Third Regional Coordination Meeting on Long Distance Fisheriesdatacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10213/488770/... · 2013. 1. 9. · RCM LDF 2012 Report - final.docx Page 5

Final version submitted February 14, 2011

EU DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK (DCF), REG. 199/2008, 665/2008 AND DECISION 2010/93/EU

Third Regional Coordination Meeting on Long Distance Fisheries

Madrid (Spain) 9-13 July 2012

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 2 of 45

Version information version 1 version 2 - Irek 11.07.2012 version 3 – Irek 26.07.2012 version 4 – Irek 27.07.2012 – draft for adoption version 5 – Irek 9.08.2012 – revised draft for adoption (only table with list of species fished is missing) version 6 – Tomek 13.08 – species list included version 7 – 22.08.2012 – FINAL

RCM LDF 2012 Report - final.docx

Page 3 of 45

Table of contents

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Terms of reference ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Participants and Agenda ................................................................................................................. 7 1.4 Data call .................................................................................................................................................. 7

2 Review of EU fishing activities in CECAF area ..................................................................... 8

3 Review of EU fishing activities in SPRFMO area................................................................ 10

4 Harmonisation and coordination of data collection and feedback from data end users .. 12

4.1 CECAF area .......................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1 Feedback from data users (CECAF) ............................................................................ 12 4.1.2 Identification of Metiers .................................................................................................. 12 4.1.3 Harmonisation in CECAF area in 2012 and 2013 ................................................. 12

4.2 SPRFMO area ...................................................................................................................................... 13 4.2.1 Feedback from data users (SPRFMO) ........................................................................ 13 4.2.2 Identification of Metiers .................................................................................................. 14 4.2.3 Harmonisation in SPRFMO area in 2012 and 2013 ............................................. 14

5 Data Quality issues and recommendations from data end users ........................................ 15

5.1 CECAF area .......................................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 SPRFMO area ...................................................................................................................................... 15

6 Regional database ................................................................................................................... 17

7 EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020 ............................ 18

8 Progress in regional co-ordination ........................................................................................ 20

9 Review recommendations from PGCCDBS ......................................................................... 24

10 Review of potential new surveys, studies and pilot projects ............................................... 26

11 Any other business ................................................................................................................. 27

11.1 Participation in regional working groups ............................................................................. 27 11.2 Maturity scale used for small pelagics in CECAF area ..................................................... 27 11.3 Time and venue of the RCM LDF meeting in 2013 ............................................................ 28

12 Summary of new RCM-LDF recommendations .................................................................. 29

13 References ............................................................................................................................... 31

14 Annex 1 List of participants .................................................................................................. 32

15 Annex 2 - Agenda ................................................................................................................... 33

16 Annex 3 – Landings by species reported by MS .................................................................. 36

17 Annex 4 - Multi-lateral Agreement ....................................................................................... 38

18 Annex 5 - Data/information provided by Spain to the end users in CECAF area and comments on length sampling of sardinellas off Northwest Africa .................................... 41

19 Annex 6 - Maturity scales used for biological sampling of small pelagic fish in CECAF area (info by Spain) ................................................................................................................ 44

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 4 of 45


Page 5 of 45

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Third Regional Coordination Meeting for Long Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF) took place at the Headquarters of the Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia in Madrid (Spain) from 9 to 13 July 2012.

At the two previous RCM LDF meetings (2010 and 2011) the scope of the fisheries dealt with included CECAF area, SPRMFO area and Large Pelagics (LP). Following the discussions held in the RCMs for the Mediterranean/Black Seas and in the RCM LDF in 2010 concerning the sampling of LP, the annual meetings for these two RCMs were hold back to back in 2011 in Ljubjana (Slovenia) in order to further discuss on a common session how to coordinate the collection of data for these species in the areas of competence of both RCMs. The issue of the then existing duplication of having the Mediterranean stocks in both RCM Med&BS and RCM LDF was highlighted and addressed to the Commission as requiring a prompt resolution. The Commission suggested that the above issue should be resolved by the way of consultation between the chairs of both RCMs involved and the Commission. These consultation took place in November/December 2011 and were continued in May/June 2012 resulting with the decision that the LP would be dealt in the RCM Med&BS only. Thus, during the RCM LDF meeting in 2012 the coordination of sampling and data collection related to LP were not addressed.

If this situation remain and the LP remain in the RCM Med&BS there is no need for a back to back meeting with this RCM in the future. On the other hand, it seems more logical to deal with LP in the RCM LDF because most of the LP stocks and fisheries occur outside the Mediterranean.

1.2 Terms of reference

Note: Highlighted in RED and ITALICS are issues which seem not relevant to RCM LDF – as compared to the Generic ToRs (Final Version of 4 April 2012)

1. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2011 RCM (follow-up of

recommendations) and 8th Liaison Meeting report. Evaluate the outcomes of

the RCMs that took place in 2011 & of any other RCMs that took place in

2012, pending availability of outcomes, in terms of complementarities and

actions to be carried out by MS in the RCM region of competence.

2. Review feedback and recommendations from data end users (STECF EWGs,

ICES assessment WGs and benchmark meetings, GFCM Subcommittees and

relevant WGs, and ICCAT assessment WGs) and PGCCDBS.

3. Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2013

following the DCF framework, with particular emphasis on the following:

a) Metier-related variables

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 6 of 45

Ranking system following regional harmonisation of the metiers at

level 6, update of the 2011 regional view on fishing activities;

creation of a regional ranking system to assess the Member

States obligations and demands for derogation.

Landings - sampling agreement for landings abroad;

discussion/agreement on concurrent sampling; agreement on

merging of metiers for sampling; sampling intensities and data

quality.

Discards - creation of a regional view of the discard sampling

programmes, identification of gaps and discrepancies for

optimising the spatial, time and metiers coverage. Complete the

list of métiers important to sample and provide justification for not

sampling certain metiers for discards.

Recreational fisheries - review of the actions proposed in the NP

proposals, identify whether there is scope for regionally co-

ordinated actions.

Vessels without logbooks – analyse and where possible propose a

way forward to allocate data to metiers for vessels without

logbooks.

b) 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.

Coordinate biological sampling for stocks where the sum of MS

having a share of quotas/landings less than 10%, altogether

exceeds 25% (exemption rule III.B2.5.1.(b) in Decision

2010/93/EU).

c) Transversal variables

Common understanding of effort definitions in relation to data

collection methodologies.

4. Propose actions and where possible conclude regional agreements on the

collection of data outlined under ToR 3.

5. Data Quality issues

Review progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP

proposals.

6. Regional databases: update since RCMs 2011. Identify needs of the RCMs

that could be addressed by the RDB SC and suggest any new

features/reports to be developed.

7. EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020

Provide feedback on the draft EU MAP2014-2020

Prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling

programme

Discuss the potential impacts of an EU-wide discard ban on

observer programmes


Page 7 of 45

8. Review potential new surveys that in the future could be included in the DCF

list of surveys (update the list of surveys that was made at the RCM 2010,

updated 2011).

9. Studies and pilot projects

10. Any other business

1.3 Participants and Agenda

The meeting was attended by 9 participants from 6 Member States (ESP, GER, LVA, LTU, POL, and NLD). The meeting was chaired by Ireneusz Wójcik (POL) and Frans van Beek (NLD) was appointed as rapporteur. The list of participants is presented in Annex 1.

The agenda of the meeting is included in Annex 2. Considering the tasks to be addressed by the RCM LDF in 2012, there were no need to split into separate subgroups and participants worked as one group.

1.4 Data call

Prior to the 2012 RCM LDF meeting a data call was sent to National Correspondents of MS concerned requesting a revised and updated data on fishing activities in CECAF and SPRMFO areas. All MS participating in 2012 meeting responded to this data call and provided data requested.

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 8 of 45

2 Review of EU fishing activities in CECAF area

The table below shows general types of fisheries in relevant CECAF areas by MS (2011) as an overview of the CECAF Fisheries carried out by EU-fleets. Some fisheries cover very large areas along African shelf. As non-EU countries also conduct fisheries in this area, the catches taken by vessels of EU MS do only constitute a part of the total catches.

The Spanish fishery is mostly directed to demersal stocks. The other EU MS are operating in a pelagic fishery. An overview of species fished by EU MS in the CECAF area is presented in Annex 3. In most of cases the EU fishery have been carried out in this area under bilateral agreements between the EU and the Coastal States.

The Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) is responsible for coordination of research activities in the area, assessments of the stocks and providing scientific advice for the management of the stocks.

Tab. 2.1. General types of fisheries in relevant CECAF areas by MS (2011)

FISHERY AREA COUNTRIES

Small pelagic Morocco Spain, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Netherlands, Germany

Demersal fish Spain

Crustaceans

Mauritania

Spain

Cephalopod Spain

Demersal fish Spain, Italy??

Small pelagic Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Netherlands, Germany

Crustaceans

Guinea Bissau

Spain

Cephalopod Spain

Demersal Fish Italy??

Small Pelagic Lithuania Small Pelagic Senegal Lithuania

Deep-water species

Madeira

Portugal

Small pelagic Portugal

Demersal fish Portugal

Cephalopod Portugal

The following tables, based on the data for 2010 and 2011 provided to the RCM LDF by MS, show the main fishing activities in relation to fishing effort and total landings.


Page 9 of 45

Tab. 2.2. Effort (fishing days) by country and métiers in 2010 and 2011.

ESP POL GER LAT* LIT NLD** TOTAL

METIER 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

OTB_CRU_>=40_0_0 8243 7186 8243 7186

OTB_CEP_>=70_0_0 6174 5877 6174 5877

OTM_SPF_>=40_0_0 125 517 160 404 1400 950 696 621 2381 2492

OTB_DEF_>=70_0_0 1078 687 1078 687

PS_SPF_0_0_0 728 463 728 463

* Latvia did not provide effort data

** Days at sea

Tab. 2.3. Landings (tons) by country and métiers in 2010 and 2011.

METIER 2010

ESP POL GER LAT LIT NLD TOTAL

OTM_SPF_>=40_0_0 14 605 20 650 87 237 116 040 92 980 331 512

OTB_CEP_>=70_0_0 6 033 6 033

OTB_CRU_>=40_0_0 5 454 5 454

OTB_DEF_>=70_0_0 4 650 4 650

PS_SPF_0_0_0 1 086 1 086

METIER 2011

ESP POL GER LAT LIT NLD TOTAL

OTM_SPF_>=40_0_0 60 177 37 088 89 667 121 000 55 044 362 976

OTB_CEP_>=70_0_0 6 518 6 518

OTB_CRU_>=40_0_0 5 342 5 342

OTB_DEF_>=70_0_0 3 291 3 291

PS_SPF_0_0_0 781 781

There have been no major changes in métiers description since the first RCM LDF reported (2010).

Landings statistics covering data from 2007 to 2011 of the pelagic fishery indicate year by year increase in catches with some exceptions (Poland, Netherlands) caused by the fleet rearrangements.

Tab. 2.4. Landings statistics (in tons) of the trawl pelagic EU fleet covering years 2007–2011. Data provided by RCM participants.

2007 186 896

2008 289 750

2009 317 689

2010 331 512

2011 362 976

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 10 of 45

3 Review of EU fishing activities in SPRFMO area

The fishery in the Pacific, carried out by EU vessels, is directed to Chilean jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi). The EU fleet is part of a large international fleet operating in this area. The EU fleet consists of large pelagic freezer trawlers. The fishery in this area is managed by the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRMFO). An overview of species fished by EU MS in the SPRMFO area is presented in Annex 3.

Based on the information published at the official SPRMFO webpage, contained in the Report of the Jack Mackerel Subgroup (Annex SWG‐10‐03 to the SPRMFO Science Working Group Report of 2011), the fishing activities in that area can briefly be described as follows:

“Reported Chilean jack mackerel catches in the South Pacific area increased steadily from 1970 onwards, reaching a peak of 4.74 million t in 1995. Catches then declined rapidly to 1.37 million t in 1999. Over the period 2000 - 2006 there was a slow increase in total catches to 2 million t. Despite increasing participation and fishing effort in the fishery since then, catches declined steadily from 2007 onwards to 753,761 t in 2010, which was at that time the lowest catch on record since 1976. Catches continued to decline in 2011, with reported or estimated total catches (as at September 2011) of 522,440 t, which is now the lowest catch on record since 1976.”

“Over the period 2005 – 2011, the main Chilean jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) fishery of interest to SPRFMO has been the fishery occurring off the south central coast of Chile, extending from within the Chilean EEZ out onto the high seas. Jack mackerel catches in this area contributed 89% of the total jack mackerel catch reported to SPRFMO over 2005 – 2011 period. The remaining 11% of jack mackerel catch reported to SPRFMO over that period has been in the far north, primarily within the Peruvian EEZ.”

Tab. 3.1. Effort and landings of the EU fishing fleet in SPRFMO area. (Data source: participants of RCM) OTM_SPF_45-65_0_0

Effort (fishing days) Landings (tons)

COUNTRY 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

POL 183 296 16 21 903 33 846 669

GER 194 83 7 33 589 13 142 470

LIT 77 2 000

NLD 397* 128* 67* 39 745 11 339 1 145

TOTAL 851 507 90 97 237 58 327 2 284

* days at sea


Page 11 of 45

Tab. 3.2. Sources and values (t) of catch in SPRFMO area 2005-2011.

(Source: SPRMFO - SWG-10-03).

Year

Fleet 1 Fleet 2 Fleet 3 (far north) Fleet 4 Trawler fleet off Chile (outside EEZ) EU CATCH

N Chile Chile CS Peru Ecuador Belize Peru China Eu Faroe I. Korea Russia Cuba Vanuatu Total %

2005 168383 1262051 80663 867 143000 6179 9126 7040 77356 1754665 0,4%

2006 155256 1224685 277568 481 160000 62137 10474 129535 2020136 3,1%

2007 172701 1130083 254426 927 12585 140582 123511 38700 10940 112501 1996956 6,2%

2008 167258 728850 169537 15245 143182 106665 22919 12600 4800 100066 1471122 7,3%

2009 134022 700905 25912 19834 5681 13326 117963 111921 20213 13759 9113 79942 1252591 8,9%

2010 169010 295681 300 5000 2240 40516 63606 67749 13674 8183 41315 46487 753761 9,0%

2011 23945 194532 164589 80000 662 27936 2261 9254 8229 3360 7672 522440 0,4%

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 12 of 45

4 Harmonisation and coordination of data collection and feedback from data end users

(tor 2, 3 and 4)

4.1 CECAF area

4.1.1 Feedback from data users (CECAF)

Under the DCF, the EU has introduced obligations to sample the fisheries, carried out by EU vessels in this area and MS have introduces sampling activities in their NPs complying to criteria specified by the DCF. However, the feedback from CECAF on actual data needs and data quality is problematic. No formal discussion platform between EU and CECAF (scientists) exists where actual data needs, data quality and data deficiencies can be discussed.

Reports from scientific working groups dealing with the assessment of the stocks in this area (FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Small Pelagic Fish off Northwest Africa), containing recommendations on research and data collection, became available this year for the first time. Those reports are published (and become available) with considerable delay.

On the beginning of 2012 meeting of the RCM LDF, at the request of the chair, the Commission asked FAO for the assistance in obtaining the draft report of the 2011 FAO Working Group, but no report was available by the end of the meeting.

RCM LDF notes that the terms of reference of the CECAF WG include ‘to identify gaps in the data which need to be remedied during future Working Group meeting’. So, recent CECAF WG reports could give some guidance on data needs.

In the absence of feedback in the form of direct contacts or recent documentation, it is not possible for the RCM LDF to anticipate on the actual data needs by CECAF.

In 2011, the RCM LDF has put forward a recommendation to establish a formal discussion platform between EU and data end users like CECAF in order to obtain feedback on actual data needs. This recommendation is still valid.

4.1.2 Identification of Metiers

The EU metiers operating in the CECAF area are indicated in section 2 and a description of the metiers has been provided in the RCM LDF report of 2010.

4.1.3 Harmonisation in CECAF area in 2012 and 2013

Based on data provided by MS to RCM LDF, Spain is the only MS active in demersal fisheries in the CECAF area and has included sampling of the fisheries and stocks in its NP. The sampling includes EU vessels landing their catches in Spanish harbours. There is no need for coordination of sampling with other MS related to the demersal fishery in the area.


Page 13 of 45

In pelagic fisheries in the CECAF more than one MS is involved. Up to this year, some MS have included sampling of their pelagic catches in the NP and others did not. In 2011, all MS active in pelagic fisheries (Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Lithuania and Latvia) agreed during the RCM meeting to implement a common sampling programme in 2012 and 2013. The multilateral agreement between these MS (Annex 3) includes an allocation key for sharing the costs of this programme. The sampling programme is an observer programme, carried out by staff of IMROP (the Mauritanian Oceanografic and Fishery Research Institute). The programme is described in Annex 5 of the 2011 report of the RCM-LDF. The design of the programme is such that it meets the DCF requirements.

In addition, Spain continues to sample landings of small pelagics by EU vessels in Spanish harbours.

Due to the expiration of the agreements between the EU and the Coastal States, presently (mid 2012) most fisheries have already redrawn from the area and it remains uncertain whether fishing rights can be obtained in this area for the EU fleets in 2013 and later. The shared sampling programme for pelagic stocks has been paused in May 2012 in an absence of fishing activities. This sampling programme can be restored until the end of 2013 if fisheries are reopened.

The RCM LDF took note of the fact that there is a reference in NP of Italy to fishing activity in the CECAF area. However, no feedback from Italy were received by the RCM LDF and this issue requires clarification.

In order to improve data collection in this area, coordination of sampling with other non EU countries participating in the fishery should be considered.

In the context of cooperation between MS and CECAF, the RCM LDF was informed that experts from Spain actively participate in the FAO Working Groups dealing with the data analysis and stock assessment for small pelagics and demersal species in CECAF area.

An example of data delivered by Instituto Español de Oceanografía from Spain to FAO WG related to CECAF stocks, as well as comments on the outcomes of length sampling of some small pelagics conducted by different parties, are presented in Annex 4.

4.2 SPRFMO area

4.2.1 Feedback from data users (SPRFMO)

The website of SPRFMO gives clear details on the data required and the format for data submission.

The RCM LDF report from 2011 presents an overall comparison of observer data required by the SPRMFO with those under the DCF. The scope and specificity of observer data required according to Standards set by SPRMFO are much wider and go well beyond the scope of those required under DCF.

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 14 of 45

4.2.2 Identification of Metiers

The EU fishery in SPRFMO area is rather homogeneous. All EU vessels are targeting small pelagic species with mid-water trawls. The main target species is Chilean jack mackerel with some by-catch of chub mackerel and other species.

All EU vessels are in the same métier - OTM_SPF_45-65_0_0. A description of the metier has been provided in the RCM LDF report of 2011.

4.2.3 Harmonisation in SPRFMO area in 2012 and 2013

All EU vessels operating in the fishery are listed in the same metier and establishing a harmonised sampling programme seems feasible and desirable. Last year, the MS concerned discussed the possibility to introduce a common sampling programme for all MS. However, given the poor state of the Chilean jack mackerel stock and a fast reduction of available fishing quota, it was expected that the fishery by EU vessels would cease and no sampling programme was proposed. In 2011, only a few EU vessels participated in the fishing for a few weeks. In 2012, no EU vessels participated in the fishery at all. At present, in the absence of fishing activity in the area, no sampling or EU coordination of sampling is required.

The RCM LDF was informed that experts from the Netherlands actively participate in the work of the SPRMFO Science Working Group. It was also noticed that expert from Poland took part in the SPRMFO workshop on Chilean Jack mackerel age reading calibration.


Page 15 of 45

5 Data Quality issues and recommendations from data end users

(tor 2 and 5)

For the first time, reports of the assessment working groups dealing with stocks in the CECAF and SPRFMO area were available to the RCM. The RCM LDF considered these report in order to identify data quality issues.

5.1 CECAF area

For most pelagic and demersal stocks in the CECAF area Schaefer production models are used to carry out assessments. Input to these models are total catch and effort data and CPUE. For some stocks, also length based models and XSA are attempted. Analitical models are used in case of the stocks of Scomber japonicus and Engraulis encrasicolus. The reports contain tables with catch and effort statistics and results of the assessments. Available data sources are comprehensively described in the text of the report.

For all stocks recommendations are given to improve the data or the cooperation between the countries. In general these recommendations request i.a. for:

better and more complete catch and effort statistics

improve sampling intensity in certain countries, but the countries are not specified

better or alternative indices for stock abundance (cpue, surveys)

recruitment indices

length data from commercial landings and acoustic data

number of samples and sample size of each sample covering all size ranges. All fleet segments and all quarters of the year should be covered.

age reading validation

better cooperation between countries for certain issues

information of bycatches in the fisheries

All individual stock sections indicate that follow up of most recommendation, previously made, is poor or at least slow. The reason for this is not given.

In its 2011 report, STECF notes that the presence of observers onboard should be recommended in order to obtain real estimations of total catches (retained and discarded) produced by the fleets operating in the area.

The RCM LDF is of the opinion that in the future some progress could be made in data quality by giving more attention to harmonising the data collection between the countries involved in the fisheries in this area.

5.2 SPRFMO area

In this area, the EU is only involved in the pelagic fishery for Chilean Jack mackerel. In 2011, for the second time, an analytical stock assessment was used to assess the

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 16 of 45

status of the stock. Based on these results, catch advice is provided to the Preparatory Conference which make arrangements i.a. on total allowable catches.

In 2011, there was a significant data revision for the historic period for many countries. Although it can be expected that this has improved the assessment, it also indicates some uncertainty of the historical catch statistics. As a result, this year’s assessment cannot be compared to last year’s assessment as the core input to the assessment model has changed.

Except for the Chinese fleet, no country or fleet has undertaken any effort to standardize their CPUE series. Each of these CPUE series is incorporated as a tuning series in the assessment, but due to the lack of standardization, their fits are poor (and the use of pelagic CPUE series is highly criticized too). The WG clearly lacks the mandate to push countries into performing these analyses.

The Jack Mackerel Subgroup (JMSG) of SPRMFO Science Working Group (SWG) recommended that the draft Jack Mackerel Otolith Interpretation Protocol developed

by the workshop (Annex SWG‐JM‐01 to 2011 SWG report) should be adopted by the SWG as the guideline for interpretation of Jack mackerel otoliths by all participants, and that this protocol should be improved over time as necessary. To facilitate this improvement, the JMSG also endorsed the recommendations from the workshop for continued collaborative work:

Collaborative discussions on otolith interpretation should continue. Improvements in agreement between otolith readers will benefit from the regular exchange of images of otoliths between the research institutes involved in jack mackerel ageing.

Inter‐sessional work should continue to improve otolith interpretation by the workshop participants, and to increase the level of experience in reading Chilean jack mackerel otoliths. Photographic images are particularly suitable for this purpose, eliminating the practical difficulties with circulating otolith collections between countries. Images can also be examined simultaneously by all participants.

Otolith images for exchange should be export in a format and resolution that ensure adequate quality for image interpretation, while still allowing images to be easily exchanged. There may need to be some standardization of image analysis software.

Participants should continue to work inter‐sessionally on validation of jack mackerel ageing and growth.

Ongoing cooperative work between participants to develop consistent otolith

ageing protocols and to resolve apparent differences in growth‐rate analyses and maturity schedules for the various regions

The report of the JMSG indicates that the group is well aware where improvements in the quality of data and methods need to be made. The RCM LDF is of the opinion that the EU MS fishing on this stock could contribute to this process. However, the average EU contribution to this fishery over the period 2005-2011 is about 5% and most improvement, can only be made by effort of the major stakeholders in the fishery.


Page 17 of 45

6 Regional database

(tor 6)

No needs for a regional database (RDB) has been defined for the RCM LDF as yet. In principle a RDB could be used to

store catch, effort and value data needed for identifying sampling needs and priorities. Such data would allow to identify areas where harmonization of data collection is possible

store biological data in order to facilitate analyses of international data sets

respond to data calls in a standardized way

In the absence of significant long distant fisheries there is no urgent need to establish such a database at present. However, the RCM LDF notes that establishing a RDB may be required in the new DC-MAP. If that is the case, RCM LDF is of the opinion that one single data base system and data format should be introduced for all RCMs. This would be most efficient in terms of maintenance, routine data submission and development of tools for analysing data.

The RCM LDF made the following recommendation:

LDF 2012-01 – Establishing of RDB in DC-MAP.

RCM LDF 2012 Recommendation

Should the establishing a Regional Data Base (RDB) be required under new DC-MAP legislation, the RCM LDF recommends to introduce one single software platform to be used as a RDB for all RCMs. This would be most efficient in terms of maintenance, routine data submission and development of tools for analysing data.

Follow –up actions needed

If required to be implemented in DC-MAP

Responsible persons for follow-up actions

DG Mare

Time frame (Deadline)

before 2014

LM 2012 comments

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 18 of 45

7 EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020

(tor 7)

It is anticipated that at the end of 2013 the legal basis for the present Data Collection Framework (DCF) will expire. In 2011 the European Commission has started a process, aiming to replace the present framework. New regulations and decisions should be available early 2013 in order to allow MS to draw up their National Programmes and Working Plans for 2014 and following years.

In a roadmap towards the successor of the DCF, the Commission has consulted scientific experts (STECF), national correspondents, data users and stakeholders in order to obtain their opinion of the future of data collection. In June 2012, the Commission issued a document called Towards a New EU 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Programme for Data Collection, describing a possible structure of the new framework. The document was available to the RCM LDF for comments.

The RCM LDF notes that the document clearly describes a proposed new structure. The RCM LDF appreciate that many comments made by STECF on weaknesses in the present DCF and desired changes for the future are considered in the document. Although the RCM LDF welcomes the general approach as presented in the document, it realizes that it is important how this approach will be further developed. In other words: details can matter.

The RCM LDF discussed and reflected on some of the key elements of new DC MAP raised in the EU document.

The RCM LDF specifically supported the concept of regional approach to data collection and a need to strengthen links and cooperation with end users.

Regarding the métier approach, the RCM LDF acknowledges that the sampling regime under the métier concept is rather costly exercise. Nevertheless, until now MS has invested considerable resources for its implementation and métier approach seems to assist in data sampling harmonization and could be useful in providing data suitable for mixed fisheries management.

The present system of data collection (under DCF legislation) seems to be focused on data collection by observers, which is costly and can create bias in case random selection of métier sampled could not be secured.

The RCM LDF was not clear about the concept and practicality (practical aspects of implementation) of the potential introduction of the discard ban. This concept definitely requires careful and in depth analysis.

The RCM LDF welcomes the move towards simplification of legal basis for data collection, which should assist in more flexible approach at regional level.

In order to facilitate cost reduction and efficiency in data use, the RCM LDF considers there is an obvious need for simplification and standardization of data formats, e.g. through the implementation of RDB. It is also important to have all information of all fisheries in the region in order to effectively coordinate data collection at RCM.

The practical use of RDB seems overrated by the Commission. RCM LDF is of the opinion that access to RDB should be restricted to identified end-users.


Page 19 of 45

The RCM LDF considers that not in all cases a close integration of control and science is desirable (e.g. in the context of trust between the industry and science community).

The EU contribution to data collection and quality of data in LDF is in some cases small (e.g. SPRMFO). Most improvement on data collection in these areas could be made by RFMO initiating an effective coordination of data collection in the region.

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 20 of 45

8 Progress in regional co-ordination

(tor 1)

The following recommendations were put forward by the RCM LDF in 2011 and considered by the Liaison Meeting in 2011. In addition there is a recommendation of the RCM NA which applies to all regions.

The LM recommended that for future presentations of RCM reports, the chairs present no more than 5 key recommendations for consideration and discussion by the LM. The RCM LDF took note of that.

LM 23 - Metier variables : Metier descriptions

RCM NA 2011 Recommendation

MS to update metier descriptions already compiled by RCM NA 2010 and using the standard template complete descriptions for any new regionally ranked metiers identified. Updated and new files to be uploaded by Fishing Ground co-ordinators.

Follow-up actions needed

MS to complete metier descriptions


All MS


RCM NA 2012

LM 2011 comments LM supports this recommendation and notes that it applies to all regions.

Follow up/Comments from RCM LDF

The RCM LDF considers that this should be done by the MS when submitting updates of the NP.


Page 21 of 45

LM 51 - Data needs for the provision of improved scientific advice in the areas of competence of the different RFMOs


The Group supports the establishment of a long distance experts group for the preparation of the forthcoming DCF which fully address the data needs in relation to ALL the RFMOs for which the EU is contracting party.


Experts meeting to be convened well before the adoption of the future multiannual programme


DG MARE & concerned MS

LM comment LM recommends that this issue be dealt with by an

STECF EWG on the revision of the DCF, preferably

during the first half of 2012.

The data end-users have to be fully involved in this

process.

LM recommends that PGECON analyse the

economic data needs.


The RCM LDF considers that input of the data end-

users is essential in such an expert group. It is also

understood that DG MARE intends to give end users

more input in the new DC-MAP

LM 52 - Strengthening the links with RFMOs


The Group recognizes the need of strengthening the links between the DCF and some of the RFMOs for which the EU is contracting party in order to align requirements in terms of data format and structure as well as receiving feedback on data adequacy.


Better communication between different DG MARE services and relevant RFMOs


DG MARE units B1 and C3

LM comment LM notes that the Commission will follow this

recommendation in 2012


No improvement has been noticed

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 22 of 45

LM 53 - Métier identification: description and naming convention

RCM LDF 2011 Recommendation CECAF Subgroup

Information about fishing activity of Italian fleet in the CECAF area must be completed.


Description or full templates (used in 2010) to be prepared by Italy.


Italy

Time frame (Deadline) Before the next LM.

LM 2011 comments LM recommends to address this issue to the Italian National Correspondent as soon as possible.


There has been no feedback from Italy to the RCM LDF.

LM 54 - Métier identification: description and naming convention

RCM LDF 2011 Recommendation CECAF Subgroup

The NP of Italy contains text information on a fishery in CECAF area including commitment to sampling, but it is not reflected in the relevant tables.


The Italian NP required to be modified.


Italy

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 31 October 2011.

LM 2011 comments LM recommends to address this issue to the Italian National Correspondent as soon as possible.


No information is available whether Italy has adjusted its NP.

LM 55 - Métier variables: Data availability at RCM


Availability of catch, effort, and related data split by MS at Sharepoint, at RCM-meetings, and distributed prior to RCM


EC will have to compile the data-sets that are transmitted to SPRFMO, into accessible formats for MS, scientists prior to RCM


Administrators at CION


Quarter prior to meeting of RCM LDF

LM 2011 comments See general section on intersession work.


completed in 2012


Page 23 of 45

LM 56 - Allocation of large pelagic species to one or various RCMs.

RCM LDF 2011 Large Pelagics Sub-group Recommendation

This group recommends to coordinate the DCF related to the all stocks managed by RFMO´s such ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC and WCPFC. This includes the four species: albacore, swordfish, bonito and bluefin that are included in RCMMed&BS This issue is urgent to be clarified by Commission. As this way of proceeding is not efficient for the RCM LDF.


Scheduled a meeting as soon as possible


DG MARE; RCM LDF; RCM MED&BS; MS

Time frame (Deadline) Next Liaison Meeting in 2011.

LM 2011 comments The LM was informed by the Commission that this problem will be solved during early 2012.


to be dealt with by RCM Med&BS which now comprises the Large Pelagics

The RCM LDF noted that the following recommendation, made last year, was missing in the LM 2011 report:

Métier variables: Sampling Observer Programme

RCM LDF 2011

Recommendation

To implement a joint observer program in the fishery of small pelagic in the CECAF area during the years 2012 and 2013.

Follow–up actions needed

Negotiation of financial aspects between the concerned MS and if agreement is reached modification of their NP


Members State involved: Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Germany.

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 31 of October 2011

RCM-LDF 2011 comments

The MS involved have implemented a joined observer programme in CECAF area covering the fisheries of small pelagic in 2012 and 2013

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 24 of 45

9 Review recommendations from PGCCDBS

(tor 2)

The following recommendations made by PGCCDBS in 2012 were considered

PGCCDBS views on the revision of the EU Data Collection Framework

The PGCCDBS considers that the revision of the DCF should recognise the

increasing need for regional cooperation and task sharing to provide quality assured

data on age compositions and life history parameters (growth, maturity, fecundity) for

a growing number of species and stocks to be included in single and multi-species

management advice. National laboratories have only a limited pool of experts and it

is becoming essential to optimise the use of resources and expertise and eliminate

duplication of efforts.

RCM LDF supports this view

Perspectives for the new EU Multi-Annual Programme 2014-2020 in relation to

stock related biological variables

The improvement of regional focused sampling should be a priority and an

independent analysis should be implemented to optimise best use of resources and

eliminate duplication of efforts in relation to stock related biological variables. This

will require in depth data analysis to ensure that the sampling programme is fit for

purpose and will require a dedicated research programme. Sufficient consultations

with the appropriate experts should take place to enable the allocation of tasks

across expert laboratories in relevant MS. Task sharing between Members States

should facilitate more focus on Regional sampling where appropriate.

In relation to the envisaged regionalisation, the PGCCDBS was approached by the

RCM NA to initiate a discussion of statistical and methodological procedures which

would enable sharing international information on biological parameters. The general

opinion in the PGCCDBS is that task sharing is beneficial and should be encouraged

where deemed appropriate. For institutes collecting small volumes of age samples

for certain species and when new species are to be sampled, task sharing of the

production of biological parameters such as ALK and maturity ogives are highly

warranted in order to optimise the use of the existing expertise among the National

laboratories.

The RCM LDF agrees with the approach of PGCCDBS and has noticed that these

points have been picked up in the advice of STECF to the Commission with respect

to the development of DC-MAP.


Page 25 of 45

Proposal for collaborative study contract on “Support design based regional

data collection programmes”

Currently, the DCF Regional Coordination Meetings (RCMs) focus heavily on “task

sharing” for metier and stock based sampling. It is foreseeable that in the new DCF,

the role of RCMs may evolve more towards establishing and coordinating

statistically-sound programmes of data collection to deliver the estimates for stocks

and fleets required at the regional scale. This could include agreement of sampling

frames, allocation of sampling effort amongst Member States, documentation of

sampling schemes, and review of achievements and data quality. To adopt this role,

RCMs would require guidance and a system of support because the sampling

problems already encountered by individual countries will remain at the regional

scale. If true progress should be made towards regional data collection programmes,

it is crucial that sufficient resources and expertise are available for Member States

and RCMs to carry out the necessary tasks.

The RCM LDF supports the view of PGCCDBS.

Review of the ICES – RCM recommendations process

All groups should reflect when recommendations are defined. They need to be

distinguished into real recommendations (R) and strategic comments and

suggestions (SCS). Of the recommendations, the sending body should carefully list

only 5 key recommendations. This is in line with the advice from the October 2011

Liaison Meeting. Reducing to this number will be the first step in making the tracking

and outcomes of recommendations more transparent. The recommendations should

be given a priority number as well.

It is suggested that there should be a recommendations database set up by the

ICES secretariat on the RCM Share Point for all areas. It will be accessible by all

RCM members in read-only format and the RCM chairs will have read/write access.

All recommendations, as well all strategic comments and suggestion, should be

available in the recommendations database, given the possibility of tracking all.

The RCM-LDF strongly supports a recommendation which reduce the number of

recommendations.

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 26 of 45

10 Review of potential new surveys, studies and pilot projects

(tor 8 and 9)

At the time of the meeting, the RCM LDF had no information on neither any new surveys planned nor on new studies or pilot projects planned.


Page 27 of 45

11 Any other business

11.1 Participation in regional working groups

In the context of the harmonisation and coordination of data collection (dealt with in section 4) as well as data quality issues in CECAF area (dealt with in section 5), the issue was raised on the participation of the experts from MS in the work of the relevant working groups and meetings.

In line with the view on the urgent need to strengthen the links and harmonisation between data collection programmes and data end user needs, the RCM LDF supports arrangements enabling participation of experts from MS in the working groups and meetings dedicated to stocks assessment and research methodology coordination at the regional level.

The RCM LDF made the following recommendation:

LDF 2012-02 – Participation of experts from MS in the work of the relevant, regional working groups and meetings.

RCM LDF 2012

Recommendation

In order to secure a cooperation platform in the context of data requirements for stock assessment in CECAF and SPRMFO areas of competence (i.e. RFMOs to which the EU is a contracting party) the RCM LDF recommends that the following meetings be included on the EC list of meetings eligible for EU financial contribution:

FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Small Pelagic Fish off Northwest Africa.

FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Resources. Sub-group North

FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Resources. Sub-group South

SPRFMO Science Working Group


To include meetings listed above in the EC list of meetings eligible for EU financial contribution under the DCF


DG Mare


From 2012 onwards

LM 2012 comments

11.2 Maturity scale used for small pelagics in CECAF area

Participants from Spain provided the information to the RCM LDF on the issue of maturity scales used for biological sampling of small pelagic fish in CECAF area (sardine, sardinellas, chub mackerel and horse mackerels) which is presented in Annex 5.

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 28 of 45

11.3 Time and venue of the RCM LDF meeting in 2013

In consideration of the development of work on the planned changes of data collection system after 2013, in order for the RCMs to contribute to the drafting of new legislation related to data collection, the time of the RCM LDF 2013 meeting is highly dependent on the outcome of consultation towards establishment of a new DC-MAP 2014-2020 which will take place by the end of 2012 and early 2013. Therefore, the time of the next RCM LDF meeting shall be decided in consultation with EC and following suggestion of LM9.

Regarding the venue of the next RCM LDF meeting, taking into account that RCM LDF met so far in the “Southern MS” (twice in Spain and once in Slovenia) the options discussed were to hold the next meeting either in Lithuania or the Netherlands or Germany or Poland – to be decided at later stage, in consultations between MS concerned.


Page 29 of 45

12 Summary of new RCM-LDF recommendations

The following recommendations were made by the RCM-LDF meeting in 2012:

LDF 2012-01 – Establishing of RDB in DC-MAP.


Should the establishing a Regional Data Base (RDB) be required under new DC-MAP legislation, the RCM LDF recommends to introduce one single software platform to be used as a RDB for all RCMS. This would be most efficient in terms of maintenance, routine data submission and development of tools for analysing data.


If required to be implemented in DC-MAP


DG Mare

Time frame (Deadline) before 2014

LM 2012 comments

LDF 2012-02 – Participation of experts from MS in the work of the relevant, regional working groups and meetings.

RCM LDF 2012

Recommendation

In order to secure a cooperation platform in the context of data requirements for stock assessment in CECAF and SPRMFO areas of competence (i.e. RFMOs to which the EU is a contracting party) the RCM LDF recommends that the following meetings be included on the EC list of meetings eligible for EU financial contribution:

FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Small Pelagic Fish off Northwest Africa.

FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Resources. Sub-group North

FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Resources. Sub-group South.

SPRFMO Science Working Group


To include meetings listed above in the EC list of meetings eligible for EU financial contribution under the DCF


DG Mare

Time frame (Deadline) From 2012 onwards

LM 2012 comments

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 30 of 45

The RCM LDF noted that the following recommendations, made last year, were missing in the LM 2011 report. Therefore they are repeated this year:

LDF 2012-03 – Métier identification: description and naming convention. RCM LDF 2011 Recommendation

Information about fishing activity of Portuguese fleet in the CECAF area must be completed.


Description or full templates (used in 2010) to be prepared by Portugal.


Portugal

Time frame (Deadline) Before the next LM. LM 2012 comments

LDF 2012-04 – Métier identification: description and naming convention.


The RCM received information on fishing activities of Portuguese vessels in the CECAF area other than those in the waters around Madeira. The NP of Portugal makes no mention of these fisheries.


Portugal to clarify the information. If the information is correct, the Portuguese NP must be adjusted


Portugal

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 31 October 2011 LM 2012 comments


Page 31 of 45

13 References

Report of the FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Resources – Subgroup North Banjul, the Gambia, 6–14 November 2007 CECAF/ECAF SERIES 10/71

Report of the FAO Working Group on the Assessment of small pelagic fish off northwest Africa. Nouakchott, Mauritania, 21–30 April 2009. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 965

Report of the FAO Working Group on the Assessment of small pelagic fish off northwest Africa. Banjul, the Gambia, 18–22 May 2010 FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 975

RCM LDF 2010. First Regional Coordination Meeting on Long Distance Fisheries. Madrid 3-5 March 2010.

RCM LDF 2011. Report of the Second Regional Coordination Meeting on Long Distance Fisheries. Ljubljana (Slovenia). 10-13 May 2011

EC 2012 Towards a new EU 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Programme for Data Collection (discussion non-paper)

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Review of Scientific Advice for 2012. Part 3 (STECF 11-15). Advice on Stocks of Interest to the European Community in areas under the jurisdiction of CCAMLR, CECAF, WECAF, ICCAT, IOTC, IAATC, GFCM, NAFO, and stocks in the North East Atlantic assessed by ICES. Prepared in draf by the STECF-EWG 11-17. Ancona. Italy October 2011. Edited by John Casey, Willy Vanhee, Hans-Joachim Rätz & Jean-Noël Druon

ICES-ACOM 2012. Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS 2012). 30 January–3 February 2012. Rome, Italy. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:50

Report of the Jack Mackerel Subgroup. Annex SWG‐10‐03 – in: SPRMFO – SWG 2011. Report Of The 10th Science Working Group, Port Vila, Vanuatu: 19-23 September 2011. (http://www.southpacificrfmo.org/assets/10th-SWG-and-9th-DIWG-meetings-Vanuatu/SWG-10/Annex-SWG-03-Jack-Mackerel-SubGroup-Report-SWG10.pdf)

ICES WKSPMAT REPORT 2008. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:40. REF. RCM MED, PGMED, PGCCDBS. Report of the Workshop on Small Pelagic (Sardina pilchardus, Engraulis encrasicolus) maturity stages (WKSPMAT). 10-14 November 2008. Mazara del Vallo, Italy.

http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2012/PGCCDBS/pgccdbs_2012.pdfhttp://www.southpacificrfmo.org/assets/10th-SWG-and-9th-DIWG-meetings-Vanuatu/SWG-10/Annex-SWG-03-Jack-Mackerel-SubGroup-Report-SWG10.pdfhttp://www.southpacificrfmo.org/assets/10th-SWG-and-9th-DIWG-meetings-Vanuatu/SWG-10/Annex-SWG-03-Jack-Mackerel-SubGroup-Report-SWG10.pdfhttp://www.southpacificrfmo.org/assets/10th-SWG-and-9th-DIWG-meetings-Vanuatu/SWG-10/Annex-SWG-03-Jack-Mackerel-SubGroup-Report-SWG10.pdf

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 32 of 45

14 Annex 1 - List of participants

First name Email address Organisation

Maria Teresa Garcia

Santamaria [email protected] Instituto Español de

Oceanografía (ES)

Alejandro Sancho Rafel [email protected] Instituto Español de Oceanografía (ES)

Rosaura del Val Izquierdo [email protected]

Secretaría General de Pesca (S.G. Protección Recursos Pesqueros)

Frans Van Beek [email protected] IMARES (NL)

Romas Statkus [email protected] Fisheries Service Division of Fisheries Research and Science (LT)

Kay Panten [email protected] Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI) (GER)

Maksims Kovshars [email protected] Fish Resources Research Department

Tomasz Nermer [email protected] National Marine Fisheries Research Institute (PL)

Ireneusz (Irek) Wojcik [email protected] National Marine Fisheries Research Institute (PL)

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


Page 33 of 45

15 Annex 2 - Agenda

EU DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK (DCF), REG. 199/2008, 665/2008 AND DECISION 93/2010/EU

Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Long Distance Fisheries

Madrid, Spain, 9–13 July, 2012 General time schedule: Monday 14.00 - 18.00 - meeting time 16.00 – 16.30 - Coffee break Tuesday – Thursday 09.00 – 18.00 - meeting time 10.30 – 11.00 - Coffee break 13.00 - 14.30 - Lunch 16.00 – 16.30 - Coffee break

Friday 09.00 – 13.00 - meeting time 10.30 – 11.00 - Coffee break

Work Plan

Monday, 9th July 14.00 - 14.30 : Plenary session: Welcome, introduction of the participants, organization, adoption of the agenda and appointment of rapporteurs 14.30 – 16.00 : Plenary session - ToR 1: - Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2011 RCM (follow-up of recommendations) - Review of the outputs of other RCMs 2011 – where relevant - Review of the outputs of the 8th Liaison Meeting (Brussels, October 2011) 16.00 - 16.30 : Coffee break 16.30 – 18.00 : Plenary session - ToR 1 (cont.) and ToR 2: - Review feedback and recommendations from data end users (STECF EWGs, ICES asessement WGs and benchmark meetings) and PGCCDBS

Tuesday, 10th July Depending on the participation structure, work continues either in two Sub-Groups (CECAF & SPRMFO) or one Group dealing simultaneously with CECAF and SPRMFO issues 9.00 - 10.30 : ToR 3 a) : Metier-related variables - Review and compilation of data provided by MS to RCM LDF - Ranking system - Landings - discussion/agreement on concurrent sampling; agreement on merging of metiers for sampling; sampling intensities and data quality

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 34 of 45

- Discards - creation of a regional view of the discard sampling programmes, complete the list of métiers important to sample and provide justification for not sampling certain metiers for discards 10.30 - 11.00 : Coffee break 11.00 – 13.00 : ToR 3 a) : Metier-related variables cont. 13.00 - 14.30 : Lunch 14.30 - 16.00 : ToR 3 b) : Biological stock-related variables - Review and compilation of data provided by MS to RCM LDF - 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, where appropriate; - Coordinate biological sampling for stocks where the sum of MS having a share of quotas/landings less than 10%, altogether exceeds 25% (exemption rule III.B2.5.1.(b) in Decision 2010/93/EU) 16.00 - 16.30 : Coffee break 16.30 - 18.00 : ToR 3 b) : Biological stock-related variables cont.

Wednesday, 11th July 9.00 - 10.30 : ToR 3 c) : Transversal variables - Common understanding of effort definitions in relation to data collection methodologies 10.30 - 11.00 h.: Coffee break 11.00 – 13.00 : ToR 3 c) : Transversal variables cont. 13.00 - 14.30 : Lunch 14.30 - 16.00 : ToR 4 : - Propose actions and where possible conclude regional agreements on the collection of data outlined under ToR 3. 16.00 - 16.30 : Coffee break 16.30 - 18.00 : : ToR 5 : Data Quality issues

ToR 6 : Regional databases - update since RCMs 2011. Identify needs of the RCMs that could be addressed by the RDB SC and suggest any new features/reports to be developed

Thursday, 12th July 9.00 - 10.30 : ToR 8 : - Review potential new surveys that in the future could be included in the DCF list of surveys (update the list of surveys that was made at the RCM 2010, updated 2011)

ToR 9 : Studies and pilot projects

10.30 - 11.00 : Coffee break 11.00 – 13.00 : ToR 7 : - EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020 (if feasible)

Provide feedback on the draft EU MAP2014-2020

Prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling programme

Discuss the potential impacts of an EU-wide discard ban on observer programmes

13.00 - 14.30 : Lunch 14.30 - 16.00 : ToR 7 : cont.

ToR 10 : AOB 16.00 - 16.30 : Coffee break


Page 35 of 45

16.30 - 18.00 : Plenary session - Presentation of the main outcomes of the CECAF & SPRMFO subgroups (or group), - draft recommendations - discussion - Draft report presentation

Friday, 13th May 9.00 - 10.30 : Plenary session - Adoption of the recommendations - Report assemblage and reading 10.30 - 11.00 : Coffee break 11.00 – 13.00 : Plenary session - Report assemblage and reading cont. - Place and date of the 4th Meeting of the Long Distance RCM - End of the meeting

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 36 of 45

16 Annex 3 – Landings by species reported by MS

Landings by species (tons) in CECAF area. Data from 2010

Species DE LT LV NL PL

Alfonsinos nei (ALF) 24

Arius heudelotii (SMC) 13

Auxis rochei (BLT) 101

Auxis thazard (FRZ) 0 3

Beryx decadactylus (BXD) 1

Borthrocara alalongum (BOL) 1

Brama brama (POA) 198 36 4

Campogramma glaycos (VAD) 13

Caranx spp (TRE) 1

Chloroscombrus chrysurus (BUA) 511 1

Dentex dentex (DEC) 53

Dentex spp (DEX) 22

Diplodus sargus (SWA) 9 3

Drepane africana (SIC) 18

Engraulis encrasicolus (ANE) 8393 895

Ethmalosa fimbriata (BOA) 8

Euthynnus alletteratus (LTA) 26 0

Galeichthys feliceps (GAT) 39

Glossandon semifasciatus (DES) 9

Grammattobothus polyophthalmus (GRH) 6

Haemulidae (Pomadasyidae) (GRX) 2 1

Katsuwonus pelamis (SKJ) 1358

Lichia amia (LEE) 395 93 1

Makaira nigricans (BUM) 3

Mene maculate (MOO) 36

Merluccius merluccius (HKE) 95

Merluccius senegalensis (HKM) 5

Merluccius spp (HKX) 9

Molva dypterygia (BLI) 4

Mugil cephalus (MUF) 8

Mugilidae (MUL) 28 22 4

Osteichthyes (MZZ) 301 2 5151 275 14

Parapristipoma octolineatum (GRA) 16

Pompanas europinis (POP) 15

Pseudotolithus spp (CKW) 5

Sarda australis (BAU) 5

Sarda sarda (BON) 3346 1019 459 16


Page 37 of 45

Sardina pilchardus (PIL) 408 28784 9756 21397 1635

Sardinela maderensis (SAE) 1038 2036

Sardinella aurita (SAA) 1653 16488 61761 3618

Sardinella spp. (SIX) 5 14228

Scomber japonicus colias (MAS) 15710 13563 8148 4599

Scomberomorus cavalla (KGM) 7 0

Scomberomorus tritor (MAW) 1

Scombridae (MAX) 1,845

Scombroidei (TUX) 4

Scomer scombrus (MAC) 1857

Semaprochilodus insignis (SKI) 34

Seriola spp (AMX) 1

Sparidae (SBX) 72 8

Sphyraena spp (BAR) 2 2

Spondyliosoma cantharus (BRB) 4

Stromateus fiatola (BLB) 1

Thunnini (TUN) 200

Trachurus spp (JAX) 2579 1360 40169 2326

Trachurus trachurus (HOM) 6532

Trachurus trecae (HMZ) 47438

Trichiuridae (CUT) 89 59

Trichiurus lepturus (LHT) 120 20

Zeidae (ZEX) 31

Zeus faber (JOD) 1 5

Landings by species (tons) in SPRFMO area. Data from 2010

Species DE LT PL NL

Brama australis (BRU) 2 305 76

Osteichthyes (MZZ) 74 2

Scomber japonicus (MAS) 138 0 319 115

Thunnini (TUN) 1

Trachurus murphyi (CJM) 12931 33218 11148

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 38 of 45

17 Annex 4 - Multi-lateral Agreement


Page 39 of 45

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 40 of 45


Page 41 of 45

18 Annex 5 - Data/information provided by Spain to the end users in CECAF area and comments on length sampling of sardinellas off Northwest Africa

As an example of data/information given by EU MS operating in the CECAF area, below is the summary of data which Spain-IEO (Instituto Español de Oceanografía) contribute to different FAO Working Groups:

a) FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Small Pelagic Fish off Northwest Africa (Yearly),

b) FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Resources (North), and

c) FAO/CECAF Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Resources (South).

Regarding ageing studies, up to date data on growth parameters and the age-length key for Sardina pilchardus, Sardinella aurita and Scomber japonicus (in progress) are provided, as well as participating in the age reading Workshops. Data provided by IEO contributed to the STECF’s Advice on Stocks of Interest to the European community in areas under the jurisdiction of CECAF, Scientific Advice for Fisheries off the North West and Africa Scientific Advice for Fisheries Partnership Agreements: * Stocks of Small Pelagic exploited by European fleet under fisheries partnership agreements signed with Morocco and Mauritania. * Crustacean and Cephalopod stocks exploited by the European fleet under fisheries partnership agreements signed with Mauritania and Guinea Bissau. * Demersal fish (Hake, other finfish and Elasmobranchs) stocks exploited by the European fleet under fisheries partnership agreements signed with Morocco, Mauritania and Guinea Bissau, Data contributed by Instituto Español de Oceanografía (Spain)

FAO WORKING GROUP ON THE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL PELAGIC FISH OFF NORTHWEST AFRICA

SPECIES Landings Effort CPUE

Length Distribution

Length-weight relationship

Sex-ratio Maturity Growth

Engraulis encrasicolus

x x x x x x x

Sardinella aurita

x x x x x x x x

Sardinella maderensis

x x x x x x x

Scomber colias

x x x x x x x

Sardina pilchardus

x x x x x x x x

Trachurus spp.

x x x x x x x

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 42 of 45

FAO/CECAF WORKING GROUP ON THE ASSESSMENT OF DEMERSAL RESOURCES (NORTH)


Length/Weight Distribution


Sex-ratio Maturity

Octopus vulgaris x x x x x x x

Sepia spp x x x x x x x

Loligo vulgaris x x x x x x x

Merluccius senegalensis

x x x x x x x

Merluccius polli x x x x x x x

Farfantepenaeus notialis

x x x x x x x

Parapenaeus longirostris

x x x x x x x

FAO/CECAF WORKING GROUP ON THE ASSESSMENT OF DEMERSAL RESOURCES (SOUTH)


Length/Weight Distribution


Sex-ratio Maturity

Octopus vulgaris x x x x x x x

Sepia spp x x x x x x x

Loligo vulgaris x x x x x x x

Farfantepenaeus notialis

x x x x x x x

Parapenaeus longirostris

x x x x x x x

Comments on sampling of catch/landings of small pelagics off Northwest Africa Reference

FAO. 2010. Report of the FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Small

Pelagic fish off Northwest Africa. Banjul, the Gambia, 18–22 May 2010. FAO

Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 975: 276 pp.

In Mauritania, length sampling of sardinellas in catches of the EU fleet was conducted by observers from the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO) in the port of Las Palmas, and at sea by IMROP and Dutch observers.


Page 43 of 45

The analysis showed that in both cases the modal length was around 31–32 cm. The results from IEO showed a mode at 30-31 cm, and a second less important mode at 21 cm. The sampling of non-EU vessels by IMROP observers showed a mode at 32 cm, comparable to the results of IMROP and Dutch observers on board EU vessels. When comparing the different sampling programmes of the industrial fleet in Mauritania, it is noted that the results of the IMROP, Russian and Dutch observers are in agreement, whereas those of IEO are rather different. The IEO samples consist of an important part of small fish that do not appear in the other programmes.

RCM LDF 2012 REPORT

Page 44 of 45

19 Annex 6 - Maturity scales used for biological sampling of small pelagic fish in CECAF area (info by Spain)

From the beginning of PNDB (National Basic Data Collection Programme) in 2004, the COC (Centro Oceanográfico de Canarias) of the IEO (Instituto Español de Oceanografía) has used a Maturity scale of 5 stages (Arriaga et al., 1983) to carry out the biological sampling of small pelagic fish (sardine, sardinellas, chub mackerel and horse mackerels), the result of which were presented at different fora (FAO Working Groups, Workshops, Symposiums, etc.):

Stage Stade Description

1 Virgin or Immature

Anatomical characteristics: Gonads small and thin, attached between the swim bladder and vertebral axis in the middle of the visceral cavity. Gonads translucent and protected by a sheath fat. Blood irrigation not visible to the naked eye. Male: Thin and flat testis, slight whitish Female: Thin and round ovaries, slight pinkish. Oocytes not visible to the naked eye.

2 Maturing virgin and Recovering Spawning

Anatomical characteristics: Gonads are clearly definable by the naked eye, filling approximately half of the body cavity. Translucent in females and opaques in males Male: Whitish testis; whitish-reddish when they are in recovery, slight blood irrigation. Female: Ovaries in virgin maturity have pinkish coloration, tissue lightly granular to touch, blood irrigation slight. Ovaries in Recovering spawning, besides the characteristics cited before, they show a reddish tonality, and a slightly bigger volume than the virgin ovaries (resting)

3 Pre-spawning or Maturing

Anatomical characteristics: Large gonads, filling approximately two-thirds or more of the body cavity. Abundant and very branched blood irrigation visible to the naked eye. Male: Creamy white testis, sometimes are slightly reddish colour. Semen compact, it can not flow freely only extruded by pressure (mainly fresh specimens). Female: Ovaries large, blood irrigation plentiful, yellow-orange coloration. Small eggs visible to the naked eye and granular tissue to the touch.

4 Spawning Anatomical characteristics: Very large gonads filling all or more than two-thirds of visceral cavity, many times covering the intestine on it ventral side. Abundant and very branched blood irrigation. Male: White creamy testis, reddish over caudal zone, soft, semen flows easily when you make a cut, without pressure (mainly fresh specimens). Female: Fragile ovaries, colour yellow to orange; reddish in colour, with abundant blood irrigation, visible translucent eggs that flow easily.


Page 45 of 45

5 Post-spawning or Spent

Anatomical characteristics: Bloodshot gonads, flaccid, it can remain at the same size as stage IV or be quite smaller; visible blood irrigation. Male: Flaccid testis, creamy white, bloody, very soft and fragile to the touch, remaining semen can flow freely (mainly fresh specimens). Female: Yellow-orange ovaries, reddish, like an empty sack, quite translucent. It is possible to observe a few remaining hydrated oocytes.

In November 2008, scientist from the COC took part in the Data Collection Framework's (DCF) “Workshop on Small Pelagic (Sardina pilchardus, Engraulis encrasicolus) maturity stages (WKSPMAT)” in Sicilia (Mazara del Vallo), where a new 6-stages scale was proposed: I: Immature or Rest; II: Developing; III: Pre-spawning; IV: Spawning; V: Partial post‐spawning and VI: Total post-spawning or Spent. From 2009 until now, the PNDB-COC team has been using both scales in parallel for all species. However, the high volume of samples and the investigators' experience led to conclusion that the 6-stages scale (according to WKSPMAT) is not the most useful one for species sampled. For this reason, at present the PNDB-COC team is using the 5-stages scale proposed by Arriaga, as it had been doing since 2004, considering this approach as most appropriate, and IEO looks for the support of this approach.

Documents

Third Regional Coordination Meeting on Long Distance Fisheriesdatacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10213/488770/... · 2013. 1. 9. · RCM LDF 2012 Report - final.docx Page 5