7+(6&,(17,),&7(&+1,&$/$1'(&2120,& &200,77(()25),6+(5,(6

Transcription

1 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, SEC(2003) 843 &200,66,2167$)):25.,1*3$3(5 WK 5(32572) 7+(6&,(17,),&7(&+1,&$/$1'(&2120,& &200,77(()25),6+(5,(6 %UXVVHOV0DUFK$SULO 1

2 2

3 7$%/(2)&217(176,1752'8&7, LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TERMS OF REFERENCE INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION (&)QRPLQDWLRQ 67(&)GDWDEDVHVXSSRUWLQJJURXS 5(9,(:2)6*0('5( (',7(55$1($1),6+(5,(6 2.1 BACKGROUND FINAL REMARKS '$7$&2//(&7,216*515(32575(9,(:$1'&200(17$6$335235,$7(7+( 6*515(3257±0$5&+(9$/8$7,1*7+(1$7,21$/5( &38( 6 (&2120,&,668(6)8785(25*$1,6$7,217275($77+((&2120,&'$7$7+$7 :,//%(&2//(&7('%<7+(0(0%(567$7(6$&&25',1*72&281&,/5(*8/$7,21 (& PREVIOUS REPORTS OF THE STECF THE MAIN ISSUES FACING STECF RELATED TO ECONOMICS (FRQRPLF3HUIRUPDQFHRI(8)LVKHULHV$(5 (FRQRPLF,QWHUSUHWDWLRQRI$&)0$GYLFH(,$$DQG2WKHU0RGHOV 4.3 OTHER ECONOMIC ISSUES %URDGHU(FRQRPLF9LHZV 'HWDLOHG(FRQRPLF9LHZV 4.4 THE EXISTING BASIS OF ECONOMIC ADVICE KH&RQFHUWHG$FWLRQ(FRQRPLF$VVHVVPHQWRI(XURSHDQ)LVKHULHV4&$ 7KH(XURSHDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI)LVKHULHV(FRQRPLVWV($)( 4.5 THE OVERALL FUTURE FRAMEWORK KH67(&)3URSRVDO $)LVKHULHV(FRQRPLFV&RPPLWWHH)(& 67(&)6XE*URXS (FRQRPLFV([SHUW6XE*URXS 'DWD6XE*URXS 6HFUHWDULDW 67(&)IUDPHZRUN 4.6 ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORKS INCORPORATING THE EXISTING BASIS INTO THE FUTURE STRUCTURE KH&RQFHUWHG$FWLRQ2Q(FRQRPLF$VVHVVPHQWRI(XURSHDQ)LVKHULHV (XURSHDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI)LVKHULHV(FRQRPLVWV($)( (8UHVHDUFKSURMHFWLQFOXGLQJHFRQRPLFV 4.8 THE SITUATION OF THE DATA COLLECTION AS OF MARCH &200(5&,$/&$7&+67$7,67,&6 5.1 THE ACCURACY OF COMMERCIAL CATCH STATISTICS THE EFFECT OF INACCURATE LANDINGS ESTIMATES ON ASSESSMENTS ACCURACY OF LANDINGS IN RELATION TO LOGBOOK DECLARATIONS INFLUENCE OF THE PRECISION OF ESTIMATES OF LANDINGS ON STOCK ASSESSMENTS UHFLVLRQRIODQGLQJVLQWRQQHV 3UHFLVLRQRIODQGLQJVDWDJH CV &RQFOXVLRQVRQ3UHFLVLRQRIFDWFKRUODQGLQJVDWDJH 5.5 THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A 50KG THRESHOLD LIVE WEIGHT FOR REPORTING PURPOSES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS &$1$5<,6/$1'6 6.1 FISHERIES AVAILABLE STATISTICS STATUS OF THE RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS

4 27+(50$77( PLANNING OF MEETINGS ACFA /,672)5(&&20(1'$7, ITEM 1. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE STECF DATABASE SUPPORTING GROUP ITEM 3 REVIEW AND COMMENT AS APPROPRIATE THE SGRN REPORT ( MARCH 2003) EVALUATING THE NATIONAL REPORTS ON CPUES ITEM 4. ANALYZE HOW MEMBER STATES ANTICIPATE TO TREAT THE ECONOMIC DATA THAT THEY WILL COLLECT ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1543/ ITEM 5 IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF LANDING STATISTICS KHNJOLYHZHLJKWWKUHVKROGIRUORJERRNUHFRUGLQJLQWKH0HGLWHUUDQHDQ 8.5 ITEM 6 CANARY ISLANDS LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO STECF AND STECF SUB-GROUPS HGLWHUUDQHDQILVKHULHV6*0(' 'DWDEDVHVXSSRUWLQJJURXS 5()(5(1&(6 $11(;,/,672)3$57,&,3$176 $11(;,,352*5(665(32572)7+(67(&)'$7$%$6( ,1**5283 $11(;,,,5(&200(1'('&255(/$7,210(7+2'6)25678'<,1*<($5&/$66,1)250$7,21,1&38(/38(6(5,(6 $11(;,96800$5<6+((76%<0(0%(567$7(621&38(60,1,080$1' (;7(1'('352*5$00( 4

5 ,1752'8&7,21 STECF met at the Conference Centre Albert Borschette in Brussels from 31 March to 4 April The STECF meeting has been preceded by the meetings of the SGRN and SGMED meetings (24-28 April 2003) The Chairman of the STECF, Mr Alberto Gonzalez Garces, opened the plenary session at The Secretariat of STECF welcomed the participants wishing them success in their deliberations. The terms of reference for the meeting were surveyed and briefly discussed to arrange the details of the meeting. The session was managed through alternation of plenary and working groups meetings. 5

6 /,672)3$57,&,3$176 The complete address of the participants is listed in Annex I. 0HPEHUVRIWKH67(&) Ardizzone, Giandomenico Camiñas, Juan Antonio Casey, John Cornus, Hans-Peter Costa Monteiro, Carlos Di Natale, Antonio Ernst, Peter Franquesa, Ramon Gonzalez, Garces Alberto (Chairman) Gustavsson, Tore Keatinge Michael Lokkegaard, Jorgen Messina, Gaetano Moguedet, Philippe Munch-Petersen, Sten Officer, Rick Perraudeau, Yves Pestana, Graça Polet, Hans Salminen, Matti Simmonds, John Smit, Jos Virtanen, Jarno Vanhee, Willy,QYLWHGH[SHUWV Balguerias Eduardo Cardinale, Massimiliano Dickey-Collas Mark 67(&)6HFUHWDULDW Biagi, Franco 6

7 7(5062)5()(5(1&( STECF was asked to address the following issues:,qirupdwlrq IURP WKH &RPPLVVLRQ 67(&) QRPLQDWLRQ DQG 67(&) GDWD EDVH VXSSRUWLQJJURXS UHYLHZDQGFRPPHQWDV DSSURSULDWH WKH 6*0(' UHSRUW 0DUFK RQ 0HGLWHUUDQHDQILVKHULHV STECF should prepare a summary of the relevant information and advises contained in the SGMED report and state clearly whether it endorses the scientific advises therein presented FRRUGLQDWRU0HVVLQD*DHWDQR UHYLHZ DQG FRPPHQW DV DSSURSULDWH WKH 6*51 UHSRUW 0DUFK HYDOXDWLQJWKHQDWLRQDOUHSRUWVRQ&38(V STECF should prepare a summary of the relevant information and advises contained in the SGRN report and state clearly whether it endorses the scientific advises therein presented FRRUGLQDWRU3KLOLSSH0RJXHGHW DQDO\]H KRZ 0HPEHU 6WDWHV DQWLFLSDWH WR WUHDW WKH HFRQRPLF GDWD WKDW WKH\ ZLOO FROOHFWDFFRUGLQJWRDUWLFOHSDUDJUDSKVDQGRI&RXQFLO5HJXODWLRQ(&1R RI-XQHHVWDEOLVKLQJD&RPPXQLW\IUDPHZRUNIRUWKHFROOHFWLRQ DQGPDQDJHPHQWRIWKHGDWDQHHGHGWRFRQGXFWWKH&RPPRQ)LVKHULHV3ROLF\ STECF economist are requested to make use of all the linkages ( Concerted Action, EEA, joint research projects, etc..) available to them to carry out such a preliminary inquire. FR RUGLQDWRU-RV6PLW RXWOLQHDFURVV06DQGILVKHULHVWKHDFWXDOSUHFLVLRQDQGDFFXUDF\RIFRPPHUFLDO VWDWLVWLFV67(&)VKRXOGXQGHUOLQHVKRZDQGKRZPXFKWKHXQUHOLDELOLW\RIFDWFK VWDWLVWLFV ZLOO DIIHFW VWRFN DVVHVVPHQW RXWSXWV DQG SHUFHSWLRQ RI UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH YDULRXV ILVKHULHV 67(&) VKRXOG DOVR SURYLGH LQGLFDWLRQV RQ KRZWR LPSURYH WKH TXDOLW\ RI FDWFK VWDWLVWLFV WR WKH H[WHQW RI D GHVLUDEOH OHYHO RI DFFXUDF\DQGSUHFLVLRQ Article 5 of Commission Regulation n 2807/83 permits a margin of tolerance of 20 % in estimates of the quantities, in kilograms, of fish subject to a TAC that are retained on board. In particular, STECF should provide its opinion whether such tolerance is compatible with the level of accuracy needed for proper stock assessment. A threshold of 50 kg of live-weight of any species retained on board must be recorded in the log-book. STECF should advice whether such threshold is suitable with catch level per boat usually obtained in the Mediterranean. FRRUGLQDWRU-RKQ&DVH\) DGYLFH RQ WKH VWDWXV RI WKH GHPHUVDO DQG SHODJLF UHVRXUFHV ERWK LQ &RPPXQLW\ ZDWHUV DURXQG &DQDULHV,VODQGV DQG LQ RWKHU DUHDV RXWVLGH &RPPXQLW\ ZDWHUV WDUJHWHG E\ ILVKLQJ YHVVHOV UHJLVWHUHG LQ &DQDULHV STECF should advice whether 7

8 there are new fishing possibilities that can accept an increase of fishing effort. FRRUGLQDWRU:LOO\9DQKHH 2WKHUPDWWHUVPHHWLQJVSODQQLQJ $&)$,1)250$7,21)5207+(&200,66,21 67(&)QRPLQDWLRQ The Commission informed the Committee that renewal of STECF membership had been postponed because a new procedure is to be established. The proposed procedure, which foresees the launch of a call for expressions of interest for membership of STECF, will allow STECF members to be remunerated for their tasks. 67(&)GDWDEDVHVXSSRUWLQJJURXS STECF was provided by the Commission with a progress report (Annex II) of the STECF Database Supporting Group that is composed as follow: Wim Panhorst coordinator, Degel Henrik Evelina Sabatella Joaquin Gajate John Simmonds (STECF member) Richard Ayers Vidoris Pavlos 6XPPDU\RIWKHSURJUHVVUHSRUW $FWLYLWLHV In December 2002, a Specific Agreement was signed between the 'LUHFWRUDWH*HQHUDOIRU )LVKHULHV (DGFISH) and Intrasoft International, for the analysis phase of the (XURSHDQ )LVKHULHV'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ (EFDC) project. The supporting group, which acts on behalf of the STECF, was created to interact with Intrasoft, and to provide information on biological and economic data, sampling strategy and output requirements, in order to properly plan the architecture of the system as well as its query structure. Since the project started on 1 January 2003, the supporting group has met twice with representatives of Intrasoft and DGFISH. These meetings were held at DGFISH. At these meetings the supporting group answered various questions from Intrasoft about the Data Regulation 1639/2001, and reviewed and commented on the first drafts of the Mission Guidelines (MGL) and the System Requirements (SRD). A second draft of the SRD has just been circulated. Intrasoft made analysis missions to Italy (IREPA in Salerno) and Denmark 8

9 (ICES and DIFRES in Copenhagen) before work on the SRD and MGL started, in order to get an overall first impression of the fisheries scene. Minutes of the meetings at DGFISH and of the analysis missions are available from the co-ordinator of the STECF supporting group, Wim Panhorst, ICES.. &RPPXQLFDWLRQ RI 'DWD EHWZHHQ 1DWLRQDO 'DWDEDVHV DQG 'LUHFWRUDWH *HQHUDO IRU )LVKHULHV The Commission selected FIDES3 (FIsheries Data Exchange System - version 3 ) as the format to submit data requests and to transport data sets. FIDES3, however, will give no direct computer access to aggregated data in member states databases but provides a flexible form of data transport. ()'&&RQVWUXFWLRQDQG5HJXODWLRQ The Regulation 1639/2001 is not clear on all points and the supporting group identified numerous issues. In this context, STECF is asked to review and give advice on the following: The Regulation is not very specific in distinguishing between the two terms VSHFLHV and VWRFN 2) 2XWSXWUHTXLUHPHQWV are not defined. (A possible example of an output requirement is given in appendix 1 of the progress report (Annex II)) 3) Regarding the scientific evaluation surveys of stocks, the level of aggregation required is not specified. 4) The Regulation does not include facilities to report data on unreported catches. In addition the supporting group points to other problems related to different possible interpretations of the regulation. The supporting group states that it is unfortunate that insufficient funds are available for Intrasoft to have missions to HYHU\ member state, as these missions provide an excellent opportunity to explain the Data Regulation to national data co-ordinators and data administrators. &RPPHQWVE\67(&) STECF welcomes the progress made within the EFDC and comments on the four points made by the support group as follows: 1) STECF recognizes that the terms VSHFLHV and VWRFN are not consistently used in Regulation 1639/2001. STECF recommends that Council regulation (EC) 1639/2001 should be amended to provide a clear definition of the terms species and stock and that the database and data submissions be specified by both stock and species 2) It was not the intention to specify output requirements. Commission requests to STECF are of different type and very specific implying different output requirements of the system. Nevertheless it is appreciated that understanding the type of required output will enhance the database design. An example of a request with associated output requirements are in Appendix 1 of Annex II of this report, illustrating specific requests in relation to North Sea Cod. The database specification should include the ability to deliver such request efficiently. 9

10 Regulation 1639/2001 does not define survey parameters to be sampled neither does it define any level of aggregation of such data. ICES has co-ordinated survey data bases for the Baltic Sea (BITS-Baltic International Trawl Survey and BAD-Baltic) and for the surveys co-ordinated by IBTSWG (International Bottom Trawl Survey Working Group) and WGBEAM (Beam trawl survey working group) (DATRAS). However, there are numerous other surveys in ICES areas and other regions of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean for which such databases do not exist. Survey data can be separated to parameters used in assessments and other parameters also in aggregation levels not requested in Regulation 1639/2001. These may be important in relation to potential requests by the Commission. Due to the large complexity of survey parameters. STECF is not currently in a position to advise the Commission on the survey parameters to be recorded nor the aggregation and precision levels to be included in module G of Council Regulation (EC) 1639/2001. STECF UHFRPPHQGV that the &RPPLVVLRQRIIHUVDFRQWUDFWRUUHOHDVHVDFDOOIRUDVWXG\ LQ RUGHU WR GHILQH WKH VXUYH\ SDUDPHWHUV WR EH UHFRUGHG DQG WKH OHYHOV RI DJJUHJDWLRQ DQG SUHFLVLRQ WR EH LQFOXGHG XQGHU PRGXOH * RI &RXQFLO 5HJXODWLRQ(& 4) STECF is aware of the importance of unreported catches for assessments. However, it seems to be prudent not to include a module within Regulation 1639/2001 to report unreported catches. It is probably better to leave it to ICES and other convention working groups to compile these types of data. However, the EFDC system should provide the means to add such information on a STECF working group level. In addition, STECF shares the concern of the supporting group that there are not sufficient funds to have missions to every member state in order to clarify misunderstandings and misinterpretations in relation to articles 10 and 11 and relevant modules of Council Regulation (EC) 1639/

11 5(9,(:2)6*0('5( (',7(55$1($1),6+(5,(6 %$&.*5281' The STECF was asked by the Commission to give an overall knowledge of the fishing activity of the E.U. Mediterranean Countries and of the status of the stocks in the Mediterranean. Three SGMED meetings were proposed (SEC(2003)288) to have an overview over the Mediterranean Fisheries. A first subgroup on shared stocks was convened in September 2002 (SEC(2002)1374 and STECF comments on the results were reported in the report of the 15 th meeting of STECF. This second subgroup, chaired by Gaetano Messina was tasked to define the Mediterranean EU fleets, the existing and potential technical regulations and pros & cons of different alternative management options. A third session of the SGMED should address economic aspects of the Mediterranean fisheries; provisional terms of reference have been agreed at the 15 th STECF session. It is expected that the third SGMED meeting takes stock of the information and classifications provided in the previous meetings. Scientific advice for the Mediterranean fisheries calls for improvements of exploitation patterns through technical measures. To this end, it is fundamental an updated listing and description of the different fisheries currently undertaken in the various area by Community fishermen, irrespective of their legal status and of the fact that they catch shared or national stocks. In addition, as a complement to the work done during the first subgroup on major shared stocks STECF should provide biological and technical knowledge of other important shared stocks and fisheries not addressed during the first SGMED. 7(5062)5()(5(1&( The terms of reference, previously defined and accepted by the STECF as follows: 1. Classify the Mediterranean fleets in E.U. Countries; 2. Describe the fishery features [i.e. fleet, gear characteristics (mesh size, hanging ratio for active and passive gears, hook sizes etc.), fishing seasons and areas, main target species, catch composition and discards] etc.; 3. Specify where the fleet is located and how operates over the time; 4. Summarize the needs of fishing effort reduction for different stocks in different GFCM geographical sub-areas; 5. Evaluate the relationships between fishing effort, fishing mortality, catch rates and fleet capacity for the most important fisheries; 6. Indicate alternative options of fishing effort reduction to achieve equivalent reduction of fishing mortality to keep the stocks status within precautionary safe biological limits; 7. Evaluate and comment, as appropriate, inconsistencies of current mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes; 8. Identify the desirable length of first capture for major stocks. 11

12 9. Predict short and long-term results in catches, biomass and economic consequences under the assumption of increase selectivity in appropriate Mediterranean fisheries catching shared stocks, to respect the current minimum landing size and to set the length at first capture to the length at first maturity. The terms of reference have been duly expanded in order to take the opportunity of gaining as much information as possible. So the ultimate TOR on which the sub-group operated were the following: 1 Identify the current Community Mediterranean fisheries >ILVKLQJIOHHWVILVKLQJJHDU WDUJHW VSHFLHV RU PL[ RI VSHFLHV DUHDV VHDVRQV@ catching either shared or national stocks and irrespective of the number of interested fishing vessels. STECF is requested to be as much precise as possible in terms of fisheries identification, HJ fisheries using bottom trawl gears with very different structure should be considered as separate fisheries even though they might target the same mix of species. 2 Describe comprehensively the various fisheries: fleets involved, number and type of vessels, gear characteristics, number of fishing days per year, fishing regime (seasons, fishing grounds, distance from the coastline), main target species or group of species, size and species composition, catch rates, species and size composition of discards, etc. Distinction should be made between fisheries catching shared stocks and those catching local stocks of only national interest. All technological interactions between fisheries should be highlighted. Multi- and single-species fisheries should be clearly distinguished. 3 Provide, by fishery, possible changes (either trends or point estimates and both by major stocks and overall) of overall production, catch composition, catch rates and size composition occurred along time. 4 Provide the state of exploitation and the status of the stocks other than those already analysed in the first meeting. STECF should provide its opinion on sustainability of crustaceans fisheries using fixed gears with a soaking time lasting several days. An explicit ranking of fisheries and stocks, with respect both to the different level of suitable exploitation and risk of collapse, should also be provided. Such an analysis should consider all scientific evaluations available, even though undertaken outside GFCM framework (national labs, etc.). Whenever robust scientific information is not yet available, STECF is requested to provide its expert judgement. 5 Provide, for the stocks analysed at point 4, information and mapping on nursery and spawning grounds. 6 Summarise the needs of fishing effort-reduction for the various fisheries by different GFCM geographical sub-areas if necessary. For mixed fisheries provide an integrated overview of the figures referring to different species giving greater weight to the most relevant or sensitive key species. 7 Report, evaluate and comment as appropriate the relationships between fishing effort, fishing mortality, catch rates for the most important fisheries; 8 Evaluate whether there are alternative options to fishing effort reduction to achieve equivalent reduction of fishing mortality to keep the stocks in healthy conditions; 9 Provide a comprehensive and updated overview of length at first maturity for the main species caught by the different fisheries. Type and size of sexual inversion should be highlighted for hermaphroditic species. 10 Provide, based only on biological considerations, the desirable length at first capture for major stocks with particular attention to hermaphroditic species 12

13 11 Provide a comprehensive and updated overview of length at first capture and selectivity parameters (by mesh size and shape, hook size, hanging ratios, twine thickness, etc.) for the main species caught by the different fisheries. Results of selection panels and square mesh size trials should be reported and commented as adequate. STECF should evaluate and comment as appropriate inconsistencies between current minimum landing sizes and specifications of legally used fishing gears. 12 Explore and evaluate different ways of ameliorating substantially selectivity in different trawl fisheries either by modification in the rigging of the net and/or by increasing and modifying mesh size and shape. In particular, STECF should : a. predict short and long-term results in yield, biomass and economic consequences under the assumption of increase selectivity of fisheries catching shared stocks, either to respect the current minimum landing sizes or to set the length at first capture, for some key-stone stock, to other dimensions still compatible with sustainable use of the resources. Mesh sizes increase up to 65 mm for the various bottom trawl fisheries should be explored b. advice on the desirable length at first capture, both at the current fishing effort and other suitable sustainable effort levels, for major stocks. STECF should identify the corresponding gear specifications which are consistent with the results depicted above. c. advice on the feasibility to implement the regular use of lastridge/lacing ropes in Mediterranean bottom trawl fisheries, by providing also the adequate hanging ratio, in order to reach the expected selectivity of 40 mm mesh size or other mesh size as considered adequate by the STECF for trawl fisheries d. evaluate whether and how the current devices attached, either internally or externally, to the towed gears create prejudice to the opening and dimension of suggested mesh size with consequent reduction of expected selectivity of the lengthening piece and codend. 13

14 In order to give a guide for developing all the items, a pro-forma index has been structured as showed by the following table: $ ),6+(5,(6 % 5(6285&(6 & *($5 7(&+12/2*< $1'6(/(&7,9,7< &+$3 72:('*($56),6+(5,(6 &+$3 &+$3 3856(6(,1(),6+(5,(6 ),;(' $1' '5,)7,1* *($5 ),6+(5,(6 &+$3 6800$5<2)63(&,$/),6+(5,(6 - summary, for various species, of their biological characteristics (size of first maturity, size of sexual inversion). - status of fishing stocks and management advises; provide quantitative opinions, desirable length at first capture, closed areas (geographic co-ordinates). - Integrated View By Fishery This section should allow to pass from a stock by stock perspective to a fishery perspective. mapping the nursery areas by species and by geographical sub areas (give the geographic co-ordinates and possibly its dimensions) Outcomes of selectivity experiments. In order words, when a general call for limiting catches of juveniles, then these trials should tell which mesh size, or selection panels and hanging ratio should be used. ' 6800$5<2)1$7,21$/$1'5(*,21$//(*,6/$7,215(/$7,9( 727(&+1,&$/0($685(6$1'63(&,$/),6+(5,(6 ( 6800$5<2)$'9,&(6$1'),1$/&216,'(5$7,216 Several fisheries, identified by : JHDUW\SH WDUJHWVSHFLHVRUJURXSRIVSHFLHV were considered, with reference to the GFCM geographical sub-areas. For each fishery, the following issues were addressed by referring to the technical papers annexed to the report: 1. describe the fleet concerned by maritime department, main dimensions, power, GT 2. fishing time over a year 3. fishing equipment (characteristics of net, mesh size, hanging ratios, use of lastridge ropes, how many nets per hauls, otter boards ). Recent modifications of the fishing gear that allow exploitation of formerly unexploited fishing grounds. 4. deck layout and machinery involved (trawl winch, net drum..). whether any changes that occurred in the last 10 years have improved efficiency and hence fishing mortality; 14

15 how much the fishing time has increased by reducing the setting and retrieval of the net; how much bigger are the nets in comparison to the recent past; how many fishing gears per boat how much has increased the swept area 5. describe any changes to electronic equipments, over the last 10 years, improving fishing efficiency and hence fishing mortality (example of improved exploitation of fishing grounds not accessible without GPS). Are there any examples of fishing grounds currently being exploited that were not exploited in the past? 6. data on catch (species, quantity, discards, temporal trends, changes in time of size composition..) 7. Technical Interactions with other fisheries 8. Special features. It should be pointed out here, whether, when and where such a fishery is currently operating under a certain derogation to the current general rule of mesh size, distance from the coast etc. and how the derogation is managed at national/regional level. 9. Relationships between fishing effort, fishing mortality, catch rates ),1$/5(0$5.6 Due to the amount of information requested and to the limited time between the working group meeting (held the week before the plenary) and the plenary session, it has been impossible to finalise the report. Therefore the STECF agreed to review the provisional report and invites the co-ordinator of SGMED to finalise the report, in the forthcoming weeks, taking into consideration the comments of the STECF. The STECF acknowledges the huge amount and quality of the work so far accomplished by the SGMED and suggests the following: (1) STECF notes that it should be useful to have in the report some summary tables of data by fisheries. These tables should show analogies and differences between various fishing gears used in the Mediterranean countries, technical characteristics and related target species. (2) STECF stresses the importance of a common definition of fishery in order to avoid different approaches in the various geographical sub-areas (GSA). For example bottom trawling on continental shelf and slope are considered one, two or more fisheries in this first draft report. (See also the definition given in Section 3 of this report). (3) The WG uses in the report the geographical sub-areas geographical sub-areas (GSA) adopted by the GFCM for management purposes. The WG should add in the introduction, a map of the different GSA in the Mediterranean sea, and providing according to these areas. (4) The WG report contains some biological information not included in the first Mediterranean report (September 2002). To avoid any repetitions, the co-ordinators 15

16 of the two working group should review the second report in order to remove all the information already provided in the first SGMED report (SEC(2002)1374). (5) The STECF reviewed the annexes provided by the working group and considered that they contain very useful reference information. Nevertheless, considering the aim of the report, STECF requests that only the most useful information is included in the main body of the report. (6) STECF notes that there is a lack of information for some geographical sub-areas in the four countries. The STECF requests that these shortfalls in information are rectified as soon as possible in the near future. (7) The STECF requests the sub-group to critically review the draft report to exclude unnecessary or redundant information. (8) Due to the fact that this is one of the first occasions where information on all the Mediterranean fisheries are compiled in a single document, the STECF requests the sub-group to produce a summary of each chapter and a comprehensive list of the references cited. (9) STECF notes that most of the selectivity information presented deals with bottom trawling. For other fishing methods, few data are presented and consequently the conclusions for such methods are not well supported. (10) STECF also considers that, except for bottom trawling, not enough information is available in the report on ways to improve gear selectivity, i.e. not enough for sound recommendations on possible technical measures. Published material including grey literature should be further explored. Research should be encouraged to fill the gaps in knowledge where needed. (11) STECF notes that the recommendations in the draft report are rather vague. STECF recommends that the final recommendations in the report should be much more explicit and be tailored to guide the Commission in making future proposals for regulation or management. (12) The STECF recognises the complexity of the TOR and notes that the report does not contain answers for some issues. The report nevertheless represents a considerable achievement and although not yet exhaustive, further contributions may provide answers to the outstanding issues. '$7$&2//(&7,216*515(32575(9,(:$1'&200(17$6$335235,$7(7+( 6*51 5(3257 ± 0$5&+ (9$/8$7,1* 7+( 1$7,21$/ 5( &38( 6 STECF reviewed the SGRN report (SEC(2003)551) on the analysis of CPUE data collection within National Programmes in 2003 and onward and their utility over the period STECF considers that documents provided to SGRN by some Members States were incomplete. For example there was nothing concerning WECCAF, IOTC, IATTC fisheries, little about cpue series in the NAFO area and nothing on demersal fisheries commercial data series for some Mediterranean Countries. Furthermore some documents were not useful for SGRN and STECF as the information provided was not appropriate. STECF fully agrees with the conclusions of Section 6 of the SGRN Report, and draws the following recommendations on the content of the Minimum and the Extended Programmes : 16

17 1. The Minimum Programme should contain only data series for catches and effort for : Fleets which have been used at any time from 1995 onwards in stocks assessments (analytical or production model), Fisheries where there is no stock assessment and where cpue series were the only way for the International Working Group to estimate trends in the stocks abundance at any time from 1995 onwards, Fisheries where there are International Organisation obligations (some Large Pelagic fisheries of ICCAT for example). 2. The Extended Programme should contain data series for catches and effort for : Fleets which have not yet been used in stocks assessments but where stocks assessments are expected to be conducted in the future e. g. Mediterranean waters, Fleets where data collection started in recent years until these data series are used in stock assessments; (STECF suggests that such data series should be transferred to the Minimum Programmes when they are used in the stock assessments). Fleets for which cpue data series are collected but are presently only used for collecting biological data (length and age composition, maturity data). 3. If the data series are not included under the minimum or the extended programmes they should be funded nationally if necessary. STECF anticipates that a future need for commercial CPUE series arises from the Commission s consideration of management in a mixed fisheries context (the North Sea Commission Fisheries Partnership discussed this at their meeting in 2002). In this context it will be necessary to have adequate sampling for all the important fisheries/metiers, for example as defined by the ICES Study Group on Development of Fishery-based Forecasts (SGDFF), in Boulogne (2003) which distinguish between fleets on one side, and fisheries and metier on the other: A fleet is as a physical group of vessels sharing similar characteristics in terms of technical features and/or major activity (e.g. the Dutch beam trawler fleet < 300 hp, regardless of which species or species groups they are targeting) A fishery is a group of vessel voyages targeting the same (assemblage of) species c.q. stocks, using similar gear, during the same period of the year and within the same area (e.g. the Dutch flatfish-directed beam trawl fishery in the North Sea) A métier is a homogeneous sub-division of a fishery by vessel type (e.g. the Dutch flatfish-directed beam trawl fishery by vessels < 300 hp in the North Sea) STECF considers that satisfaction of this need requires : Œ Each Member State to define appropriate fisheries/metiers based on the fleet activity with respect to target species, gear, temporal and spatial activity, 17

18 ΠΠFor each of these fisheries/metiers that information on the population structure (age and length) of the catch (landings and unaccounted for catch) be collected, and, That appropriate information from other countries be used to describe the population structure of the catch by fishery components which are not sampled by all Member States (eg. discards). STECF considers that this framework provides the necessary ingredients to perform analyses that will yield scenarios of utility to mixed fisheries management evaluation. STECF considers that the sampling programmes to obtain commercial cpue data series can be achieved at little cost. STECF notes that for some small-scale fisheries the cost will be high, but where these fisheries are representative of the fishery as a whole they may yield high quality assessment data. STECF has taken into consideration the SGRN concerns about the use of cpue data as an index of abundance. This is particularly true for shoaling small and medium pelagic species due to the way they aggregate, and for gears such as purse seine due to problems of definition of the effort. STECF notes that generally cpue data series are not used for assessment of small and medium pelagic species. STECF wishes to stress that for stocks where there are severe quota restrictions, commercial CPUE series based on landings only (i.e. LPUE), might be severely biased, because of discarding, illegal landings, transhipping and farming. STECF draws the following UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV from the SGRN report (SEC(2003)551): priority should continue to be given to developing and disseminating methods for modelling disaggregated CPUE data so that they may be applied to best advantage in stock assessments a closer alignment should be urgently sought between the sampling strata in the Regulation (modules D and E of the EC Data Regulation 1639/2001) and the strata required by the stock assessment Working Groups. These strata should be at the lowest possible level of dis-aggregation the internal consistency of the commercial CPUE/LPUE series used in stock assessments should be evaluated for their information about relative year-class strengths using the within-year-class and between-fleet correlation methods described in $QQH[,,,. These methods have the advantage of being independent from the main stock assessment method (e.g. XSA) and therefore do not rely on assumptions concerning the accuracy of total catch/landings data co-ordination regarding the collecting strategy of commercial data series in the Mediterranean waters should be introduced among the EU Member States as it is developing in the ICES area (e.g. Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling, PGCCDBS) data series for catches and effort should be collected by all EU Member States involved in the main demersal fisheries in the Mediterranean waters As the data needs for Deep Sea species represent a critical and exceptional case, collection of cpue series should be included within included within the Minimum Programme of the 18

19 Member States involved in these fisheries, despite the fact that these data series are not yet being used for stock assessments. STECF UHFRPPHQGV that amended Tables of the SGRN report included by STECF under $QQH[,9 should be used to fix the content of the minimum and extended programs under Regulation 1639/2001. (&2120,&,668(6 )8785( 25*$1,6$7, ($7 7+( (&2120,& '$7$ 7+$7 :,// %( &2//(&7(' %< 7+( 0(0%(5 67$7(6 $&&25',1* 72 &281&,/ 5(*8/$7,21(&12 35(9,2865(325762)7+(67(&) In 2000, the STECF decided to ask the Sub-Group on Economic Assessment (SGECA) to consider the institutional basis and technical conditions for the continuation of the work on economic assessment of the EU fisheries. The Report from SGECA (October 2000) was considered by STECF at the November 2000 meeting and the 11 th STECF Report contains, under the item Economic Issues, several recommendations about the organisation of future work. In the following 12 th (SEC(2001)1581,13 th (SEC(2002)410, and 14 th (SEC(2003)288) STECF Reports economic issues concerning the Annual Economic Report (AER) and the Economic Interpretation of ACFM Advice (the EIAA Model) were considered, and the weaknesses of the existing system (framework) were emphasised. Furthermore, in the 14 th STECF Report (SEC(2003)288), under the item dealing with the Scientific Advice and the Role of the STECF in the future Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), an overall framework for the future organisation of the integration of information of management commissions and scientific committees concerning the international fishery of the EU was pictured (pg 37 scheme of the flow chart). In relation to this framework the necessity of establishing a stable structure for economic analysis was emphasised. This was also included in the STECF s comments on the Commission Communication Paper concerning Improving Scientific and Technical Advice for Community Fisheries Management at the 15 th STECF meeting in November 2002 (SEC(2003)550). The following summarises the experiences and recommendations concerning the future organisation of fisheries economics issues. 7+(0$,1,668(6)$&,1*67(&)5(/$7('72(&2120,&6 (FRQRPLF3HUIRUPDQFHRI(8)LVKHULHV$(5 The STECF has for many years been in need of comprehensive and reliable economic information to enhance the advice on TAC and technical measures. Only a few member state institutions collect that type of information on a permanent basis, and economic data have never been collected on a Community basis. The need of STECF for economic information - for example, an annual economic report - is related to the desire of knowing the economic 19

20 situation of different fleet segments within EU fisheries and the economic repercussions of fisheries management. A useful tool in that respect has been provided through the AER (see Section 4.4.1). (FRQRPLF,QWHUSUHWDWLRQRI$&)0$GYLFH(,$$DQG2WKHU0RGHOV While the AER provides empirical information with a time lag of one year the EIAA seeks to fill in the gap between the empirical economic information and the biologically based advice on future TACs. The EIAA model calculates, subject to a number of assumptions, the effort and cost that are required to catch the proposed quotas that are derived from the TAC. The method requires that quotas are determined, which limits the EIAA to the around 110 quota-management areas of the EU. Further the applicability of the EIAA is limited by the need to know the catch (landings) compositions of the pertinent fleet segments. The EIAA model has been developed over the years of the concerted action projects (see Section 4.4.1) in Excel spreadsheets. Several specific economic models have been developed and applied since the mid-90s. Contrary to the EIAA model most of these models are effort driven. Further information about these models is included in the report from the February meeting 2002 on Fleet dynamics of the STECF joint working group SGBRE-SGECA (SEC(2003)73) 27+(5(&2120,&,668(6 %URDGHU(FRQRPLF9LHZV The opportunity to give opinions about the general direction of fisheries management would assist the decision-making process in improving the condition and sustainability of European Fisheries by anticipating the influence of economic incentives on the behaviour of fishing and fish processing enterprises. This is hardly available at all at present and then only through such media as replies to the Green Paper on the Future of the CFP rather than through STECF. 'HWDLOHG(FRQRPLF9LHZV Responses to questions posed by the Commission are covered at present to a limited extent but not satisfactorily. Furthermore, co-operation between biologists and economists could be organised in a better way. Despite fishing being an economic activity, driven by economic incentives, economists are not active when questions are defined and solutions proposed. Economists are not asked to offer economic options to bring about a solution to a problem. Rather they are simply asked what are the likely socio-economic consequences of a pre-determined proposal which they have not been asked to participate in formulating. This is an inappropriate use of expertise and a sub-optimal means of decision-making. 20

21 7+((;,67,1*%$6,62)(&2120,&$'9,&( 7KH &RQFHUWHG $FWLRQ (FRQRPLF $VVHVVPHQW RI (XURSHDQ )LVKHULHV 4&$ The present Concerted Action (CA) is the third of a series and now provides the Annual Economic Report on the economic position of EU fisheries for the STECF. This will continue until 2004 (with a report on the 2003 financial results of selected fleets). 75 fleets from 20 countries are covered, representing approaching 60% of landings by value. The CA has developed a consistent set of definitions for the collection of economic data on European fleets. It has also been involved in the production of the report on the EIAA and has been responsible for the continuing development of the EIAA model. However the CA concludes at the end of 2004 and is not expected to continue. 7KH(XURSHDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI)LVKHULHV(FRQRPLVWV($)( The European Association of Fisheries Economists (EAFE) was inaugurated in 1989 with support from the Commission and is the professional organisation of fisheries economists in the European Economic Area. Its objectives are: To promote co-operation in economic research in fisheries and aquaculture, To assist in the dissemination of information about fisheries economics among members, To undertake any activity deemed appropriate to further the understanding of fisheries economics, and To serve as a channel of communication with other interested bodies. Its members are drawn mainly from public and private sector research institutions and academia. EAFE has some 7 Corporate Members and about 100 individual members. It also has an Advisory Committee on fisheries economics matters but it is not in a strong position to be able to deliver continuing advice as its own resources are negligible and it has no external funding. Until now, EAFE has not been integrated into the fisheries advisory system but it does represent a pool of expertise on economics applied to fisheries throughout Europe. 7+(29(5$//)8785()5$0(:25. 7KH67(&)3URSRVDO The 14 th STECF Report (SEC(2003)288) suggested that the future role of the STECF should be as a core advisory body charged with integrating information from all management commissions and scientific committees concerning the international fishery of the EC. It set out the schematics in a flow chart reproduced below. However, the bubble reflecting economic information was imprecise and a proposed structure for a Fisheries Economics Committee (FEC) has been added together with EAFE (shaded box). 21

22 European Commission ACCOBAN/ ASCOBAN CCALMR ICCAT IOTC Others (eg. CECAF, WECAF STECF NAFO Economic Information (eg. EAFE) ICES Subgrou Ad hoc GFCM Member countries (Independent experts) SGRST SGFEN WG ($)( SGEC SGMOS FISHERIES ECONOMICS COMMITTEE Economics Experts STECF Economists MS Institutions for collection of economic data SGRN SGBR SGMED New SG $)LVKHULHV(FRQRPLFV&RPPLWWHH)(& STECF UHFRPPHQGV that a Committee of some 15 to 20 people comprising three groups; the STECF sub-group, the Economics Experts sub-group and the Data sub-group should be established. This Committee should cover the Economic parts of STECF work as defined in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. To finalise the work some of the topics will include other experts from STECF and sometimes STECF as a whole. 67(&)6XE*URXS This group would comprise all the economists from the STECF and as such would form the core group of the FEC. Their function would be to assist in formulating the economic 22

23 advice and then communicate and explain it to the STECF. They occupy a central role and would assist in the production of the reports about economic performance of EU fisheries (AER) and economic interpretation of management advice (EIAA), and in responding to Ad Hoc Questions from the Commission. Production of the EIAA requires the collaboration of STECF biologists. Both the EIAA and other anticipated models and responses to Ad Hoc Questions may require the collaboration of the STECF as a whole. (FRQRPLFV([SHUW6XE*URXS These would be called ad hoc to meetings where they have a particular expertise that would assist the FEC in arriving at its advice to the STECF. They could be called from public or private sector organisations or academia as necessary and on the basis of research projects undertaken and funded by the EU. They could be asked to contribute, if necessary, to the reports about economic performance of EU fisheries and economic interpretation of management advice (AER and EIAA) and would assist in responding to Ad Hoc Questions from the Commission. 'DWD6XE*URXS This group would include representatives from the institutions responsible for collecting the MS s economic data under Council Regulation N o 1543/2000 and Commission Regulation N o 1639/2001. As such they would provide a vital link between the data available and its use to assist management of the EU fisheries. They would replace the CA in producing the input to the evaluation of the economic performance of EU fisheries and could be required to assist in the activities and the economic interpretation of management advice and in responding to Ad Hoc questions from the Commission. 6HFUHWDULDW The STECF secretariat is provided by the Resource Directorate of DG Fisheries. It would facilitate co-operation on economic issues if the FEC were served by a secretariat provided by the Directorate responsible for Fisheries Economics. 67(&)IUDPHZRUN The Fisheries Economics Committee (FEC) might be established as an integrated part of the new structure of STECF and funded by the STECF budget. $/7(51$7,9()5$0(:25.6 Ad hoc frameworks could be considered for combining the economic data collected by the MS under Regulation 1543/2000 and for the preparation of economic reports, e.g. AER and further development of tools for sector analysis, e.g. EIAA. One of the options would be to investigate whether the work covered by the Concerted Action could be continued under the umbrella of ERANET (6 th FP). In that case, the National administrations should take action to open this option. The structural funds open theoretically the possibility to organize studies under the objectives Technical assistance and Innovations. This might provide a solution for 23

24 2005 when the Concerted Action has been concluded. It is uncertain whether this option will also be available after STECF would welcome these options but prefers a structural solution as indicated in section 4.5,1&25325$7,1*7+((;,67,1*%$6,6,1727+()8785(6758&785( 7KH&RQFHUWHG$FWLRQ2Q(FRQRPLF$VVHVVPHQWRI(XURSHDQ)LVKHULHV The above mentioned CA will continue in a temporary role to provide the AER and EIAA in 2003 and 2004 and should participate in FEC in line with the representation from member states responsible for collecting economic data in this period. (XURSHDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI)LVKHULHV(FRQRPLVWV($)( The role of EAFE will be to provide the experts for the FEC. Economists come from a range of public and private sector institutions and consultancies, but by and large are not in government research organisations. There is therefore a need for a focal point and to some extent EAFE already fulfils this function. To develop its role it needs a strengthened basis which would facilitate the flow of information required by the participants in the FEC. (8UHVHDUFKSURMHFWLQFOXGLQJHFRQRPLFV In addition to the project referred to in Section 4.2 a number of research projects including fisheries economics have been carried out with support from the EU. It could be of value to review to what extent the result of these projects could be applied to EU fisheries management. STECF suggests that the Commission prepares a list of the projects for the review process. Apart from the FP5, DG-Fish itself supports economic projects and in the future, FP6 (priority 8) will support economic research supplemented with minor direct support from DG-Fish. Attention should also be given to the data collection programme adopted in 2000 in which the financial allocation for studies and pilot projects may be provided from up to 15% of the annual budget for data collection (Council Decision of 29 July 2000, 2000/439/EC, Article 9). 7+(6,78$7,212)7+('$7$&2//(&7,21$62)0$5&+ The needs of the STECF for data are described in sections 4.2 and 4.3 in this chapter. In the future, the only way of obtaining this information is by the data collection regulations. STECF has received information from the Commission on the progress made by the different Member States (MS). This information is summarised in table 4.1. As can be concluded from the table the MS may be divided into three groups: A system is in place and is in operation Pilot studies has started Planning has started 24

25 Table 4.1 Provisional list of fleet economic data collection according to National Programmes (Sources: Information provided by members of STECF at the 16 th Meeting of STECF") &RXQWU\,QLWLDO\HDURI (FRQRPLF'DWD &ROOHFWLRQ3XEOLVKHG 5HJXODUO\,QLWLDO <HDURI 3LORW 6WXGLHV 1DWLRQDO )OHHW 6HJPHQWV $FWXDOO\ &RYHUHG,QLWLDO<HDUWR ILOO(FRQRPLF 'DWD &ROOHFWLRQ Belgium 1957 no 100% 2002 Denmark 1995 no 100% 2002 Finland 1997 no 100%** 2002 France % 2003 Germany no %** 2004 Greece no n.i. n.i Ireland n.i % 2004 Italy 1985 no 95% 2002 Nederland 1948 no 100% 2002 Portugal no %** 2004 Spain no %** 2004 Sweden 1997 no 98% 2002 UK %*** 2004 ** No artisanal *** no information for under 10m vessels n.i. = no information available to STECF In order to exchange information and practical experience, STECF UHFRPPHQGV to organise a meeting between the MSs institutions responsible for economic data collection and the Commission. The inclusion of economists from STECF and representatives from the Concerted Action into this meeting could be valuable. In addition to the discussion about the problems associated with the collection of economic data, STECF in particular noted the possibility of collecting the required data in many different ways, whilst in each case complying with the requirements of the applicable regulations. Differences in sampling design and methodology, which can arise in the absence of a standardized methodology for data acquisition, may lead to poor correspondence between data sets. This in turn could lead to problems when comparing results of economic interpretation of biological assessments and forecast for different fleets in otherwise rather similar circumstances. STECF noted that many of the problems associated with the collection of biological data might also be pertinent to the compilation of economic data. For example the present and future value of discards, the value of non-reported or misreported landings (see section xxx) HWF, are areas where biological data is inadequate this is likely to also be the case in respect of economic data. In addition economic data collection may, in certain circumstances, generate additional problems of its own. This is particularly true where data might be used DJDLQVW the data provider. Such considerations can lead to significant level of mistrust and damage the relationship between data collector and provider. &200(5&,$/&$7&+67$7,67,&6 The response to this term of reference is dealt with in five sections plus a summary of the main conclusions and recommendations. 25