number of nets / Length, Number of hooks, Number of lines, Numbers of pots, traps and Soaking time, present different problems of estimations.

The RCM MED&BS recommends that the next PGMED should collate information on these variables in order to discuss on the possible use of these data and to propose the best methodology to estimate the effort variables.

Transversal variables: Commun understanding of effort definition RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

Considering that some effort variables, and particularly those illustrating passive gears effort, could present different problems of estimations, the RCM MED&BS recommends that the next PGMED should collate information on these variables in order to discuss on the possible use of these data and to propose the best methodology to

estimate the effort variables. Follow-up actions needed

To include in 2009 PGMED terms of reference


Chair of PGMED, Member states to provide first information


Next PGMED in March 2009

Furthermore there are no tables in the guidelines of the program proposals for the collection of transversal variables. The RCM-MED&BS suggests to add such tables in the guidelines of the program proposals and future technical reports

3.3 Metier related variables

3.3.1 General issues During the meeting combined Tables III_C_1 and III_C_3 from the 2009-2010 NP Proposals of the Member States were prepared, for reviewing the metiers used in the ranking system by all Member States and the sampling schemes proposed for those sorted by the ranking system. It was noted that the data from two Member States (Greece and Rumania) where not available at the time of the meeting. However, the tables prepared by Greece were provided unofficially during the meeting, and the Romanian tables were provided during the sub-regional meeting on Black sea held in Sofia in January 2009. They have been merged with data of the other countries used for the November meeting. Therefore, the overview on fishing activities given in the next chapters can be considered therefore as complete at the RCM-MED&BS level.

To avoid these delays, boring time to process the data during the meeting (as recommended by the 2008 Liaison Meeting) and to gain in efficiency, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to prepare exchange of data enough time in advance to allow their merging and their validation at the regional level before the meeting.

Métier variables: harmonisation and preparation of exchange data RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

In order to use the time of the RCM more efficient, the pre-processing of the exchange data tables, namely the merging of the data on fisheries statistics and planned sampling NP proposal tables in the NPs, for the harmonisation of the NPs, including the quality checks, should be carried out before the next RCM.


Preparation of exchange data for task-sharing


RCM Chair and RCM participants


until Aug/Sep 2009

3.3.2 Regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6 As it was the first time the RCM-MED&BS was comparing the planned sampling and the fisheries statistics given in the NP proposals 2009-2010 on a regional level, the production of working tables took a large part of the meeting time and it has not been possible to discuss the quality and the intensities of the sampling programmes. The data presented in the relevant combined tables were not homogeneous, and the first task was the correction of the values in the different fields describing fishing activities.

Recoding with homogenous rules was a long work and concerned almost all the fields of the tables III_C_1 and III_C_3:

• Region: different languages and spellings, • Geographical areas and more particularly the GSAs, which are the usual GFCM

spatial scale: were found for example to be linked to the final retained code GSA07, spellings GSA07, GSA7, GSA 7, All areas. Sometimes also MS use ICCAT codes for metiers targeting large pelagics,

• Metier at level 5 : gears and target assemblages difficult to distinguish (DRB/DRH, GNS/GTR, LHP/LHM, SPF/DEF/MPD), leading to find in the tables not existing combinations between gear and target assemblage at level 5 according to the regulation (Appendix IV matrix for MED&BS region) and SGRN guidelines,

• Metier coding at level 6: with meshsize documented or not, similar between countries or not, etc.

To avoid these boring corrections in the tables, the RCM-MED&BS recommends clearer rules on filling up the technical tables of the national programme to be specified: language, reference lists of allowed codes for each field according to the Region covered, forbidden completions, etc.

Métier variables: Coding procedures – Updating of the SGRN guidelines RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

The RCM-MED&BS recommends that all MS should follow strictly the naming conventions for reporting the sampling and statistics information. The SGRN Guidelines for NP proposals should be revised in order to ensure unambiguous coding of the métiers and fishing grounds and to stress the importance to adhere to these rules.


Revision of the SGRN Guidelines and templates for NP proposals


STECF-SGRN


2009

During the discussions to define common metiers at the regional level, it became clear that a description of the fishing activities (target species, spatial distribution etc.) in the métiers is needed to allow the RCM to fully evaluate the compatibility of the fishing activities and consequently possibilities for task-sharing. A short description of all métiers selected by the 90% ranking procedure should be provided in the NP proposals (Table III.C.1), e.g. providing the target species, fishing sites, etc.

The RCM-MED&BS acknowledged that the knowledge on meshsize is scarce for most of the metiers. However, according to current regulations in force, some assumptions were proposed for bottom trawling (meshsize >= 40 mm), trammel and gillnet netting (meshsize >= 32 mm except Black sea métiers), purse seining for small pelagics (meshsize >= 14 mm.) On other hand, lack of information or not similar data led to give no precision on metier coding at level 6 (dredging, potting, longlines, fyke and drift netting, puurse seining for large pelagics, etc.).

As consequence of this state of knowledge on metiers at level 6, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to improve the global description of metiers at level 6 in terms of target species, fishing areas, meshsizes used etc. and to provide these information in the MS natiojnal programmes.

Métier variables: Description of metiers RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

In the NP proposals, a short description of all métiers selected by the 90% ranking procedure should be provided. Such a table would enable RCM to identify whether a métier with the same name covers the same or different fisheries in different NP.

Moreover, the RCM-MED&BS recommends MS to investigate on the mesh size or gear sizes ranges actually used in their fisheries, especially for nets and hooks, and to provide information during the next PGMED meeting, for a possible agreement of size ranges at level 6.


Adjust SGRN guidelines for the submission of NP proposals. All MS to propose description of their metiers for the next RCM.


STECF-SGRN, PGMED, Member states


At the latest, next RCM-MED&BS in Autumn 2009, if possible first information for next PGMED in March 2009.

Furthermore, considering some misunderstandings or difficulties to characterize some usual metiers practised by MS fishermen and as a consequence that the metier matrix (Appendix IV of Decision 2008/949/EC should be amended, the RCM-MED&BS proposes the following recommendations concerning fishing activities at levels 5 and 6 in the Mediterranean and Black sea.

Métier variables: Updating of the matrix (appendix IV.4 Decision 2008/949/EC)) RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

- The RCM-MED&BS suggests to re-include in the metier matrix for the Mediterranean region the gear hydraulic dredge (DRH), as the associated metier is very different that traditional dredging. - The RCM-MED&BS suggests the modification of target assemblage (level 5) of Trolling line [LTL] from “Large pelagic fish” to “Finfish”. - The RCM-MED&BS Group suggests the inclusion of the code “DES” for the description of “Demersal Species” in the target assemblage codes set by SGRN-08-01, for defining metiers at level 6 within the Standard Tables of the National Programme Proposals.


Adjust SGRN Guidelines for the submission of NP proposals. To include in 2009 PGMED terms of reference. Member states to provide preliminary useful information


Chair of PGMED, STECF SGRN Member states to provide preliminary useful information to PGMED


Evaluation of NP by SGRN in Feb 2009, next PGMED in March 2009

The 30 harmonised metiers at level 6 that have been finalised after discussions by the RCM MED&BS are provided in Table 3.3.2.1. Twenty nine were defined in November for the Sète meeting, but the need to distinguish two metiers for pelagic trawling targeting small pelagic species (preciously identified under metier coding OTM_MPD_>=20_0_0) was identified for the Sofia meeting according to the used mesh sizes.

Table 3.3.2.1 : List of finalised metiers at level 6 for Mediterranean and Black Sea.

Metier coding Metier naming

DRB_MOL_0_0_0 Dredging for molluscs DRH_MOL_0_0_0 Mechanisec dredging for molluscs

FPN_FIF_0_0_0 Pound nets for fish FPO_DES_0_0_0 Potting for demersal species FYK_CAT_0_0_0 Fyke nets for eels FYK_DES_0_0_0 Fyke nets for other demersal species

GND_DEF_0_0_0 Driftnets for demersal fish GND_SPF_0_0_0 Drifnets for small pelagics

GNS_DEF_360-400_0_0 Set gillnets for demersal fish (turbot Black sea) GNS_DEF_>=32_0_0 Set gillnets dor demersal fish according meshsize regulation GNS_SLP_>=32_0_0 Set gillnets for small pelagics according meshsize regulation GTR_DES_>=32_0_0 Set trammel nets for demersal species according meshsize regulation LA_SLP_16-29_0_0 Lampara nets according meshsize regulation

LHP/LHM_FIF_0_0_0 Lines for fish LHP-LHM_CEP_0_0_0 Lines for cephalopods

LLD_LPF_0_0_0 Drifting longlines for large pelagics LLS_DEF_0_0_0 set longlines for demersal fish LTL_LPF_0_0_0 Trolled lines for large pelagics

OTB_DES_>=40_0_0 Demersal trawling according meshsize regulation OTB_DWS_>=40_0_0 Deep sea (red shrimps) trawling according meshsize regulation OTB_MDD_>=40_0_0 Mixed pelagic and demersal trawling according meshsize regulation

OTM_MPD_>=13_0_0* Pelagic trawling (Black sea region) according meshsize regulation OTM_MPD_>=20_0_0 Pelagic trawling (Mediterranean region) according meshsize regulation

PS_LPF_0_0_0 Purse seine for large pelagics PS_SPF_>=14_0_0 Purse seine for small pelagics according meshsize regulation

PTM_SPF_>=20_0_0 Pelagic pair trawling (Mediterranean region) according meshsize regulationSB-SV_DES_0_0_0 Beach and boat seines for demersal species SB-SV_SPF_0_0_0 Beach and boat seines for small pelagics TBB_DES_0_0_0 Beam trawling for demersal trawling

MIS Miscellaenous metiers (defined at national level) * Métier identified for the Black sea meeting on coordination between Bulgaria and Romania.

According to the regional reference list of metiers, synthesis tables compiled from recoded Tables III_C_1 provided by MS could be established for the whole RCM-MED&BS area of responsibility. Cumulated Effort and Landings results at the RCM regional level are provided as examples in table 3.3.2.2. The data of this table must however be considered with caution because lacks of some national data and “raw “data (not validated during the meeting).

Table 3.3.2.2 : Effort and landings by RCM-MED&BS level 6 reference metiers.

Reference Métier level 6 Effort(nb_days)

%cumulated Reference Métier level 6 Landings

(tonnes)%

cumulated

GTR_DES_>=32_0_0 2 488 706 36% OTB_DES_>=40_0_0 178 260 25%GNS_DEF_>=32_0_0 1 314 334 55% PS_SPF_>=14_0_0 128 316 43%OTB_DES_>=40_0_0 848 492 68% PTM_SPF_>=20_0_0 103 430 58%LLS_DEF_0_0_0 646 452 77% GTR_DES_>=32_0_0 61 945 67%FPO_DES_0_0_0 273 491 81% DRH_MOL_0_0_0 51 541 74%OTB_MDD_>=40_0_0 193 629 84% OTB_MDD_>=40_0_0 33 019 79%PS_SPF_>=14_0_0 153 328 86% GNS_DEF_>=32_0_0 32 136 83%DRH_MOL_0_0_0 148 491 88% LLS_DEF_0_0_0 20 574 86%LLD_LPF_0_0_0 116 315 90% LLD_LPF_0_0_0 18 867 89%MIS 115 906 92% FPO_DES_0_0_0 14 535 91%SB-SV_SPF_0_0_0 74 386 93% PS_LPF_0_0_0 14 231 93%SB-SV_DES_0_0_0 73 673 94% OTM_MPD_>=20_0_0 12 690 95%LHP-LHM_CEP_0_0_0 70 276 95% TBB_DES_0_0_0 11 351 96%OTB_DWS_>=40_0_0 69 859 96% SB-SV_DES_0_0_0 6 467 97%FYK_DES_0_0_0 63 644 97% OTB_DWS_>=40_0_0 5 389 98%PTM_SPF_>=20_0_0 52 915 98% MIS 4 046 99%GND_SPF_0_0_0 38 655 98% SB-SV_SPF_0_0_0 3 360 99%TBB_DES_0_0_0 32 394 99% FYK_DES_0_0_0 2 965 99%PS_LPF_0_0_0 20 747 99% GND_SPF_0_0_0 1 929 100%DRB_MOL_0_0_0 15 333 99% LHP-LHM_CEP_0_0_0 905 100%FYK_CAT_0_0_0 15 123 99% GNS_SLP_>=32_0_0 598 100%GNS_SLP_>=32_0_0 11 876 100% LHP/LHM_FIF_0_0_0 403 100%LHP/LHM_FIF_0_0_0 8 601 100% LTL_LPF_0_0_0 125 100%LTL_LPF_0_0_0 4 315 100% OTM_MPD_>=13_0_0 4 100%OTM_MPD_>=20_0_0 4 261 100% FPN_FIF_0_0_0 1 100%OTM_MPD_>=13_0_0 2 877 100% DRB_MOL_0_0_0 0 100%FPN_FIF_0_0_0 2 000 100% LA_SLP_16-29_0_0 0 100%LA_SLP_16-29_0_0 987 100% GNS_DEF_360-400_0_0 0 100%GNS_DEF_360-400_0_0 859 100% FYK_CAT_0_0_0 0 100%GND_DEF_0_0_0 82 100% GND_DEF_0_0_0 0 100%

3.3.3 Fishing grounds, shared metiers by fishing grounds and sample intensities

According that each MS is supposed, from the tables available in the NPs, fishing most of time in the nearest GSAs offshore its coasts, there was no agreement between MS to propose fishing grounds merging several GSAs. The only split agreed by the RCM MED&BS is to distinguish the Mediterranean sea and the Black sea.

Running the ranking system at the GSA scale as planed in RCMs ToRs presented consequently no real interest because of the few countries involved. To identify common metiers between MS in a given GSA seemed an more interesting issue in terms of sampling task sharing.

The RCM reviewed Tables III.C.1 and III.C.3 from the submitted 2009-2010 NP Proposals and identified 19 cases of shared metiers selected to be sampled by the Member States (17 during the Sète meeting and 2 during the Sofia meeting. Shared métiers must be understood as reference metiers at level 6 practised by two or more MS in the same GSA. The shared metiers are provided in Table 3.3.3.

Table 3.3.3: Identified shared metiers among RCM-MED&BS MSs by GSAs.

GSA Reference metier -level 6 MS involvedESPFRAESPFRACYPMLTESPFRAMLTITASVNITASVNITASVNITASVNITASVNITASVNITASVNITASVNITASVNESPFRAITAITASVNITASVNBULROMBULROMESPFRAITAMLTGRECYP

All Mediterranean

OTM_MPD_>=13_0_029

7

15

17

PS_LPF_0_0_0

PS_SPF_>=14_0_0

PTM_SPF_>=20_0_0

GNS_DEF_360-400_0_0

LHP/LHM_FIF_0_0_0

LLS_DEF_0_0_0

MIS

OTB_DES_>=40_0_0

PS_LPF_0_0_0

LLS_DEF_0_0_0

OTB_DES_>=40_0_0

OTB_MDD_>=40_0_0

PS_LPF_0_0_0

FPO_DES_0_0_0

FYK_DES_0_0_0

GND_SPF_0_0_0

GNS_DEF_>=32_0_0

GTR_DES_>=32_0_0

Note: For PS_LPF_0_0_0, MSs are involved either as the flag countries of the tuna purse seiners and/or as the flag countries of the BFT farming facilities.

Except purse seine for blue fin tuna covering broad fishing areas, only 16 metiers are shared between 2 countries, mostly neighbouring.

It was recognised by the participants to the RCM-MED&BS that the number of identified cases of shared metiers is based on the data provided by the MSs in their 2009-2010 programme proposal, which may not be complete. It was suggested that the GFCM Task I

Statistical Bulletin 2008 data are used as a complementary source of information for the identification of all metiers operated by the MSs. It was also acknowledged that some of the countries encounter problems in obtaining landings and effort data by fishing ground (fishing areas) at the GSA level, and provide instead data by landing place. It was suggested that VMS data are used for identifying all GSAs in which fishing operations are carried out by the MSs.

Métier variables: Accuracy on geographical origine of landings and effort data RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

The RCM-MED&BS Group recommends Member States to provide landings and effort data according to the fishing grounds at the GSA level instead of the landing places. The use of VMS data is recommended for analysing the fishing grounds by GSA and identifying all metiers exercised by the Member States.


MS to provide transversal data by fishing areas


MS to analyse VMS data and to provide more accurate transversal data on metiers


2009

Four of the cases of shared metiers among Member States were selected to be reviewed by the RCM-MED1BS, for investigating a possible collaboration on the sampling intensity proposed in the NP Proposals (Table III.C.3) and suggesting possible bilateral agreements. The selection was based on the importance of the shared metiers to the MSs’ fisheries.

The cases selected were the following:

1. OTB_DES_>=40_0_0 operated in GSA 7 by France and Spain.

Comments: Both countries propose to monitor landings and discards, France by on-board and market sampling and Spain by on-board sampling. France exercises more fishing effort and proposes a higher sampling intensity than Spain.

Advice: There seems to be a possibility for Spain to reduce its sampling intensity. A bilateral collaboration is adviced for investigating this option.

2. LLS_DEF_0_0_0 operated in GSA 7 by France and Spain.

Comments: Both countries propose to monitor the landings, France by concurrent harbour sampling and Spain by concurrent on-board and stock-specific market sampling. As the metier is operated in coastal waters, it may differ between the two MSs.

Advice: For the moment no recommendation is made on a possible adaptation of the sampling schemes of the MSs. The countries concerned are invited to provide more data on the catch composition of this metier to the 2009 PGMED, for further investigation of a possible collaboration in the monitoring of the metier.

3. OTB_MDD_<=40_0_0 operated in GSA 15 by Malta and Cyprus.

Comments: Malta proposes to monitor this metier through on-board sampling, while Cyprus does not propose any sampling. The RCM was informed that an agreement has been made between Malta and Cyprus, for the inclusion of the Cyprus fishing vessels operating this metier in the sampling scheme of Malta; this agreement will be reflected in the NPs of the two MSs.

4. PS_LPF_0_0_0 operated in all GSAs by Spain, France, Italy and Malta

Comments: 6 Mediterranean MSs are involved in this metier (Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Greece and Cyprus), either as the flag countries of the tuna purse seiners and/or of the bluefin tuna farming facilities.

Advice: The RCM-MED&BS recommends the MSs involved in this metier to include the provisions of the ICCAT recommendation [06-07] on Bluefin Tuna Farming concerning the sampling of caged bluefin tuna in their NPs. Any agreements between the MSs for sampling bluefin tuna caught by this metier should be reflected in their National Programmes. See also section 3.4.2.

Métier variables: bilateral agreements on sampling task sharing for blue fin tuna RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

The RCM-MED&BS recommends Member States involved in metier “Purse seine for large pelagics” (especially for blue fin tuna) to establish agreements concerning the biological sampling of caged fish and to provide them in their NP.


Bilateral agreements between MS to be joined to their NP.


MS involved in the Mediterranean blue fin tuna fishery


Before next SGRN meeting on NPs evaluation. At the latest, in the revision of 2010 NP.

Due to time constraints it was not possible to review the other cases of common metiers and to assess sampling intensities proposed by MS for metiers sorted by the ranking system at the national level. This task comes otherwise under SGRN issues. For the rest of the shared cases, in case information is not enough for agreeing on a possible adaptation of the sampling schemes proposed by the Member States, the concerned countries are invited to provide further information during the next PGMED meeting (March 2009), including catch compositions and coefficients of variation (CVs) achieved.

3.3.4 Planned sampling programmes on recreational fisheries The proposed actions by country concerning the recreational fisheries included in the DCR (bluefin tuna - BFT and eel) are summarized below:

• Bulgaria: There are no recreational fisheries for marine stocks; hence not any actions have been proposed.

• Greece: Nothing has been proposed, as there are no recreational fisheries in the context of DCR, i.e. for BFT and eel.

• Italy: Data collection from the BFT recreational fisheries has been foreseen, as well as a pilot study for eel recreational fisheries.

• Spain: Data collection from the BFT recreational fisheries has been foreseen. Regional studies for eel are in progress to evaluate the situation regarding eel recreational fisheries.

• Slovenia: Nothing has been proposed, as there are no recreational fisheries in the context of DCR, i.e. for BFT and eel.

• Malta: A general survey covering all recreational fisheries is running but it is not clear if it covers the DCR requirements regarding BFT. There are no recreational fisheries for eel.

• Cyprus: A pilot survey has been proposed regarding the recreational fishery for BFT. Additionally, it has been proposed the inclusion of albacore in the aforementioned study.

• France: Derogation for BFT recreational fisheries has been requested due to low catches. Pilot study for eel has been suggested.

• Romania: Not relevant due to the absence of the two target species (bluefin tuna and eel in the area.

RCM-MED&BS is confident that the outputs of the forthcoming ICES WS (Nantes, April 2009) will help in the implementation of these pilot studies and provide a good basis for a common approach. It was agreed that the terms of reference of the next RCM-MED&BS will include aspects related to the revision of methodologies followed for sampling eel fisheries.

3.4 Stock related variables

3.4.1 General issues Due to time constraints and given the difficulty presented by the table formats (such as mixed qualitative and quantitative information) it was not possible to undertake a detailed examination of the data relating to all species and stocks in the RCM-MED&BS area of responsibility. For these reasons it was decided to focus on some of them, presenting most relevant issues at regional level. It was decided for the others that data collection and elaboration in 2009 will be done at the national level according to the national proposals. Sampling intensities required to achieve precision levels by region for group 1 and 2 species will be reviewed in the next PGMED meeting based on information that will be made available by the member countries. Findings will be taken into account for the realization of the 2010 survey.

RCM MED&BS noted that the areas/stocks mentioned in the DCR regarding the stock parameters of most of the species (Appendix VII –Mediterranean sea) do not represent the distribution of the stocks but the areas where the species might occur. RCM MED&BS requested PGMED to clarify this aspect taking into account any changes that may be suggested by GFCM regarding the stock boundary units.

3.4.2 Task-sharing on ageing and other biological parameters

At present, nearly all age readings are done at all the national institutes. Therefore, the RCM- MED&BS discussed various ways of organisation and task-sharing of the age readings and agreed on a joint exercise to be undertaken in next PGMED with the existing information from each MS in order to analyse them and find an ideal quantity per MS to reach a regional precision level.

However two real opportunities dealing with ageing task sharing were identified.

Large pelagics

RCM MED&BS revised the sampling intensities needed to achieve precision levels on a Mediterranean-wide basis for the large pelagic species included in group 1 list (swordfish and bluefin tuna).

- Regarding swordfish, RCM MED&BS adopted the sampling intensity proposed by each member country and it is expected that it will cover the precision level requirements.

- Regarding bluefin tuna, RCM MED&BS noted the difficulties in obtaining biological samples from fisheries capturing animals for farming (purse-seiners) and suggested that PGMED should examine the possibility of intensifying sampling at farms based on bilateral agreements between member countries. Table 3.4.2 presents the sampling intensity required by each member country if such a sampling scheme is adopted.

Table 3.4.2: Regional sampling scheme proposed for swordfish and bluefin tuna.

Swordfish (No of fish proposed in NP)

Tuna (No of fish proposed in

NP)

Farm Production

2005 (tonnes)

Estimated Catch PS (= Farm

production *0.75)

Catch SLL (longlines)

Total Catch

"Country" (tonnes)

No to Sample

(according reg.2008/949

)

Percentage of total number

Min No fish to Sample

Minimum Target-Age 1125 1750 1750

Italy 900 640 620 465 142 607 76 7% 127

Greece 280 70 587 440 200 640 80 8% 134

Spain 75 120 4251 3188 290 3478 435 41% 726

Cyprus 10 15 958 719 118 837 105 10% 175

Malta 250 250 3314 2486 340 2826 353 34% 590

France N/A N/A 0 0

Total 1515 1095 9730 8388 1048 100% 1751 FRANCE : N/A (no métier targeting swordfish, no sampling of bluefin tuna landings because purse seiners catches are transferred into cages in other MS, no French longliners targeting large pelagics).

RCM-MED&BS recommends Member States to conduct this sampling scheme in 2010 following the PGMED conclusions. However this does not preclude MS to start collecting samples in 2009 due to problems in the availability of samples.

Stock variables: ageing and other parameters task sharing for blue fin tuna RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

The RCM-MED&BS recommends Member States to conduct the regional ageing sampling scheme proposed for bluefin tuna in 2010 following the PGMED conclusions. If possible MS can start collecting samples since 2009 if they have included this task in their NP.


To include this task in next PGMED ToRS, revision of NPs by concerned MS if needed.


PGMED, MS involved in the Mediterranean blue fin tuna fishery


Before next SGRN meeting on NPs evaluation. At the latest, in the revision of 2010 NP.

Black sea G1 species

Compulsory species G1 for Black sea (GSA 29) are: Mediterranean horse mackerel, sprat, anchovy, turbot.

The two MS Bulgaria and Romania are cooperating already and have built international ALK for turbot, sprat, anchovy and horse mackerel. The EC Decision does not contain any sampling intensity. In the wait of COST, these intensities can be pre-defined following information provided by both MS and discussions in next PGMED.

3.4.3 Group 3 species It has been suggested that member states should consider the possibility of including in the group 3 species-list the reference species of the “MEDITS” survey that have not been already included in the group 1 and 2 lists of the DCR. The suggested species are listed in Table 3.4.3.

Scientific name Code Common name

Aspitrigla cuculus ASPI CUC Red gurnard Boops boops BOOP BOO Bogue Citharus linguatula CITH MAC Spotted flounder Eutrigla gurnardus EUTR GUR Grey gurnard Galeus melastomus GALU MEL Blackmouth catshark Helicolenus dactylopterus HELI DAC Rockfish Lepidorhombus boscii LEPM BOS Four-spotted megrim Lophius budegassa LOPH BUD Black-bellier angler Lophius piscatorius LOPH PIS Angler Merluccius merluccius MERL MER European hake Micromesistius poutassou MICM POU Blue whiting Mullus barbatus MULL BAR Red mullet Mullus surmuletus MULL SUR Striped red mullet Pagellus acarne PAGE ACA Axillary seabream Pagellus bogaraveo PAGE BOG Blackspot seabram Pagellus erythrinus PAGE ERY Common pandora Phycis blennoides PHYI BLE Greater forkbeard Raja clavata RAJA CLA Thornback ray Scyliorhinus canicula SCYO CAN Smallspoted catshark Solea vulgaris SOLE VUL Common sole Spicara flexuosa SPIC FLE Picarle Spicara smaris SPIC SMA Picarel Trachurus mediterraneus TRAC MED Mediterranean horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus TRAC TRA Atlantic horse mackerel Trigla lucerna TRIG LUC Tub gurnard Trigloporus lastoviza TPIP LAS Streaked gurnard Trisopterus minutus capelanus TRIS CAP Poor-cod Zeus faber ZEUS FAB John dory Aristeomorpha foliacea ARIS FOL Giant red shrimp Aristeus antennatus ARIT ANT Blue and red shrimp Nephrops norvegicus NEPR NOR Norway lobster Parapenaeus longirostris PAPE LON Deep-water pink shrimp Eledone cirrhosa ELED CIR Horned octopus Eledone moschata ELED MOS Musky octopus Illex coindetti ILLE COI Broadtail squid Loligo vulgaris LOLI VUL European squid Octopus vulgaris OCTO VUL Common octopus Sepia officinalis SEPI OFF Common cuttlefish

Table 3.4.3: MEDITS species missing in Appendix VII of Decision 2008/949/EC (underlined in yellow) and proposed as GR3 species by RCM-MED&BS.

Furthermore, a list of species of local interest has been suggested by Cyprus for GSA 25. The list includes the following species: Siganus sp., Pagrus pagrus, Diplodus sargus, Diplodus vulgaris, Sparisoma cretense and Spicara maena.

Stock variables: Species of Group 3

RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

The RCM-MED&BS recommends as minimal list of Group 3 species for the Mediterranean the 11 following fish : Aspitrigla cuculu, Citharus linguatula, Helicolenus dactylopterus, Lepidorhombus boscii, Pagellus acarne, Pagellus bogaraveo, Phycis blennoides, Spicara flexuosa, Trigloporus lastoviza, Trisopterus minutus capelanus, Zeus faber.


Sampling of this GR 3 species by Member states if present in the catches and/or landings


STEF/SGRN, RCM-MED&BS


Updating of NP 2009

4 Quality issues

4.1 COST Project A state on the progress of the project “Common Open Source Tool Project” was presented to the RCM MED&BS (see Annex XXX).

The objectives of the COST (Common Open Source Tool) project are to develop validated methods to investigate, estimate parameters and related precision for data collected from various sources (on-board sampling, surveys, auction/market sampling, coast guard, purchase of fish, …) :

• discard volume • length and age structure of catches and landings, • biological parameters such as growth, maturity and sex-ratio

The project started in July 2007 and is planned to end in March 2009. The first task was to agree on a standard Data exchange Format starting from the format developed by FishFrame. The Standard Data Exchange Format which is the unique format on which all statistical methods are based is now available on the COST internet website (http://wwz.ifremer.fr/cost).

Once the data is imported in COST R environment, it has the status RAW. After exploratory analysis and search of errors, outliers or misallocated samples, the data receives the status VALIDATED. This status enables the process of post-stratification, and the user may create strata in order to (i) work out the data on the exact stratification used for sampling, (ii) regroup strata to avoid poorly or non sampled strata, or (iii) distinguish different strata than those originally planned to reduce the variance. Once this process is done, the data receives the status CONSOLIDATED and the raising and precision estimates methods may be used.

The calculation of precision is developed based on three distinctive methods, i.e. analytical, re-sampling and Bayesian. All three methods have their own domain of use and may complement each other. In order to provide the user with a methodological key, the COST project has planned a task on simulation where all methods will be tested against a virtual population to evaluate the accuracy of the methods depending on the case studied.

In conclusion, • the COST methods will be fully available, together with examples and user manuals,

at the end of March 2009. • Hands-on workshop should be planned by PGCCDBS for early 2010. • MS should anticipate the work with COST functions by importing their data in the

COST environment using the Standard Data exchange Format. • Working on the data 2008 with the COST functions is highly advisable in order to

prepare the 2010 workshop and the broad use of COST on 2009 data.

http://wwz.ifremer.fr/cost

The RCM-MED&BS understands that the tool generated by the COST project (COST software) may not cover all the specific cases of the European fisheries at this very first step, but the RCM is confident of the introduction of changes in the further tool checking processes if they are needed.

The RCM-MED&BS points out the difficulties for holding the workshop for training checking the program with the final-users during 2009 since no funding was planned neither in the respective project nor by the 2008 PGCCDBS or PGMED. Considering the RCM-NS&EA recommendation that a hands-on workshop on implementing the COST tools should be planned for early 2010, the RCM-MED&BS supports that proposal and recommends the inclusion of this workshop in the DCR frame in the next PGMed in March 2009 to be held as soon as possible in 2010

Métier variables: Naming of the metiers and accuracy on geographical origine of landings and effort data RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation

Considering that the tools generated by the COST project could improve noticeably the quality of DCR data collection schemes, the RCM-MED&BS recommends that a hands-on workshop on implementing the COST tools tools should be planned for early 2010, and recommends the inclusion of this workshop in the DCR frame in the next PGMEDed in February 2009 to be held as soon as possible.


Workshop proposal by PGMED in its next meeting, for inclusion by EC in the 2010 eligible meeting list.


PGMED and UE Commission


March 2009

4.2 Accuracy workshop (WKACCU) The conclusions of the Workshop WKACCU were presented to the RCM-MED&BS (see Annex XXX).

PGCCDBS (ICES, 2007) defined accuracy as follows: Accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity to its actual (true) value. Accuracy is closely related to precision. The results of calculations or a measurement can be accurate but not precise; precise but not accurate; neither; or both. A result is called valid if it is both accurate and precise. The related terms in surveying are error (random variability in research) and bias (non-random or directed effects caused by a factor or factors unrelated by the independent variable)..

The Workshop on methods to estimate the Accuracy of Fisheries data for stock assessment (WKACCU) was held in Bergen (Norway) from 27 to 30 October 2008. The terms of reference were :

1. review the sources of bias and establish general parameters (indicators)/procedures to assess the bias on national level of fishery statistics (quantities landed, discards, fishing effort, CPUE) using available data, and advice on best practices.

2. review the sources of bias and establish general parameters (indicators)/procedures to assess the bias on national level of biological data collected from the fisheries by investigating (both visual and quantitative) the data coverage by stock, area, season and fleet

From the terms of reference, it was decided to focus on the sources of bias and the way the different sources of bias should compose a single indicator related to one parameter. It was recalled that

B(ias) = Estimator – True value

It was noticed that the constant bias passes undetected by the sample data (Cochran, 1977). This statement is essential for the evaluation of bias, and the different presentations made during the session all tried to (i) explore the data to search for outliers or misallocations or (ii) contrasted the data against an external source of information.

The indicator of bias chosen was akin a traffic light, i.e. green (no bias), orange (risk of bias) and red (confirmed bias). For the parameters listed below, an extensive source of bias was reviewed, together with indication on how to evaluate the risk of bias :

- Species identification: 6 sources of bias. - Landings weight : recall of the bias on species identification + 8 sources of bias. - Effort : recall of the bias on species identification + 6 sources of bias - Discards weight : recall of the bias on landings/effort + 13 sources of bias. - Length structure : recall of the bias on landings/discards + 9 sources of bias - Age structure : recall of the bias on length structure + 13 sources of bias - Mean weight : recall of the bias on age/length structure + 6 sources of bias - Sex ratio: recall of the bias on age/length structure + 6 sources of bias - Maturity : recall of the bias on age/length structure + 7 sources of bias

For deriving an overall indicator of bias from these numerous sources, the idea of propagation of bias was used; i.e. a bias evaluated on one source somewhere is kept all along the evaluation. For example the sources of bias on the age structure of the landings cumulates the bias on the age length key (13 potentialities) + bias on length structure (9) + bias on landings (8) + bias on species identification (6) for a total of 36 potential sources of bias. The final indicator is either green (no bias) if no bias has been found all along the evaluation chain, orange (risk of bias) or red (confirmed bias) if one or several sources of bias was respectively orange or red. When an indicator is orange or red, the name(s) of the bias must be specified (e.g. species leading to confusion, no identification key, quantity misreporting and problem in temporal coverage).

Although it was feared that no final indicator would be green, because of so many obstacles, it was a common agreement that the final result is not intended to approve or reject a given stock assessment, but that pointing out exactly the source(s) of bias of every parameters following the proposed scheme was participating to the improvement of the quality of the final estimates.

The RCM-MED&BS appreciates the work done by WK ACCU and encourages MS to provide the quality parameters suggested by stock and the coefficients of variation with any data submissions (GFCM assessments, Working and Studies groups, DG MARE calls for data, end users…).

4.3 Regional database As other part of quality issues session, RCM MED&BS did not discuss the need of regional database, knowing that COST project is defining common formats to be used by MS for analysing and raising their data collected through the DCR. RCM MED&BS supported the principle to build regional databases (see its recommendation done in 2007) but considers, in the actual state of development, preferable to wait on one hand the end of the COST project and its final proposal and on the other hand the final structure of GFCM’s regional database.

4.4 Theme session on data quality at the ICES Annual Science Conference 2009

The RCM-MED&BS was informed by the EC representative on the planning of a Theme session during the next ICES Science Conference, which will be held in Berlin in September 2009. Its rationale is the following:

Session N: Quality and precision of basic data underlying fish stock assessment and implications for fisheries management advice

The systematic collection of reliable basic data on fisheries is a cornerstone for fish stock assessment and scientific advice supporting decision making in fisheries management. In this connection, the European Council adopted in 2000 a Community framework for the collection and management of data such as market sampling and survey data that underlie stock assessment (Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000). This framework was designed to consolidate and strengthen the existing data collection activities in the Member States.

Quality control and validation of the data collected under this framework is of particular importance. Also, there is an increasing need to address the issue of quality assurance of the biological advice. Linking these two items would draw out the methodologies and issues relating to the use of this type of information within the assessment process, and the impact on advice.

The implementation of this framework was supported by Workshops and projects aiming at estimating uncertainty in the catch-at-age, weight-at-age data and abundance estimates in the surveys and developing tools for this purpose. Evaluation of within survey variance, its applicability for use as weighting factors in assessment models have also been carried out.

Some projects also highlighted methods for storing, combining, and raising national data to international stock-related data-sets. Formalising current ad-hoc procedures and providing information on the range of procedures needed, which are necessary to provide structured database systems for routine data required in stock assessment.

Implications of the above issues for management advice will be addressed, notably the way in which uncertainty in the basic data propagates through the assessment model into the management advice.

Contributions are invited on: • analysis of uncertainties in basic data underlying stock assessments; • analysis of methods used for storing, combining and raising national data to

international data; • analysis of the implications of uncertainties in basic data for the stock assessment and

advice.

Conveners:

Philippe Moguedet, European Commission Directorate for Research, Technology and Development, Brussels, Belgium, e-mail: [email protected]

Ernesto Jardim, IPIMAR, Lisbon, Portugal, e-mail : [email protected]

David Balfour, Fisheries and Ocean, Program Planning and Coordination Directorate, Canada, e-mail: [email protected]

5 Surveys and Ecosystemic indicators

5.1 Medias The RCM-MED&BS was informed about the outcomes of the Workshop for the coordination and harmonization of the five ongoing acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean: Gulf of Lion (IFREMER), Iberian Coast (IEO), Sicilian Channel (IAMC/MCFS), Adriatic Sea (ISMAR), and Aegean Sea (HCMR). More information on this meeting held in Athens in February 2008 is provided in Annex XXX. In the new DCR, MEDIAS (together with MEDITS) is listed as priority survey. According to STECF/SGRN, the survey should give information for management decisions and provide input to assessment for stocks which are managed internationally.

In order to agree on a common protocol for the 5 ongoing acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean all the surveys were reviewed. The result of the meeting was the common protocol including also the timing of surveys that will be carried on in June/July (Spain will also perform the survey in July).

The proposals of the workshop for the 2009 was the following: - the co-ordination meeting for the MEDIAS should be organized every year; - the two workshops will be organized - on age reading for anchovies and sardines as

well the workshop on geostatistical analysis; - studies in support of the CFP in order to harmonize data series of acoustic data 2002-

2006 will be performed.

The RCM-MED&BS endorsed and supports these proposals dealing with a better regional coordination of acoustic surveys.

5.2 Medits The RCM-MED&BS was informed about the outcomes of the 2008 MEDITS coordination meeting that has been held in Sliema (Malta), 7-9 April 2008 (see Annex XXX). Main terms of reference were: integration in Medits of the council regulation No 199/2008; coordination of the surveys, and common research activity.

The MEDITS coordination meeting examined all aspects related to the new DCR that were not yet approved. New aspects like the ecosystem approach and the ecological indexes, the improvement of coordination with other surveys carried out in different European regions and the possibility to obtain the maximum of data, through the running surveys, were examined in detail. Regarding this topic the conclusions of the Medits group were the full understanding to get involved in the new direction; warning about the supplementary costs for the new tasks; recommendation for a strong implication of the Mediterranean scientists in the international WGs in charge of elaborating the new application rules (inside the UE machinery and in the GFCM bodies); and the need for specific studies to organize the improvement of the Medits surveys in the new scope.

Regarding coordination of the survey in 2007, in most areas survey has been carried out according to the common protocol with two exceptions: in Italy survey period extended from June to September and in Greek waters no survey has been carried on. Regarding MEDITS protocol a review is foreseen in 2009 to take into account the new DCR regulation (and the national plans which will be adopted for each country).

Common research activities has been pointed out as very important to contribute to ensure the high value of the data; to develop scientific knowledge at the level of the whole Medits surveys, and to make available operational tools and information usable for management purpose. Furthermore the coordination meeting underlined the importance to proceed to the utilization of available results for stock assessment purposes and to encourage the participation of scientists in international meetings where stock assessments will be presented based on MEDITS data.

In discussion DGMARE representative pointed out that MEDITS is well consolidated group and it is part of the data collection. Despite of this, the links e.g. with PGMED and the communication with data collection machinery should be reinforced. It is also necessary to make possible for two Black Sea countries to participate in coordination meetings (e.g. PGMED, MEDITS, MEDIAS, etc.).

The second problematic issue are different maturity scales in use according MEDITS protocol and in each country in the frame of biological sampling. RCM MED&BS suggests that under PGMED all different maturity scales (from surveys biologiocal sampling) should be collected and reviewed in order to see the extension of the problem.

5.3 Black sea surveys For demersal surveys Romania uses research vessel while Bulgaria uses small commercial vessels (15 meters) with no compatible results. A common survey could take place in autumn using the Romanian research vessel subject to the purchase of relevant equipment by Romania within the NP budget (durable equipment). If this is achieved links with the MEDITS group are to be initiated.

During the Sofia meeting (22-23 January 2009), the decisions have been undertaken concerning the surveys:

• Turbot: Bulgaria and Romania agreed to conduct two demersal trawl surveys in the same period: 1st in April/May, and 2nd in October/November. The Member states try to use the similar gear and collect the same type of data, using the same methodology and to create common ALKs.

• Sprat: Bulgaria and Romania agreed to conduct two surveys in 2009. First survey will be held in May/June by swept area method at national level, using the adopted methodology for data collection, processing and evaluation of data. The second survey will be combined hydro-acoustic/swept area method with joint team (Bulgarian and Romanian scientists) during September/October. Two RVs will be involved – for hydro-acoustics RV “Academic” and for swept area method RV “Steaua de Mare I”, which will cover Bulgarian and Romanian areas. The financial issues will be arranged by Romanian and Bulgaria NAFA’s.

• Other surveys: Both member states are considering the possibilities to propose two new surveys for index of recruitment for small pelagics (juveniles abundance). This was already proposed in the frame of SGMED. Pending advice of STCEF to define follow-up given to this regional proposal. will define.

Regarding Ecosystem indicators (Appendix XIII of EC Decision 2008/949), Bulgaria does not have a long historical series for trawl surveys but since they collect the relevant information. For pressure indicators and sprat surveys the information is there. Romania addresses the whole of these indicators in its NP. They will propose as a derogation the study of biodiversity in shallow waters (not covered by surveys).

6 Future Workshops and Studies (added value to DCR)

Since the last RCM-MED, two relevant Calls for Tenders have been published:

December 2007: FISH/2007/07 • Lot 1: Web services for support of Growth and Reproduction Studies (WebGR); • Lot 2: Study on the dynamics of the fishing fleets operating on the Atlantic

Continental Shelf; • Lot 3: Scientific advice concerning the impact of gears used to catch plaice and sole; • Lot 4: Review of the current knowledge about discards in EU fisheries and feasibility

study on a Fisheries Information System for EU Fisheries; • Lot 5: Survey of existing bio-economic models.

August 2008: MARE/2008/10

• Lot1: The establishment of a data portal and warehouse for regional coordination of the sampling of data used for fish stock assessment and fisheries management;

• Lot2: Development of tools for logbook and VMS data analysis; • Lot3: Study for the revision of the plaice box; • Lot4: Improving the knowledge of the biology and the fisheries of the new species

for management.

The recent Calls for Tenders gave answers to the main 2007 RCMs studies proposals and 2008 Liaison meeting recommendations.

On the other hand, the lists of 2008 eligible workshops was completed by EC planned eligible ones for 2009 given by the EC representative. Apart from traditional meetings (RCMs, PGMED, MEDITS and MEDIAS planning groups, etc.), the retained 2009 workshops of regional interest are the following:

• WK on methods to evaluate and estimate the precision of fisheries data used for assessment (WKPRECISE) (ICES HQ, 8-11 September),

• WK on Sampling Methods for Recreational Fisheries (WKSMRF) (Nantes, 14–17 April),

• WK on Age estimation of European hake (WKAEH) (Vigo, 9-13 November), • WK on Age reading of European anchovy (WKARA) (Mazara del Vallo, 9–14

November), • WK on Age reading of Red mullet Mullus barbatus and Striped mullet M. surmuletus

(WKACM) (Boulogne sur Mer, 6–10 April), • WK on Crustaceans (Aristeus antennatus, Aristaeomorpha foliacea, Parapenaeus

longirostris, Nephrops norvegicus) maturity stages (WKMSC) (Messina, Oct.-Nov.), • WK on Age Reading of European and American Eel (WKAREEL) (Bordeaux, 20-24

April),

6.1 Workshops The following proposals were discussed:

• Hands-on workshop on COST project tools should be planned for early 2010. The EU-funded COST project (see section 4.1) will deliver the tools to analyse data collected for the parameters under the DCR and to derive precision estimates and quality indicators. For the implementation of these tools, however, MS will need some guidance with regard to the possibilities and sensible use of the tools. The RCM-NA supports the RCM-NS&EA recommendation and agreed that the best way of giving the users the required guidance would be a hands-on workshop, where example data sets prepared by MS will be analysed. The RCM-MED&BS supports this workshop proposal (see also section 4.1).

• Workshop on geostatistical analysis is an outcome of the MEDIAS meeting held in February 2008. The RCM-MED&BS suggests to define terms of reference of this workshop in next PGMED and MEDIAS planning group in order to be eligible in 2010.

Otherwise the RCM-MED&BS strongly supports also the following worshops proposed by GFCM/SAC to be included in the EC eligible list for 2009 (see section 2.4):

• Transversal workshop on fishing capacity (Rome, May-June 2009), • Transversal workshop on the GFCM logbook (Rome, May-June 2009). • Workshop on selectivity (Tunis, Sep-Oct 2009).

6.2 Studies The EC representative informed the RCM-MED&BS on DGMARE priorities for the Mediterranean region. A specific study will be dealing with Mediterranean in the forthcoming call for tenders to be published at the end of the 2008. The call MARE/2008/11 (in date of 6th January 2009) included effectively the lot 4 “Understanding size developments of exploited stocks and ecosystems in the Mediterranean by using private fishermen’s “tally-books and historical information”. Lot 2 “Pilot projects to estimate potential and actual escapement of silver eel”could be also of regional interest.

Some topics and priorities were pointed out by the RCM for next years, such as joint data collection between fishermen and scientists, harmonization of Black sea historical data, MEDIAS acoustic data harmonization, sampling faisability for bluefin tuna ageing, etc.

Three proposals were discussed more in details. These proposals are strongly supported by the RCM-MED&BS and are the following.

1) Methodologies for estimation of economic data at metier level

Economic data are collected for fishing segments. In order to apply bio-economic modelling or to carry out any type of bio-economic analysis, economic parameters should be available at the level of metiers.

In cases where vessels in one fleet segment employ quite different gears or participate in different fisheries (practise different métiers) at different times in the year, it would be inappropriate to simply allocate average cost structures across the métiers within one fleet segment.

The proposed study will therefore investigate methods to allocate economic data (earnings, operative costs, labour costs, capital costs) at the level of metiers.

The study will also consider the case of vessels that may be active in more than one fishing area during the same year and it will propose suitable methods to evaluate the cost structure within each area and to suggest a methodology to split, if necessary, economic variables among different areas.

Duration 12 months.

2) Compilation of GFCM task 1 for management purposes using data collected within the DCR framework

GFCM (resolution GFCM/31/2007/1) adopted the Task 1 statistical matrix and invited Members to give priority to task 1.1 (capacity by Fleet Segment) and Task 1.2 (fishing activity descriptors and resources exploited by Operational Units) and to gradually implement the components Task 1.3 (economic variables), 1.4 (effort variables) and 1.5 (biological variables) in the future.

At present the GFCM resolution GFCM/31/2007/1 gave priority to task 1.1 and 1.2 since these are relatively easy to compile when compared to tasks 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5, mostly due to the large and complex data requirements for the latter tasks. The study will analyse the feasibility of the compilation of the entire GFCM Task 1 statistical matrix using past (2005-2008) and future (2009) DCR data. One important aspect of the study will be to produce protocols for member states in order to incorporate the DCR data into the entire GFCM task 1 data matrices, to anticipate eventual inconsistencies and any methodological issues.

The study will focus on selected case studies and not more than 4/5 different Geographical Sub Areas.

Duration 12 months

3) Harmonization of Black sea historical data

During the Sofia meeting, Romania and Bulgaria were consulted on the availability of historical information with a view of launching the study on harmonization of data series. There is no problem to build up series for turbot, sprat, horse mackerel and anchovy (catch, effort, length, biomass, etc) for 40 years and no problem to involve Turkey and Ukraine.

A study could start in early 2010.

7 Next 2009 PGMED Terms of Reference

Summary of Paragraphs dealing with PGMED. To compile when all sections validated by RCM attendees. to

8 Any Other Business – Next RCM-Med&BS venue

Plinio Conte, National Correspondent of Italy, proposed Italy to host the next RCM meeting. The RCM-MED&BS agreed with this proposal.

Date to be defined between mid-September and mid-October 2009, dependant of the dates of the GFCM/SAC meeting.

As the Chairmanship duration is now two years, Christian Dintheer is proposed as the Chair of the next RCM-MED&BS

9 Summary of recommendations

10 References

Anon. 2007. Report of the 4th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean Sea (RCM Med), nicosia, Cyprus, 23-27 April 2007. 86 pp.

Anon. 2008a. Report of the 4th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the Chair of SGRN and the European Commission, Brussels, 20-22 February 2008, 43 pp.

Anon. 2008b. Commission Staff Working Document. Report of the STECF Sub-group on Research Needs (STECF-SGRN 08-01) on the review of guidelines for the new Data Collection Regulation (DCR). Nantes, France, 2-6 June 2008, 38 pp. +annexes

EC 2008a. Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community Framework for the collection, management and use of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy

EC 2008b. Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy

EC 2008c. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data

EC 2008d. Commission Decision (EC) No 2008/949/EC of 2008 adopting a multi annual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy.

ICES 2004: Manual for the International Bottom Trawl Surveys. Revision VII, 52 pp. http://www.ices.dk/datacentre/datras/NSIBTSmanualRevVIIdraft.pdf

ICES 2007a. Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS). ICES CM 2007/ACOM:29, 91 pp.

http://www.ices.dk/datacentre/datras/NSIBTSmanualRevVIIdraft.pdf

ICES 2007a. Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catches Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS). ICES CM 2007/ACFM: 09, 25 p. + annexes

ICES 2008a. Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS). ICES CM 2008/ACOM:29, 91 pp.

MEDIAS workshop, 2008.

MEDITS Group, 2008. Report of the MEDITS Meeting, Rome, Italy, 28-29 March 2007.

PGMED, 2008. Report of the 2nd Meeting of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological development (PGMed), Cyprus, 3-7 March 2008. 65 pp.

SGRN 2008. Commission Staff Working Document. Report of the STECF Sub-group on Research Needs (STECF-SGRN 08-01) on the review of guidelines for the new Data Collection Regulation (DCR). Nantes, France (2-6 June 2008). 38 p +annexes.

11 Annex 1: Agenda of the meeting

EU DATA COLLECTION REGULATION (DCR)

REGULATIONS 199/2008, 665/2008 AND DECISION 2008/949/EC

Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black seas

(RCM-MED&BS, Sète, France, 24-28 November 2008)

Agenda All days:

Working hours: 09:00-18:00 Coffee/tea breaks: 10:45-11:00 and 15:45-16:00 Lunch break: 12:45-14:00

Monday, 24 November 2008

15:00 Opening of the meeting, housekeeping, adoption of the agenda, appointment of rapporteurs.

15:30 Welcome of new Member states : short presentations of the main characteristics of the marine production sector covered by the DCR and its monitoring (each country, 10 min , on the basis of its national programme 2009 – ie technical tables IIIA1,IVA1 and IVB1).

16:00 ToR 1: Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2007 RCM (follow-up of recommendations) and 2008 Liaison Meeting report.

Tuesday, 25 November 2008

9:00 Discussion on ToR 2 and allocation of work tasks and participants to sub-groups. Depending of the participants expertise, work in 2 sub-groups.

9:30 Sub-group work on ToRs 2 and 3 : Make recommendations in order to harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2009-2010 following the new DCR framework, with particular emphasis on the following:

Biologists sub-group Economists sub-group

Outputs of the 2nd PGMED meeting (Paolo Carpentieri, 15 min + 15 min discussion )

Outputs of the 4th Planning group on tuna tagging – PGTT (J.M. Fromentin, 10 min + 10 min discussion)

Métier-related variables

1. Ranking system: • regional harmonisation of the métiers at level 6,

especially regarding mesh size ranges per gear type.

• creation of a regional view on fishing activities • creation of a regional ranking system to assess the

Member States obligations and demands for derogation.

• establishment of sub-regions or fishing grounds.

Economic variables – Fishing fleet

• homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra region

• homogeneous understanding of the definitions and protocols to achieve the goals

• quality issues Transversal variables

• common understanding of effort definitions

2. Landings: • sampling agreement for landings abroad

discussion/agreement on concurrent sampling • agreement on merging of métiers for sampling • sampling intensities and data quality

3. Discards: • creation of a regional view of the discard sampling

programmes • identification of gaps and discrepancies for

optimising the spatial, time and métiers coverage

4. Recreational fisheries: • review of the actions proposed in the NP proposals • proposals for regionally co-ordinated actions

Biological stock-related variables:

• sampling intensities and data quality • identification of stocks suitable for international

age-length keys and task sharing for ageing • possibilities for extension to regional collection of

data for maturity, sex-ratio and mean weights • ensure that exemptions for biological sampling do

not exceed 25% of quota/landings for stock • list of Group 3 species

14:00 Short plenum on the sub-groups' work progress

14:30 Continue sub-group work

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

09:00 How to improve the use of the DCR data : the point of view of GFCM (Henri Farrugio, Chairman of the GFCM/SAC).

09:30 Plenum on progress. Conclude and review recommendations of economists sub-group. Further guidance for sub-group work.

11:00 ToR 3: Propose actions and where possible conclude regional agreements on the collection of data outlined under ToRs 2 and 3.

16:00 ToR 4: Quality issues (regional databases, progress on the COST tools and anticipation of their use at national level; outcome of the WKACCU workshop)

Thursday, 27 November 2008

09:00 Conclusions and recommendations on ToR 3 and 4.

11:00 ToR 5: Studies and pilot projects. Next PGMED ToRs.

12:00 ToR 6: Any other business (a state of way on surveys and ecosystem indicators added to the agenda). Next RCM-MED&BS venue.

14:00 Report drafting

Friday, 28 November 2008

09:00 Final recommendations. Adoption of the draft report.

12:00 End of the meeting

12 Annex 2: List of participants

Name Institution / Country F E-mail

AVDIč Edo XXX, Slovenia E [email protected]

BONDOKOVA Asya NAFA, Bulgaria B [email protected]

CARPENTIERI Paolo

MIPAF, Italy [email protected]

CERVANTES Antonio

DGMARE [email protected]

CHARILAOU Charis DFMR, Cyprus B [email protected]

CONTE Plinio (part) XXX, Italy NC [email protected]

DIMECH Mark MCFS, Malta NC B

[email protected]

DINTHEER Christian

IFREMER, France B [email protected]

FARRUGIO Henri (part)

GFCM/SAC [email protected]

FROMENTIN Jean-Marc (part)

IFREMER, France B [email protected]

GATT Mark MCFS, Malta B [email protected]

GONZÁLEZ Mariá IEO, Spain B [email protected]

GRANATA Valeria (part)

XXX, Italy TD [email protected]

GUTORANOW Georgi

NAFA, Bulgaria NC [email protected]

HERRAIZ Isabel IEO, Spain B [email protected]

JADAUD Angélique IFREMER, France B [email protected]

KALLIANOTIS Argyris

NAGREF-FRI Greece B [email protected]

MARčETA Bojan XXX, Slovenia B [email protected]

MERRIEN Claude IFREMER, France TD [email protected]

PAPACONSTANTINOU Costas

HCMR, Greece B [email protected]

SABATELLA Evelina

IREPA, Italy E [email protected]

TSERPES George HCMR, Greece B [email protected]

VASSILEV Milen XXX, Bulgaria B [email protected]

Function F : B (Biologist), E (Economist), TD (Transversal data), NC (National correspondent)















13 Annex 3: Sofia meeting

14 Annex 3: National key indicators on marine production sector

15 Annex 4: Sofia meeting report

16 Annex XXX: XXX

17 Annex XXX: XXX

18 Annex 3: XXX

19 Annex XXX: XXX

Documents

Report of the RCM NEA