-
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, XX.XX.2007 SEC (2007) XXX
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL and ECONOMIC COMMITTEE for FISHERIES
(STECF)
STECF Sub-group on Research Needs (SGRN):
Revision of the Biological Data Requirements under the Data
Collection Regulation
(meeting coded SGRN 06-03)
Brussels, 27 November - 1 December 2006
The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF) evaluated and endorsed this report by correspondence in
XXX
-
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 STECF comments 3
3 STECF Conclusions and Recommendations 4
4 Annex I: SGRN Report 4
-
1 Introduction
The STECF-SGRN (SGRN 06-03) met in Brussels from November 27th
till December 1st, 2006, to:
1. Review all information required by the Data Collection
Regulation N°1639/2001 amended N°1581/2004 for scientific advice on
stocks and fisheries (Sections C, D E, F, H and I; Appendix I to
XIII, XV and XVI): problems encountered, possible special
statistical problems.
2. Propose clusters of fleet segments to be used as strata in
the new Data Collection Framework for the Fleet-Fishery Based
Sampling at the regional level based on the outcomes of the June
2006 Ad-hoc experts Workshop.
3. Review whether a list of species by region is necessary or
not; propose, whenever necessary and possible, criteria for
grouping species and stocks in the regional lists. The future needs
for the ecosystem approach (sampling of non commercial species) in
the light of the SGRN June 2006 recommendations should be also
considered.
4. Provide a list of parameters and data to be collected; the
needs for current and future fisheries and bio-economic models (for
these models only the biological data requirements) will have to be
considered; the inclusion of new parameters and new data (e.g. VMS
data) should be considered.
5. Define a general framework for efficient sampling that will
ensure quality in terms of coverage and precision by region;
periodicity, level of aggregation (if relevant) and precision level
should be considered.
6. Propose procedures for improved regional integrated sampling
programmes on fish markets and at sea (observers on board).
7. Any other business.
The Report of the SGRN 06-03 is given in Annex I.
2 STECF Comments
XXX
3 STECF Conclusions and Recommendations
XXX
-
Annex I
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL and ECONOMIC COMMITTEE for FISHERIES
(STECF)
STECF Sub-group on Research Needs (SGRN):
Revision of the Biological Data Requirements under the Data
Collection Regulation
(meeting coded SGRN 06-03)
Brussels, 27 November - 1 December 2006
-
SGRN 06-03 - Table of Contents
1 Introduction
.............................................................................................................
1
1.1 List of participants
............................................................................................
1 1.2 Terms of Reference of the SGRN
06-03.......................................................... 1
1.3 Background and aims of the current revision of the
DCR................................ 2 1.4 SGRN 06-03 meeting
targets and structure of the report
................................ 3
2 Current and expected data
needs...........................................................................
5
2.1 Introduction
......................................................................................................
5 2.2 ICES (North East Atlantic)
...............................................................................
5 2.3 STECF (mostly North East
Atlantic).................................................................
8 2.4 NAFO (North West Atlantic)
.............................................................................
9 2.5 GFCM (Mediterranean Sea)
..........................................................................
11 2.6 GFCM (Black
Sea).........................................................................................
14 2.7 CECAF (Central East
Atlantic).......................................................................
15 2.8 ICCAT and IOTC (Tuna, tuna-likes, highly migratory
sharks)........................ 15 2.9 CCAMLR (Antarctic waters)
...........................................................................
18 2.10 Eel, Anguilla anguilla (European marine and inland waters)
......................... 21 2.11 Ecosystem approach (all sea
areas)..............................................................
23 2.12 Conclusions
...................................................................................................
25
3 Synoptic overview of data needs and data collection
schemes............................ 29
3.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................
29 3.2 Data needs and data collection schemes
...................................................... 29
4 The sampling population and its stratification
....................................................... 32
4.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................
32 4.2 Overall structure of the métier matrices
......................................................... 32 4.3
Métier matrices agreed so far
........................................................................
34 4.4 Inclusion of recreational fisheries in the métier matrices
............................... 34 4.5 The métier matrices as a
sampling design tool..............................................
35 4.6 Conclusions
...................................................................................................
35
5 Métier-specific and stock-specific data
.................................................................
37
5.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................
37
-
5.2 Collection of métier-specific data
...................................................................
37 5.3 Collection of stock-specific
data.....................................................................
41 5.4 Conclusions
...................................................................................................
41
6 Métier-based data collection "in the field"
.............................................................
43
6.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................
43 6.2 Limiting the number of métier matrix cells to be sampled to
the most
important ones
...............................................................................................
43 6.3 Mergers of métier matrix
cells........................................................................
45 6.4 Joint sampling of "supra-national" métiers
..................................................... 46 6.5
Conclusions
...................................................................................................
46 6.6 Frequently asked questions on the métier matrices
...................................... 48
7 Aspects of data
quality..........................................................................................
49
7.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................
49 7.2 Precision levels in the new
DCR....................................................................
49 7.3 Interaction between end-users and data
providers........................................ 50 7.4
Conclusions
...................................................................................................
51
8 Required changes to other fishery-related EU
Regulations.................................. 52
8.1 Introduction
....................................................................................................
52 8.2 Logbook Regulation
.......................................................................................
52 8.3 Other Regulations governing the collection and transmission
of effort and
landings
data..................................................................................................
53 8.4 VMS Regulation
.............................................................................................
53
9 Proposal for a second meeting
.............................................................................
54
9.1 Rationale for having a second
meeting..........................................................
54 9.2 Proposed
ToR................................................................................................
54
Annex 1: FAQs on the métier
matrices.........................................................................
55
-
1
1 Introduction
1.1 List of participants
Haritz Arrizabalaga Eduardo Balguerias Guerra Mette Bertelsen
(ICES) Paolo Carpentieri Jorgen Dalskov Anna Gardmark Ernesto
Jardim Ciaran Kelly Philip Kunzlik Mika Kurkilahti Hans Lassen
(ICES) Richard Millner (Rapporteur to the Chair) Martin Pastoors
(ICES) Renaud Pianet Tiit Raid Hans-Joachim Rätz Frank Redant
(Chair) Katja Ringdahl Christoph Stransky Frans van Beek Antonio
Vazquez Joel Vigneau (Rapporteur to the Chair)
European Commission
Franco Biaggi, DGFish (part-time) Roberto Cesari, DGFish
(part-time) Antonio Cervantes, DGFish (part-time) Pol Degnbol,
DGFish (part-time) Olle Hagström, DGFish (part-time) Philippe
Moguedet, DGFish (part-time) Iain Shepherd, JRC
1.2 Terms of Reference of the SGRN 06-03
The workshop of the Sub-Group on Research Needs on the revision
of the biological data requirements under the Data Collection
Regulation (DCR), hereafter named SGRN 06-03, took place in
Brussels from November 27th till December 1st, 2006, to:
1. Review all information required by the Data Collection
Regulation N°1639/2001 amended N°1581/2004 for scientific advice on
stocks and fisheries (Sections C, D E, F, H and I; Appendix I to
XIII, XV and XVI): problems encountered, possible special
statistical problems.
2. Propose clusters of fleet segments to be used as strata in
the new Data Collection Framework for the fleet-fishery based
sampling at the regional level based on the outcomes of the June
2006 Ad-hoc experts Workshop.
-
2
3. Review whether a list of species by region is necessary or
not; propose, whenever necessary and possible, criteria for
grouping species and stocks in the regional lists. The future needs
for the ecosystem approach (sampling of non commercial species) in
the light of the SGRN June 2006 recommendations should also be
considered.
4. Provide a list of parameters and data to be collected; the
needs for current and future fisheries and bio-economic models (for
these models only the biological data requirements) will have to be
considered; the inclusion of new parameters and new data (e.g. VMS
data) should be considered.
5. Define a general framework for efficient sampling that will
ensure quality in terms of coverage and precision by region;
periodicity, level of aggregation (if relevant) and precision level
should be considered.
6. Propose procedures for improved regional integrated sampling
programmes on fish markets and at sea (observers on board).
7. Any other business.
1.3 Background and aims of the current revision of the DCR
When the first DCR (EC Regulation 1639-2001) was written,
fisheries management was essentially stock-based and the DCR was
conceived accordingly. In 2003, it was decided to revise and amend
the DCR (which resulted in EC Regulation 1581-2004), amongst others
to remedy a number of inconsistencies in the initial version of the
DCR (particularly in the appendices) and to replace the rather
awkwardly defined sampling levels for length and age by a system of
target precision levels. Overall, however, the stock-oriented
approach remained.
Although the DCR has been a major step forward with regards to
data collection in support of the Common Fisheries Policy, it has
become clear now that it falls short in providing the general
framework for the new, fleet-based approach to fisheries
management. One of the main objectives of the current revision
therefore is to reshape the entire DCR, so that it meets the data
requirements of both the existing, stock-based assessments and the
fishery-based management systems that are likely to be implemented
in the foreseeable future.
Apart from the above, there are a number of other major
challenges that need to be addressed while revising the DCR. These
include the integration of the ecosystem approach to fisheries
management in the data collection framework, and the inclusion of
eel (Anguilla anguilla) and the associated data collection
programmes in support of the eel management plans.
In addition, the planned revision is taken as an opportunity by
the Commission to simplify the DCR (e.g., by replacing the long
list of appendices in the current DCR by a simpler and more
flexible system), and to strengthen and formalise regional
co-operation, particularly in the field of biological data
collection.
Over the past years, the Commission has issued several documents
that spell out the aims of the planned revision of the DCR (see,
e.g., the Working Documents presented at the dialogue meetings
between the Commission and the Member States in spring
-
3
and early summer 2006). These aims can be summarised as follows
(ref.: Revision of the Data Collection Regulation, Doc. D 01582
(Annex), October 27th, 2005):
• Support new approaches to fisheries management such as the
move from stock-based to fleet- and area-based management.
• Support moving towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries
management.
• Promote implementation of a more regional dimension to
fisheries management.
• Increase quality and validation of the data used in fisheries
management.
• Improve access to and exchange of data.
• Improve the use of the data.
• Integrate the entire chain from data collection to stock
evaluation in a single framework.
• Promote simplification of the data collection framework.
1.4 SGRN 06-03 meeting targets and structure of the report
The planned move from an essentially stock-based to a
fishery-based data collection framework requires a major overhaul
of the DCR. This is a considerable task, which needs to be given
serious thought and reflection, to make sure that all aspects of
data collection are properly covered by the new framework and that
the changed "rules of play" are crystal-clear to those who will
have the task of putting the new DCR into practice.
Instead of trying to adapt the existing DCR to the new needs,
the SGRN 06-03 has taken a top-down approach and has identified the
current and expected data needs of the end-users first, before
starting the discussion on how these needs should be fulfilled by
the new DCR. At the meeting, it was decided to allow sufficient
time for an open exchange of views on the philosophy of the new
DCR, and to leave the technical aspects for a second meeting.
The report starts with an overview of (i) the current and
expected data needs of the prime end-users of DCR-data (ICES,
STECF, NAFO, GFCM, CECAF, ICCAT, IOTC and CCAMLR) and (ii) the data
needs with regards to eel and the ecosystem approach (Chapters 2
and 3).
It then moves to the definition of the sampling population and
how this can be subdivided in operational strata for data
collection purposes (the métiers) (Chapter 4).
Next, the report discusses the difference between métier- and
stock-specific data and how data collection should be organised for
the two data types (Chapter 5).
In the following chapter, the report addresses the subject of
how the new, fishery-based data collection framework should be
implemented "in the field" and formulates suggestions on how the
system can be kept workable and affordable without however
impairing the quality of the end-products (Chapter 6).
The report also briefly touches upon data quality aspects (the
precision levels) and the interaction between data providers and
data users on quality aspects (Chapter 7).
-
4
As the new DCR heavily depends on data that are collected under
other EU Regulations, the SGRN 06-03 also discussed the changes
that are needed to these Regulations, (i) to put them in line with
the data requirements of the new DCR, and (ii) to make sure that
they provide the critically important, legal basis for the
collection of the required data (Chapter 8).
Finally, as not all aspects of the revision process could be
dealt with during the first meeting, the SGRN 06-03 is proposing to
have a second meeting, to finalise the task and to fill in the
technical details of the new DCR (Chapter 9).
-
5
2 Current and expected data needs
2.1 Introduction
In an attempt to define the data needs that should be covered by
the new DCR, the SGRN 06-03 decided to take a top-down approach and
to ask experts from the different regional advisory bodies to make
an inventory of the advisory bodies' data needs. In so doing,
attention was paid not only to the data requirements for the
existing types of management advice that the advisory bodies are
giving, but also to the likely future types of advice and their
associated data needs. In the following sections, the current and
expected data needs are reviewed by advisory body, viz.:
• ICES, International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea.
• STECF, the European Commission's Scientific, Technical and
Economic Committee on Fisheries.
• NAFO, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.
• GFCM, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
• CECAF, Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic.
• ICCAT, International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas, and IOTC, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.
• CCAMLR, Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources.
Separate sections then deal with the data needs for eel,
Anguilla anguilla, in both marine and inland waters, and the
ecosystem approach, which is common to all sea areas.
2.2 ICES (North East Atlantic)
Summary of presentation given by Martin Pastoors (Chair of ICES
Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, ACFM).
General advisory needs
Thinking about fisheries management in the ICES-area in the
years to come could be in terms of the following types of
management measures:
• Capacity and effort regulations:
- Licenses. - Gear bans and gear restrictions. - General
activity restrictions.
• Catch regulations:
- TACs and quota by country. - Quota by fleet. - Quota by
vessel, by means of, e.g., Individual Transferable Quota
(ITQs).
-
6
• Spatial and seasonal restrictions, e.g., marine protected
areas (MPAs).
• Technical measures on gear design.
The types of management measures also shape the type of advice
that will be required and the type of data that will be needed as a
basis for the advice.
In the (draft) new Memorandum of Understanding between the
European Commission and ICES (2007-2009), there are three main
policy areas where ICES is asked to provide advice:
• Long-term management plans:
- Evaluate long-term management plans for consistency with
horizontal policies and international agreements and – if in the
agreement – provide advice on the basis of these long-term
management plans.
• Fleet-based approach to mixed fisheries management:
- Ensure consistency between the advice given for each fishery
and stock in a mixed fisheries context.
- Explore how advice may be further developed in relation to
changes in fishing practices.
• Ecosystem approach to fisheries management:
- Assess the extent to which fishing disturbs the marine
ecosystem. - Provide any new information regarding the impact of
fisheries on other
components of the ecosystem including small cetaceans and other
marine mammals, sea birds and sensitive habitats.
- Inform on any notable impact of other factors on and
imbalances in ecosystem structure that may affect the stocks of
commercially valuable species and their long-term exploitation.
- Propose reference points as guidance for management purposes
in an ecosystem context.
The overall direction in both the policy development and the
advisory needs appears to be towards a wider ecosystem- and
fishery-based approach compared to the (recent) past, which was
heavily geared towards TAC management and short-term forecasts.
Data requirements
The ambition of the DCR should be to (i) closely monitor the
developments in the fisheries (where are they fishing, what are
they catching, etc.), the fish stocks and the effects of fishing on
the ecosystem, and (ii) allow evaluation of the types of questions
that are raised in the management process to the extent that they
are amenable to scientific analysis.
The implications of the trends in policy and advice for the DCR
are related to three different types of information that will be
needed in the future: (i) fleet activities (métiers), (ii)
populations, and (iii) ecosystems.
At the fleet activity level of the commercially exploited (fish)
species, ICES expects to require information on fleet capacity,
effort and catches (landings and discards). The
-
7
lowest detailed level of information on the catches would be the
relative abundance by species, and the most detailed level the
length composition of the catches by métier, where métier is
defined as a combination of fleet and fisheries characteristics
(including gear and mesh size).
At the population level, it is expected that the data
requirements will necessitate sampling for fecundity, maturity and
growth (including age). This implies that the sampling for age
(done at the population level) could be decoupled from the sampling
for length (done by métier). Obviously, sampling at the population
level will need to be structured by season and area.
At the ecosystem level, there will at least be a requirement to
provide information on the trends in non-commercial by-catches and
discards. These can be obtained from both research surveys and
on-board observation programmes. In order to address the linkages
between different species in the ecosystem, it may also be required
to investigate the possibility of (low-level) stomach sampling
programmes on a regular basis on the research vessel surveys.
Linkage between the different sources of information
The separation between the planning of survey sampling and catch
sampling in the SGRN meetings is unfortunate (1) because it is the
balance between the two types of information that determines the
type of advice that can be given. Initiatives for combined surveys
addressing both commercial fish stocks and ecosystem aspects should
be encouraged.
Research surveys should increasingly be viewed as ecosystem
research platforms instead of fish stock index generators, e.g., by
incorporating:
• Non-commercial species abundance.
• (Low level) stomach sampling.
• (Low level) tagging studies to address question on migration
and stock identity.
Data requirement tables
Tables 2.1 - 2.6, compiled by the ICES secretariat upon request
of the SGRN 06-03, summarize the data requirements for the
different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out by
ICES. In an accompanying note, the ICES Secretariat stressed that
the summary of the data needs is largely based on the advisory
requests to-day and that the data needs will have to be
re-evaluated if the management system (and hence, the type of
advice requested) changes.
With regards to the new MoU species, there is a need for
targeted projects aiming at the development of methodologies that
can make use of relatively short time series of sometimes highly
aggregated data.
(1) This comment refers to the fact that the biological data
requirements and the surveys at sea are reviewed by two different
meetings of the SGRN, viz. the SGRN 06-03 (the current meeting) and
the SGRN 07-01 (planned for early 2007).
-
8
2.3 STECF (mostly North East Atlantic)
Summary of presentation given by Hans-Joachim Rätz (Chair of the
STECF Sub-group on Mixed Fisheries, STECF-SGMix).
Data requirements
STECF-SGMix notes that the data aggregation levels and the lack
of an obligation to collect important voyage-specific parameters in
the current DCR entail that the information collected is
inappropriate to evaluate many existing (and future) fleet-based
management regulations (such as, e.g., the regulations based on
by-catch levels by gear type and mesh size).
STECF-SGMix also notes that the métier definitions proposed and
adopted by the Nantes workshops (2) and the Regional Co-ordination
Meetings are designed to optimise sampling strategies in the new
DCR. However, STECF-SGMix notes that the proposed métiers do not
match the recent fleet-based management regulations (which are
based on much finer sub-divisions of operational activities than
the métiers) and may not match future regulations. Therefore, while
collecting data on whatever aspect of the DCR (catch and effort
data, discard data, length and age compositions, etc.), it is of
critical importance that all the information is stored in its raw
format (e.g., the actual location of a haul, the actual mesh size
of the gear) and not by operational sampling stratum (e.g., the
sub-division where the vessel was fishing, the mesh size category
according to the métier definitions). In doing so, any type of
post-stratification would remain possible and, provided that the
DCR contains clear rules on the communication of raw data by the
Member States to the end-users, it would highly facilitate STECF's
work in defining groupings of vessels, operational activities,
etc., that match the regulations on which the STECF is expected to
advise.
Therefore, STECF-SGMix recommends that all parameters of
relevance to fleet-based fisheries management should be recorded as
raw data and provided by Member States to the STECF upon simple
request by the latter, either at the level of raw data or at any
appropriate level of aggregation defined by the STECF.
Data requirement tables
Table 2.7 summarizes the data requirements for the different
types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out by the STECF.
(2) Commission Staff Working Paper: Report of the Training
Workshop on Fleet-Based
Approach. Nantes, France, 13-17 March 2006, 31p.
Commission Staff Working Paper: Report of the Ad hoc Meeting of
Independent Experts on Fleet-Fishery Based Sampling. Nantes,
France, 12-16 June 2006, 101 p.
-
9
2.4 NAFO (North West Atlantic)
Summary of presentation given by Antonio Vazquez (Chair of the
NAFO Scientific Council).
Introduction
The NAFO Convention has four constituent bodies: (i) the General
Council (which represents the Organisation), (ii) the Fisheries
Commission (responsible for fisheries management), (iii) the
Scientific Council (responsible for scientific advice), and (iv)
the Secretariat. The NAFO Regulatory Area is the part of the
Convention Area outside the EEZ of the bordering coastal states
(Canada, US, Greenland and France).
Types of advice requested
According to the NAFO Convention, scientific advice can be
requested by the Fisheries Commission or any coastal state.
Currently, only Canada and Greenland are asking for scientific
advice other than the Fisheries Commission. Canada does so on
particular issues related to the stocks in the Regulatory Area, and
Greenland on the West Greenland stocks inside its EEZ.
Fisheries management in the NAFO area is mainly based on a TAC
and quota system. Scientific advice is requested as a basis for
management, but the assessment methods to be used are not
specified. However, if the advice is based on a formal analytical
assessment, it is requested to consider the implications of fishing
at F0.1 and FStatus quo in the following years. If the advice is
based on a general production type analysis, it is requested to
consider the 2/3 FMSY option. If neither of these approaches is
possible, it is requested to evaluate stock status in the context
of long-term sustainability.
Occasional advisory requests are made on a wide variety of
issues, such as stock distribution, stock structure, mesh sizes,
by-catches in regulated fisheries, status of non-regulated stocks,
etc.
Since 2004, when the Fisheries Commission adopted a
Precautionary Approach Framework for the management of individual
stocks, additional advice is requested on (i) reference points,
(ii) the current status of the stock, (iii) possible harvest
strategies to move the stock to or to maintain it in the "safe
zone", and (iv) risks associated with crossing the reference
points.
More recently, the Fisheries Commission expressed the desire to
also include ecosystem considerations in the conservation and
management of fish stocks in the NAFO area. In that line, advice
has already been requested on the conservation of vulnerable
deep-water habitats, and the role of seals in the marine ecosystem.
The request for advice on ecosystem considerations is expected to
increase in the near future.
Assessment methods
The main fish and shellfish stocks in the NAFO area have been
managed for many years now. Initially, scientific advice was based
on production models, but it has moved towards analytical types of
assessments when the data allowed for it. For some
-
10
stocks, particularly those that have recently been included in
the advisory process, the data collected are still insufficient for
analytical assessments, but there is a general willingness amongst
the NAFO Scientific Council members to lift the assessments to the
highest possible scientific level. Species with particular problems
to reach this target are squid (Illex illecebrosus) and Northern
shrimp (Pandalus borealis), where alternative evaluation methods
are needed. Unfortunately, the annual analytical assessments had to
be discontinued for some stocks that are under a fishing
moratorium, mainly because of the lack of commercial catch
data.
Methods currently in use for stock analysis are XSA, ADAPT,
ASPIC and general production models. The newly adopted
Precautionary Approach Framework is defined in terms of reference
values for fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass, and
requires refined estimates of these two parameters.
Data requirements
Data currently required are: CPUE, quantities caught and
discarded, length and age compositions of the removals, maturation
ogives and survey abundance indices (not considered here).
For the EU-fleets in the NAFO area, the basic sampling unit is
the on-board observer trip. Each observer is provided with clear
instructions on what, how and when to sample, as well as sampling
targets to be reached. Specific instructions are also given for
each species on how to take the measurements, the length groups
that should be considered, and when sampling must be done by sex.
It is worth noticing that the cost of an observer trip is the same,
regardless whether the sampling requirements are for one hundred or
for one thousand fish. In practice, the planned sampling is defined
as the number of observer trips by fleet component per year. At
some point, it has been proposed to join the scientific sampling
trips with the NAFO Observers Programme, but the idea was rejected
by the Scientific Council based on the argument that the need for
confidentiality is a prerequisite to accuracy. This could no longer
be guaranteed if the two programmes were merged.
Data collected by the on-board observers include: area fished,
fishing effort, volume of catches, by-catches and discards, length
composition of the removals, otoliths, gonads and stomachs. VMS
data can be requested to verify the allocation of the fishing trips
between adjacent divisions.
The NAFO Scientific Council has defined the minimum sampling
requirement as one sample per 1000 t of fish or shellfish caught,
for each division (or subdivision, where applicable), quarter and
gear type. As a rule, the samples should consist of 200 fish from
the entire length range for length measurement and one fish per cm
length group for age measurement. These requirements were agreed
when catches were much higher, the consequence being that nowadays
sampling intensities risk falling below the minimum quality
standards. In practice, the Scientific Council considers
deficiencies in sampling stock by stock, and makes recommendations
for improvement.
When the ecosystem approach is implemented, different additional
types of data will be needed.
-
11
Data requirement tables
Tables 2.8 and 2.9 summarize the data requirements for the
different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out in the
NAFO area.
2.5 GFCM (Mediterranean Sea)
Summary of presentations given by Paolo Carpentieri and Franco
Biaggi (DG Fish).
Specific nature of the Mediterranean fisheries
The main feature of the Mediterranean fisheries is the very high
number of small vessels and the wide diversity of fishing
techniques used by artisanal (skipper-owner) fishermen. This is
important from both a socio-economic and a management point of
view, and rules and regulations need to take this into account. The
artisanal vessels land their catches to many small and sometimes
isolated ports and beaches. This not only creates problems with
regards to enforcement and control, but also makes recording of
catches and fishing effort very cumbersome. Fisheries statistics in
the Mediterranean have been relatively poor for many years,
particularly for the smaller vessels, and while the situation has
improved in recent years, they are still largely incomplete.
In addition to the small scale fisheries, there are also
important fishing activities carried out by larger vessels
(demersal and pelagic trawlers, long-liners, purse-seiners, etc.),
which provide the larger markets with sea products. Corporate
fisheries are limited to the tuna purse-seiners and the very recent
activity of tuna farming.
Fisheries management and advice
Originally, fisheries management by the Mediterranean EU
countries was mostly under national jurisdiction. National
management regimes were then supplemented by EU Regulations. The
management of tuna and tuna-like species is under the
responsibility of the ICCAT (of which the EC is an active member),
while management advice for some shared fish stocks other than tuna
(e.g. Gulf of Lions, Sicily Channel) is provided by the GFCM. The
GFCM is currently in the process of changing the form of most of
its management advice from stock- to fisheries-oriented advice.
Fisheries management in the Mediterranean is primarily by effort
control and minimum catching or landing size. TAC and quota
regulations are restricted to internationally agreed TACs for
bluefin tuna, and quota established by local management consortia
for clams (Venus gallina) off the Italian Adriatic coast and some
stocks of small pelagics (Engraulis encrasicolus, Sardina
pilchardus) under Spanish jurisdiction.
Many fisheries in the Mediterranean are very complex, with many
different métiers and a multitude of target species. Trawl
fisheries, e.g., are multi-specific, and management measures
suitable for one species may have undesirable effects on the other
species. An important fraction of the target species in the
multi-species demersal fisheries consists of small finfish,
cephalopods and crustaceans with high commercial value on the local
markets. This fact has conditioned the choice of the gears. The
mesh size currently used in the bottom trawls (the legal mesh size
is 40 mm) entails high retention rates of small-sized individuals,
also for those belonging to species that
-
12
potentially can reach much bigger sizes. For many species,
juveniles compose most of the catches.
Assessment methods and data requirements
Stock assessments for most of the species and species groups
mentioned above are under the responsibility of the GFCM's
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). Currently, there are two major
approaches to stock assessment:
• Simple models of biomass dynamics that rely on catch data and
some index of abundance.
• Length- and age-structured analytical models, such as LCA and
VPA.
Different variants of these models have been implemented and
applied, using data from the commercial fishery or from research
surveys, the use of the latter being limited to the analytical
approaches.
Most evaluations of Mediterranean demersal resources to date
were for single stocks and were based either on trends in swept
area estimates of abundance, on some application of analytical and
production models or, more recently, on length-based evaluation
methods. Although some food chain studies have been carried out,
multi-species modelling has not been developed yet. The
difficulties in producing assessments have mainly been related to
the scarcity of information on different aspects of the fisheries
and, to some extent, on the life history of the species.
The multi-specific and multi-gear characteristics of most
fisheries, the extremely dispersed landing sites and the small
fraction of the catch that passes through organised fish markets,
makes monitoring of the Mediterranean fisheries particularly
difficult. The existing, traditional practices of fish sorting and
selling make that species separation is often incomplete, and this
hinders the estimation of the landings by species. In order to
obtain unbiased samples of the size structure of the catches,
sampling from all the fishing strategies (métiers) that capture
each of the species is necessary. In most Mediterranean countries,
sampling is very expensive taking into account the high price of
the samples to be purchased and the high number of species of
commercial importance in each fishing strategy.
Discarding at sea is practiced in the Mediterranean, at least by
trawlers > 12 m, and hence the catch (and the fishing mortality
by age) for some species cannot be estimated unless both
information on the size composition and the overall amount of
discards is available. Again, this information can only be obtained
at very high cost.
In light of the difficulties with the sampling of commercial
catches, programmes based on the collection of fishery-independent
data (i.e. trawl-surveys, eggs and larvae surveys) were promoted at
both the national and the European level to estimate stock biomass
and to obtain biological data. These research activities have
significantly increased the knowledge on the distribution,
abundance and population structure of many, primarily demersal
species of economic importance (such as hake, Merluccius
merluccius, red mullets, Mullus barbatus and Mullus surmuletus, and
several large crustaceans). Most of the knowledge on these
resources has been acquired through bottom trawl surveys in the
context of both national (e.g. the GRUND survey along the Italian
coast) and international projects (e.g. the MEDITS survey). The
MEDITS project started in 1993 and aimed at the standardization of
the survey methodology between the different countries (France,
Greece, Italy and Spain). Since 1996 and 1999
-
13
respectively, also data from the Eastern Adriatic Sea (Slovenia,
Croatia and Albania) and the Moroccan waters are available.
For the small pelagics too, such as sardine and anchovy,
different approaches to stock assessment have been used, relying on
fishery-dependent data and/or direct estimates of stock
abundance.
In the Mediterranean, compliance with the data requirements for
fisheries assessments is more demanding than in other areas.
Despite the progress made during the last decade, the available
data are still far from being comparable to those in other
RFO-areas, and the problems related to data reliability and
accuracy are widely recognized. In this context, a continuation of
the combined use of fishery-dependent and -independent data is
strongly recommended.
Standardization of the approaches to data collection, fisheries
monitoring, statistics compilation and research on fish population
dynamics is needed in the light of the problems of over-fishing and
environmental degradation in the Mediterranean.
Upcoming new Fisheries Regulation for the Mediterranean
During the meeting, the SGRN 06-03 was informed that a new
Fisheries Regulation for the Mediterranean is to be agreed and
implemented in the near future. This new Regulation will
drastically change the overall approach to fisheries management in
the area and is likely to have major consequences with regards to
the supportive data collection systems. The text of the new
Regulation was not available to the SGRN 06-03, but the following
excerpt from the Press Release on the 20-21 November 2006 Council
Meeting on Agriculture and Fisheries gives an idea of the changes
that can be expected:
The Council reached political agreement by a qualified majority
on a draft Regulation concerning management measures for the
sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean
Sea, on the basis of a compromise drawn up by the Presidency in
cooperation with the Commission.
The Council will adopt this Regulation at one of its forthcoming
meetings after finalisation of the text. The French delegation
indicated its intention to abstain.
The objective of the proposal is to establish sustainable
fisheries in the region by improving the exploitation of aquatic
living resources, and protecting sensitive habitats whilst taking
into account the specific nature of the small-scale Mediterranean
coastal fisheries. Discussions on this proposal in the Council have
been taking place for nearly three years since the proposal was
presented by the Commission.
The main features of the Presidency compromise endorsed by the
Commission are:
• The introduction of 40 mm square mesh of bottom trawls and
(under certain circumstances) diamond meshed net of 50 mm by 1 July
2008 at the latest.
• The general rule still involves prohibition of the use of
trawl nets within 1.5 nautical miles. However, trawling activities
within the coastal bands (between 0.7 and 1.5 nautical miles) could
be authorised under certain conditions (Article 12(6)(b)).
-
14
• Purse seines may be temporarily used until 31 December 2007 at
a distance from the coast of less than 300 metres or at a depth
less than the 50 metres isobath, but not less than the 30 metres
isobath.
The proposal, in particular:
• Introduces new technical measures to improve the selectivity
of the current 40 mm mesh size for towed nets;
• Strengthens the current ban on the use of towed gear in
coastal areas;
• Limits the overall sizes of certain fishing gear that affects
fishing effort;
• Introduces a procedure for establishing temporary or permanent
closures of areas to specific fishing methods, either in Community
or international waters (*);
• Provides for the adoption in the Mediterranean area of
management plans combining the use of effort management with
technical measures (*);
• Delegates powers to Member States to regulate, in their
territorial waters and under certain conditions, fishing activities
that do not have any significant Community dimension or
environmental impact, including certain local fisheries currently
authorised under Community law.
SGRN 06-03 expects that the scientific underpinning of
especially the two bullet point marked with an asterisk, will
require the collection of complementary data, on top of the
information that is already being collected in the
Mediterranean.
Data requirement tables
Pending the availability of more detailed information on the
contents of the new Fisheries Regulation for the Mediterranean, the
SGRN 06-03 decided not to put together any data requirement tables
for the area. Being proactive is one of the major challenges in the
current revision of the DCR, and since the data requirements for
the Mediterranean are likely to change when the new Fisheries
Regulation comes into force, it is essential that these are taken
into account when defining the data needs under the new DCR.
2.6 GFCM (Black Sea)
On January 1st, 2007, Bulgaria and Romania will join the EU and
hence, be expected to comply with the rules of the DCR.
With regards to Modules C (Fleet capacity), D (Fishing effort),
E (Data related to catches and landings), J (Economic data by
groups of vessels) and K (Data concerning the processing industry),
there is no need to adjust the contents of the DCR, as these
Modules apply to all EU Member States and all areas where EU-fleets
operate.
With regards to Modules F (Data concerning the catches per unit
of effort), G (Scientific evaluation surveys of stocks), H
(Biological sampling of catches: composition by age and by length)
and I (Other biological sampling), however, there is a major
problem, as the DCR, in its present form, has no provisions
whatsoever for the Black Sea area.
-
15
As the SGRN 06-03 had no information on the current or expected
advisory and data needs in the Black Sea area, it was unable to
formulate proposals on the associated data requirements in the new
DCR. This lack of information urgently needs to be remedied,
otherwise there risks to be an embarrassing empty space in the new
DCR with respect to the scientific evaluation surveys and the
collection of fishery-related biological information in the Black
Sea.
2.7 CECAF (Central East Atlantic)
Summary of presentation given by Eduardo Balguerias Guerra.
Data requirement tables
Tables 2.10 - 2.12 summarize the data requirements for the
different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out in the
CECAF area.
2.8 ICCAT and IOTC (Tuna, tuna-likes, highly migratory
sharks)
Summary of presentation given by Renaud Pianet (Chair of
Tropical Species Working Group of ICCAT; former Chair of Scientific
Committee of IOTC). The presentation largely focused on ICCAT, but
the situation with regards to stock assessments and associated data
needs for the other tuna RFOs is very similar to that in ICCAT.
Fisheries management and advice
Initially, the species considered by ICCAT were tunas and
tuna-like species, but ICCAT's mandate has been extended a few
years ago to also include species caught in association with tuna
(sharks, other fishes, marine mammals, sea turtles and sea
birds).
Management advice for tuna is generally based on the estimation
of stock status (in relation to MSY) and results in:
• TACs, particularly for albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye
tuna (Thunnus obesus), bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and swordfish
(Xiphias gladius).
• Effort limitations, particularly for tropical tunas, by means
of moratoria, closed areas or seasons, applicable to either all
fishing activities of more specifically to fish aggregating devices
(FADs); and
• Minimum landing sizes, particularly for bluefin tuna and
swordfish, and until recently also for bigeye tuna and yellowfin
tuna (Thunnus albacares).
Assessment methods
Different assessment methods are being used, depending on the
information available (on fishery and biology) and the species
characteristics: fishery indicators, production models,
age-structured models (VPA, based on age composition data derived
from length compositions and growth curves), two-box VPAs,
time-and-area disaggregated statistical models (Multifan-CL,
A-Scala, etc.). For the future, the use of the latter is
recommended, as they require less substitutions / raisings and
incorporate additional information derived from, e.g., tagging.
-
16
One of the major problems in the assessments of tuna is linked
to the interpretation of the CPUE indices. These are standardized
by means of Generalized Linear Models (GLM) to discern between year
and other effects (season, area and sometimes gear type). In
tropical tunas, the long-line CPUEs for adults present the problem
of discriminating between the different target species, while the
purse seine CPUEs for juveniles have the problem of discriminating
between fishing modes. In temperate tunas, bait-boat and trolling
CPUEs are problematic, because the fishing area is usually small
compared to the population distribution area, and inter-annual
variations in the migration pattern of the animals are likely to
affect the observed trends in CPUE.
Data requirements
In principle, the responsibility over data reporting is at the
country level. In practice however, data are generally reported
from two sources: "reporting flag" and "vessel flag".
ICCAT defines three levels of data collection:
Task 1 (mandatory for all countries):
• Fleet characteristics:
Number of boats by flag, gear type and size (GRT or LOA classes)
and main target species.
• Nominal catches:
Total annual landings by flag (reporting and vessel), main
fishing area, gear type and species. Discards (dead or alive) are
also supposed to be reported. Origin and processing of data have to
be specified. For some surface fisheries, the landings (mainly of
small fish, < 5-10 kg) are made by commercial size categories of
mixed species, which have to be sampled for species
composition.
Task 2 (mandatory for all countries):
• Catch and effort:
Effort and catches by species, month, gear type and spatial
stratum (1° square for the purse seiners and bait-boats; 5° square
for the long-liners; geographical or stock area for the artisanal
fisheries). The origin of the data, logbook coverage, raising
methods used, etc., has to be specified.
• Length sampling:
Actual and raised size frequencies by species, gear type and
spatial stratum (month and 5° square for the purse seiners and
bait-boats; month and 5x10° square for the long-liners; month or
quarter and geographical or stock area for the artisanal
fisheries).
Others tasks (upon recommendation by the Scientific Committee on
Research and Statistics, SCRS):
• Updates of biological parameters:
- Maturity and fecundity. - Sex ratio (particularly for bigeye,
yellowfin and swordfish).
-
17
- Growth. - Morphometric relationships (e.g. length-weight
relationships).
• Observer programmes:
Estimates of the discards of tuna and by-catch species on part
(5-10%) of the industrial fleets (long-line and purse-seine).
• Note: The collection of these types of information will
probably become mandatory in a few years time.
Tagging
Tagging is a major tool in tuna research and management,
comparable to the at-sea surveys for commercial fish and shellfish
in other RFO-areas. The results of tagging experiments are of
particular importance as an input to the statistical models.
Traditional tagging (spaghetti tags) has been used in all oceans
since more than 40 years, and has been the principle source of
information on most of the fishery-related and biological
parameters for tuna: growth, movements, natural mortality,
exploitation rates, interactions between fisheries, etc.
Electronic tagging provides information mainly on the behaviour
and habitat use of the tunas (depth and temperature preferences,
fishery-independent information on migration routes, feeding, etc.)
and their association with other fishes or FADs (time of residence,
etc.). The main advantage of electronic tags is that they can be
used to assess the mixing rates between stocks and the availability
of the stock to a given gear/fishery, independently of the dynamics
of the fisheries.
Ocean-wide tagging is most beneficial in the medium term. These
programmes are expensive, but extend over several years (4-5 years)
and are planned every 10-15 years in each ocean. Smaller scale,
routine (yearly) tagging activities are also useful in the long
term.
Ecosystem approach
Recently, the ICCAT sub-committees on by-catches and
environmental aspects have been merged into a single Sub-committee
on Ecosystems, with the general purpose of developing an ecosystem
approach to fisheries management within ICCAT. The terms of
reference of this sub-committee include ecosystem monitoring,
research and modelling activities that would allow integrating
ecosystem considerations into the scientific advice (impact of
tuna-directed fisheries on non-target species, ecosystem benefits
of management options, etc.). The same approach has been also taken
by IOTC at its last Scientific Committee meeting (November
2006).
Data requirement tables
Tables 2.13 - 2.22 summarize the data requirements for the
different types of stock evaluations / analyses carried out by
ICCAT and IOTC.
-
18
2.9 CCAMLR (Antarctic waters)
Summary of presentations given by Eduardo Balguerias Guerra and
Roberto Cesari (DG Fish).
CCAMLR’s Regulatory Framework
CCAMLR is developing a unified regulatory framework to:
• Provide guidance on the data and information requirements for
all fisheries in the Convention Area to support the development of
management advice by the Scientific Committee, in accordance with
both the precautionary and the ecosystem approaches to fisheries
management.
• Design control mechanisms to enable the collection of data and
information for scientific analysis which aim to ensure that
fisheries in the Convention Area do not expand faster than the
acquisition of information necessary for the development of
management advice.
• Streamline the process of annual review and assessment of
fisheries by the Scientific Committee and its working groups in the
face of the increasing number of fisheries in the Convention
Area.
The regulatory framework sits within the existing regulatory
requirements of CCAMLR and encompasses procedures for notification,
establishment of research and fishery operation plans as well as
data collection plans for all fisheries.
A key component of the framework is a reference document known
as "Fishery Plan". Each such Plan provides a comprehensive summary
of information on a fishery, including fishing activities and
regulatory requirements (research and fishery operation plans, data
collection plans, harvest controls, notification requirements).
Data collection and reporting obligations
(a) VMS data
All Contracting Parties must ensure that their vessels (except
those fishing for krill) are equipped with a satellite-linked
vessel monitoring device allowing for the continuous reporting of
their position in the Convention Area. The vessel monitoring device
shall automatically communicate at least every four hours the
following data: fishing vessel identification, date and time, and
geographical position of the vessel, with an error of less than 500
m.
In addition, the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework also has rules for
the transmission of the VMS data to the CCAMLR Secretariat, and on
the notification by Contracting Parties of the movements of their
flag vessels between sub-areas and divisions of the Convention
Area.
The obligation on reporting VMS data, however, does not apply to
vessels licensed under French domestic law in the EEZ around
Kerguelen and Crozet Islands, and to vessels licensed under South
African domestic law in the EEZ surrounding Prince Edward
Island.
-
19
(b) Catch and effort data
Within the Convention Area, there is a particular measure which
compels vessels to the use of the "Five-day catch and effort
reporting system". At the end of each reporting period, each
Contracting Party must obtain from each of its vessels the total
catch of all species, including by-catch species, together with the
total days and hours fished, and transmit the aggregated catch and
effort data for its vessels to the Executive Secretary of CCAMLR.
For the long-line fisheries, the number of hooks must also be
reported, and for the pot fisheries, the number of pots. Such a
report must be submitted by every Contracting Party taking part in
a fishery, for the duration of the fishery, even if no catches are
taken.
Another measure orders that all Contracting Parties shall, at
the end of each month, obtain from all their vessels (except those
fishing for krill) the data required to complete the CCAMLR
fine-scale catch and effort data forms. The following data must be
reported: catch of all target and by-catch species, numbers of
seabirds and marine mammals by species, either released or
killed.
With regards to the krill fisheries, there is an obligation for
the Contracting Parties to obtain from their vessels haul-by-haul
data to complete the CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data forms.
Krill catch and effort data must be reported according to
statistical area, sub-area, division or any other unit with catch
limits.
(c) Biological data
At the end of each month, each Contracting Party must obtain
from its vessels (except for those fishing for krill)
representative length composition samples of both the target and
the by-catch species. Representative length samples must be taken
from each grid rectangle (0.5° latitude by 1° longitude) where
fishing has occurred.
(d) Research data
The CCAMLR measures on scientific research require that all
Contracting Parties report the following for all their research
activities in the Convention Area:
• All data required under the provisions of the CCAMLR five-day
reporting system (see above).
• All research catches as part of the annual STATLANT
returns.
• A summary of the results of all research activities, within
180 days after completion of the activities, and a full report
within 12 months.
• Catch, effort and biological data resulting from the research
activities, according to a particular haul-by-haul reporting
format.
CCAMLR scheme of international scientific observation
The CCAMLR Regulation Framework has extensive provisions on
international scientific observations. These include specific and
far-reaching rules on the designation and the acceptance of
scientific observers, and on the function, tasks and modus operandi
of the observers.
The observers are entitled to collect information on, amongst
others, the vessel's operational activities, its effort and catches
by species, the procedures by which
-
20
declared catch weight is measured, the length composition of the
catches, the occurrence and incidental mortality of seabirds and
mammals in relation to fishing operations, etc. In addition, they
can also collect biological information on the species in the
catches (scales and otoliths for age determination, sex and gonad
state, diet and stomach fullness, etc.).
Catch documentation scheme for Dissostichus spp.
The Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) for toothfish, Dissostichus
spp., became binding to all Contracting Parties on May 7th, 2000.
The scheme is designed to track the landings and trade flows of
toothfish caught in the Convention Area and, where possible,
adjacent waters. This should enable CCAMLR to identify the origin
of toothfish entering the markets of all Contracting Parties, and
help determine whether toothfish taken in the Convention Area are
caught in a manner consistent with the conservation measures.
Completion of the CDS documents is required for all actions
undertaken with Dissostichus eleginoides and D. mawsoni, including
landing, transhipment, import, export or re-export, and is the same
under all CDS participants' customs law or other domestic
legislation.
Regulation of Exploratory Fisheries
For the period over which a fishery is classified as
"exploratory", the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR can develop (and
update as appropriate) a Data Collection Plan (DCP), including
research proposals, to ensure that adequate information is made
available for stock evaluation purposes. The DCP identifies the
data needed and describes all research actions necessary to obtain
the relevant data. Where appropriate, the Data Collection Plan may
include:
• A description of the catch, fishing effort and related
biological, ecological, and environmental data required to
undertake the evaluations.
• A plan for directing fishing effort during the exploratory
phase to permit the acquisition of relevant data for the evaluation
of the fishery potential and the ecological relationships among
harvested, dependent and related populations as well as the
likelihood of adverse impacts.
• A plan for the acquisition of any other scientific data by
fishing vessels, including activities that may require co-operative
actions between the scientific observers and the vessels'
crews.
• An evaluation of the time-scales involved in determining the
responses of harvested, dependent and related populations to
fishing activities.
During exploratory fisheries, the following data must be
collected and reported to the CCAMLR Secretariat:
• Location of the exploratory fishing activities.
• Catch, effort and biological data for all species, on a
haul-by-haul basis.
• The total number and weight of toothfish discarded.
• Length measurements of the different toothfish species, by
haul, up to a maximum of 35 fish taken randomly from the catch.
-
21
• Length measurements of all other fish, by haul, up to a
maximum of 100 fish per species, together with 30 fish sampled for
biological studies.
• Records of all by-catch species, and records of the numbers of
seabirds and marine mammals caught and released or killed, by
species.
In addition, the long-line vessels must tag and release a
specific number of toothfish per ton of catch, according to the
CCAMLR Tagging Protocol. Vessels can only discontinue tagging after
they have tagged 500 toothfish, or left the fishery. The tagging
programme targets toothfish of all sizes, and releases are intended
to cover as broad a geographical area as possible. Recaptured
tagged toothfish must be biologically sampled (length, weight, sex,
gonad stage), photographed (if possible), the otoliths removed and
the tag recovered.
Data requirement tables
As the data requirements on the fisheries in the CCAMLR area are
very well defined in the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework (which is
binding to all EU Member States operating in the CCAMLR Convention
Area), the SGRN 06-03 sees no need to copy these provisions to the
(new) DCR. As an alternative, it is suggested to simply refer to
the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework as the standard according to which
data on the fisheries and stocks in the CCAMLR area need to be
collected. Such an approach also ensures that there is no need to
amend the DCR in case the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework would
change.
However, the SGRN 06-03 is aware that the CCAMLR Regulatory
Framework is not applicable to the French EEZ around Kerguelen and
Crozet Island and hence, that there may be a need to specify data
collection rules in the new DCR for this part of the Antarctic
waters (as is the case already in the current DCR). This could be
done, either by stating in the new DCR that the data collection
rules under the CCAMLR Regulatory Framework also apply to the
French EEZ around Kerguelen and Crozet Island, or by laying down
specific data requirements for these areas. If the option is for
the latter, then it is essential that the SGRN 06-03 be properly
informed on the types of management advice that are required for
the stocks in the Kerguelen and Crozet area, and the associated
data needs, so that it can apply the same approach to this area as
to the other RFO-areas.
2.10 Eel, Anguilla anguilla (European marine and inland
waters)
Summary of presentation given by Anna Gardmark and Frans van
Beek.
Management and advice
The eel stock in Europe is well outside safe biological limits.
Repeatedly, ICES has advised that strong measures aiming at the
protection and recovery of the stock need to be implemented
urgently. Given the long generation cycle of eel, the effects of
such measures may become detectable only after a few decades.
A few years ago, the EC proposed to implement a Management
Framework for eel in the European waters, but progress in getting
agreement between the Member States on the contents of the
(national) Recovery Plans is slow. Up to now, no Recovery Plans are
in place. Data needed to support any management of the European eel
stock and
-
22
fishery will depend on the aims and the contents of the Recovery
Plans. Hence, details of the required fishery-related and
biological data will have to be revised if and when such plans have
been decided upon.
Nevertheless, the SGRN 06-03 is of the opinion that the very
poor state of the eel stock does not justify a further delay to
start collecting the essential information that would allow
identifying any changes in the state of the eel stock. Therefore,
the SGRN 06-03 proposes to include a minimum set of data
requirements for eel in the new DCR. The minimum sets are needed to
obtain indicators of recruitment, spawning stock biomass (SSB) and
escape rates, as well as information on the catches and growth of
eel at the European level. The highest priority would be on the
indicators of recruitment and SSB. Additional data requirements,
making it possible to evaluate the effects of the implementation of
the Recovery Plans, will have to be specified for each Member State
and/or river basin separately, and could be dealt with at a later
stage.
Data requirements
To advice on the status and the future of the European eel
stock, at minimum four types of basic data are needed, viz. on
recruitment, SSB, growth and removals from the stock.
(a) Recruitment
An index (a relative measure) of recruitment is necessary to be
able to follow changes in eel recruitment over time. This can be
done by monitoring the glass eels entering the European river
systems. At present, there are several glass eel monitoring
programmes in place already in different Member States, many of
which extend over long time periods.
SGRN 06-03 proposes to include a selection of 10-20 of these
surveys in the new DCR, covering different parts of Europe, and to
use these to calculate a combined index of recruitment for the
European eel stock. It is not essential to include all existing
glass eel surveys in the DCR.
(b) Spawning stock biomass (SSB)
Similarly to the recruitment index, a relative measure of SSB is
needed to be able to follow relative changes over time in eel
spawning stock biomass and in the amount of fish that migrate to
the spawning grounds (the so-called "escapees"). In some cases,
such an index can be obtained by monitoring the silver eel
population. Where this is impossible, it can be derived from the
monitoring of yellow eel.
SGRN 06-03 proposes to measure directly (or estimate indirectly)
the amount of escapees in a selection of areas (probably 10-20
across Europe, based on river basin) which are together
representative of the European eel population. The monitoring
series should be standardised, long-term and internationally
co-ordinated. From the local, area-based escape information, it
should be possible to construct a weighted index representative of
the eel SSB in the EU waters as a whole.
-
23
(c) Growth
In order to be able to predict the time frame over which
management measures will translate into improved SSB, information
on the growth (length at age) is necessary on all parts of the
eel's life cycle.
(d) Removals
Catch information is less relevant for the determination of the
state of the eel stock but is crucial to be able to evaluate the
usefulness and impact of management measures directed towards the
eel fisheries. Catch data (ideally from both the commercial and the
non-commercial fisheries, as well as estimates of the IUU removals)
need to be collected by eel life stage (i.e. for glass ell, silver
eel and yellow eel separately), at least by country, and preferably
by river basin district. The spatial aggregation of the catch data
should take account of the assessment and/or management needs.
(e) Other types of data
In the longer term, there are additional data that may be
important for future advice on stock status and management, such as
the condition of the spawning stock (fat content, level of toxins,
amount of parasites, etc.), and, depending on the assessment
methods used, length (and age) composition of the catches per
métier.
Data requirement tables
Table 2.23 summarizes the data requirements for the different
types of stock evaluations / analyses in support of the Eel
Recovery Plans.
2.11 Ecosystem approach (all sea areas)
Summary of presentation given by Anna Gardmark (expert
participant to SGRN 06-01).
Background
The SGRN 06-01 meeting (3) on the immediate data needs to
support the integration of environmental protection requirements
into the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) recommended the use of five
indicators (three of ecosystem state and two of the pressure
exerted by fishing activities on the ecosystem), and presented the
data needed to derive these. The focus of the SGRN 06-01 was on
immediate data needs to estimate the effects of fishing on the
environment, and not the other way round. The SGRN 06-01 recognised
that, for implementation in the short-term, only indicators where
the linkage between fishing and the ecosystem state indicator is
well known and documented, can be used. However, the group also
pointed out that in the medium term, it is essential to also
measure the effects of the environment on fish stocks and
fisheries, to be able to disentangle the effects of fishing on the
ecosystem from the effects of environmental changes, such as
climate change.
(3) Commission Staff Working Paper: Report of the SGRN 06-01 -
Data Collection
Regulation Review - Second Meeting on the Ecosystem Approach.
Brussels, June 2006 (in press).
-
24
Proposed indicators and associated data needs
The five indicators recommended by SGRN 06-01 for immediate
implementation, and hence, inclusion in the new DCR, are listed
below (coding as in the SGRN 06-01 report, S = Indicator of State,
P = Indicator of Pressure).
Indicators of State (indicative of changes in ecosystem
components due to fishing):
• S1: Conservation status of vulnerable fish species, as
assessed from research survey data.
• S3: Mean weight and mean maximum length of the fish
assemblage, as assessed from research survey data.
• S6: Age and size at maturation of exploited fish species, as
assessed using the Probabilistic Maturation Reaction Norm (PMRN)
technique on data from research surveys.
Indicators of Pressure (indicative of removals from the
ecosystem due to fishing):
• P1: Spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, as
assessed from VMS data.
• P2: Catch and discard ratios of commercial and non-commercial
fish species, derived as a ratio of commercial catches (using data
from on-board sampling) and an index of abundance (derived from
research survey data), for (i) landed target catch, (ii) landed
by-catch, and (iii) discarded by-catch.
Some of these indicators are already in use within ICES working
groups, or will be in the near future. For example, indicator S3 is
used in the ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing
Activities (WGECO) and will be in the ICES Working Group on
Integrated Assessments in the Baltic Sea (WGIAB), which both feed
into assessment working groups; indicator S6 will be used in the
ICES Study Group on Fisheries Induced Adaptive Change (SGFIAC),
which feeds into WGECO and some assessment working groups, and
indicators P1 and P2 in WGECO.
The data needed for each of these indicators were identified by
SGRN 06-01 as follows:
Indicators of State:
• S1: Abundance or biomass per species in research survey
catches, for all fish species that are caught annually in the
survey. Periodicity: annually.
• S3: Abundance or biomass, and length (and weight) measurements
for all fish species that are caught annually in the survey.
Periodicity: annually.
• S6: Age, length (weight), sex and maturity status (immature /
mature / resting) for at least 100 individuals per age class (only
for those ages that include both immature and mature individuals)
and catch year. Restricted to the most important exploited fish
species. Periodicity: annually.
Indicators of Pressure:
• P1: VMS data per métier. Recording frequency at least every
hour and preferably every 15 minutes.
-
25
• P2: On-board sampling of catches and discards: landed and
discarded weight per species, for all fish species, i.e. commercial
as well as non-commercial. Survey catches: abundance or biomass per
species, for all fish species. Periodicity: annually.
Of the Regional Co-ordination Meetings that convened after the
SGRN 06-01, RCM North Sea and East Arctic, RCM Baltic and RCM North
East Atlantic all supported the use of all three state indicators
(S1, S3, S6). They also stated that the data required for these
indicators were already being collected, or could be with little
additional effort. Similarly, the RCM NAFO stated that the data
needed for indicators S1 and S3 could be collected without or with
little additional effort.
As for the pressure indicator P2, the RCM North Sea and East
Arctic and RCM North East Atlantic went further than the SGRN
06-01, and recommended that on-board sampling should be made of all
fish species and all TAC-regulated shellfish species. The RCM NAFO,
on the other hand, stated that on-board sampling should be made not
for all, but for a selection of prioritized non-commercial fish
species.
SGRN 06-01 also recognized that current research surveys are
generally designed to monitor the abundance of particular target
species, and thus, that their design may not be adequate to monitor
non-target species and the ecosystem. This fact should be
considered by both data providers and data users, and the DCR
should be made sufficiently flexible to meet future requests for
additional data needs from RFOs that are now starting to consider
the ecosystem approach to fisheries.
Data requirement tables
Table 2.24 summarizes the data requirements for the different
types of evaluations in support of the ecosystem approach. Table
2.25 gives further information on the different data types, with,
amongst others, details on the data source and on the indicators
for which the data will be used.
2.12 Conclusions
First of all, it is important that the new DCR focuses on the
total removals from fish and shellfish stocks, regardless who
(professional or recreational fishers) or what (fish or shellfish
kept for landing and sale, or returned to the sea as discards) is
at their origin. This, however, does not imply that the distinction
between landings and discards should completely disappear in the
new DCR. For certain types of management (e.g. measures to reduce
discarding), it is important that the origin of the removals
(landings or discards) is known and hence, that the distinction be
made throughout the data collection process.
With regards to the removals by recreational fisheries, it is
important to remember that at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (Johannesburg, 2002), the EU Member States have
committed themselves to collect information on all their marine
catches from 2004 (!) onwards. To SGRN's understanding, this
includes removals by recreational fishers and therefore, there is
no excuse for not including the recreational fisheries in the new
DCR. In order to make sure that any future data collection schemes
cover the full range of removals, from strictly professional to
strictly recreational, it is necessary that the different types of
fishing activities are defined in a
-
26
comprehensive and complementary way. Otherwise, there is the
danger of leaving a grey zone which would then run the risk of
being left unmonitored.
From the overviews of the data needs by RFO-area, it is clear
that it should be possible to define groupings of species with
similar data needs, according to the type of stock evaluation that
is applied (e.g. age-based vs. length-based assessment models). In
practice, this approach could take the shape of a data requirement
matrix with the species groups in the top, the parameters to be
sampled on the left and the data requirements (spatial and temporal
resolution, frequency, precision level required, etc.) in the body
of the matrix. These data requirement matrices could then replace
the long list of species appendices in the current DCR. As there
are differences in data needs between RFO-areas (not with regards
to the parameters to be monitored but with regards to the required
spatial and temporal resolution, update frequency, etc.), it will
be necessary to define data requirement matrices for each RFO-area
separately. One of the advantages of the data requirement matrices
is that the data requirements automatically follow when a species
"moves up or down the ladder" (e.g. when it moves from length- to
age-based assessments) without having to go through a lengthy
revision of the DCR. The SGRN 06-03 did not have the time to
discuss in full detail the data requirement matrices for each
RFO-area. Filling in the matrices requires careful reflection and
therefore, it is proposed to accomplish this task during a second
meeting (also see Chapter 9).
With regards to the collection of length and age composition
data on the removals, it is suggested to derive the age
compositions from the length frequency data by means of stock- and
area-specific age-length keys (ALKs). Unless there is evidence of
age-specific selection patterns in a fishery, the ALKs can be
considered as being largely métier-independent. This will simplify
data collection, as sampling for length and age can now be
decoupled, with length sampling primarily being organised by
fishing activity, and age sampling primarily by stock or population
(or parts thereof, if there is evidence of differences in growth
between different parts of a population). In addition, it also
opens the perspective of establishing combined ALKs at the regional
level, which will help making the collection of age data more
cost-effective.
In many presentations, it was stressed that data collection
during scientific evaluation surveys and from catch sampling are
closely connected. It is the balance between the two types of
information that determines the type of evaluations that can be
made and hence, the type of advice that can be given. From that
viewpoint, it is unfortunate that the two, manifestly complementary
sources of information are discussed at separate meetings of the
SGRN. The SGRN 06-03 therefore recommends that the survey revision
meeting takes a similar top-down approach and defines the data
requirements first (preferably in consultation with the end-users),
before deciding on which surveys should be eligible under the new
DCR. The SGRN 06-03 also agreed that research surveys should
increasingly be viewed as ecosystem research platforms instead of
primarily being used as generators of stock indices.
With regards to the ecosystem approach, it is obvious that
considerable and valuable additional information can be collected
without major changes to the existing data collection schemes
(surveys, at-sea sampling, etc.), and that the collection of catch
and ecosystem information can easily be integrated in a single
framework. The proper integration of the catch- and
ecosystem-related data needs is something that will have to be
considered when filling in the data requirement matrices by
RFO-area and again, it is proposed to achieve this during a second
meeting (also see Chapter 9).
-
27
Access to the VMS data for scientific evaluation purposes has
repeatedly been indicated as one of the issues that need to be
addressed when revising the DCR. VMS data are routinely collected
for many fleets and fisheries but in several countries, the data
are not accessible (yet) to the scientific community. Full access
to the VMS data would definitely improve our perception of fishing
intensity (where, how much and by whom) and therefore, it is
essential that the VMS data are made available for scientific
purposes. For the effort estimates from VMS data to be sufficiently
reliable, it is indispensable that the recording frequency of a
vessel's position be increased from the current once every two
hours to at least once every 15 minutes. In so doing, it should be
possible to make a sufficiently fine distinction between time spent
on fishing and on steaming, which can then be used to estimate
fishing effort. Full access to the VMS data also would serve the
data needs of the ecosystem approach, as it would allow to plot
fishing effort at a sufficiently fine scale in relation to, e.g.,
marine protected areas or the distribution of sensitive habitats.
However, it should also be clear that the use of VMS data for
scientific purposes is conditional upon a number of changes being
made to both EU and national legislation that regulate the
collection of and access to these data (see further Section
8.4).
Management systems are likely to change with time and hence also
the types of advice that will be requested from the RFOs and the
types of data that will be needed to underpin the advice.
Therefore, it is essential that the new DCR is made sufficiently
flexible and adaptable to allow for such changes, without having to
revise the entire Regulation. Ideally, the new DCR should be
conceived in such a way that it can constantly be adjusted through
dynamic interaction between the end-users and the data providers.
Too much flexibility, however, bears the risk that the system gets
"out of control" (e.g., when the number of requests for
modifications is too high or when the requests are too excessive)
and thus, the challenge will be to find a proper balance between
flexibility, continuity and, ultimately, the cost of the data
collection framework. Evidently, this is an area where the Regional
Co-ordination Meetings could play an important part, as mediators
between the data providers and the end-user organisations (also see
Section 7.3).
Remaining question marks in the data needs identified so far are
(i) the data requirements for the Mediterranean, (ii) the data
requirements for the Black Sea, (iii) the data needs for salmon,
including riverine salmon, and (iv) the identification of the
sub-sets of glass eel, silver eel and yellow eel surveys that can
be used to calculate pan-European indices of eel recruitment,
spawning stock biomass and escape to the sea rates.
For the Mediterranean, it is suggested to wait for further
details on the contents of the new EU Fisheries Regulation for the
area, and to examine the implications of this new regulation with
regards to management and advisory needs first, before deciding on
the supporting data requirements. The SGRN 06-03 hopes that the
information will become available very soon, so that it can be
taken into account during the proposed second meeting (also see
Chapter 9).
Most worrying is the gap with regards to the Black Sea. The
Black Sea is not included in the present version of the DCR, and in
the absence of information on the current and expected advisory
needs and the associated data requirements in the area, the SGRN
06-03 was not in a position to decide on the data requirements that
should be included in the new DCR. Again, the SGRN 06-03 hopes that
the necessary information will become available in the coming
months, so that it can accurately identify the data needs for the
Black Sea during the second meeting.
-
28
With regards to salmon and eel, it is suggested to fill in the
gaps in consultation with a small group of experts in the field, at
the latest during the proposed second meeting. It should be clear,
however, that the new DCR will have to address all life stages and
all removals of salmon and eel, and not be restricted to the marine
parts of their populations.
-
29
3 Synoptic overview of data needs and data collection
schemes
3.1 Introduction
As a second step in the identification of the data requirements
that should be laid down in the new DCR, the SGRN 06-03 made a
generalised overview of the data needs in relation to the different
types of fisheries advice that are or may be requested from the
advisory bodies, and the data collection schemes available to
collect the required information. The links thus defined between
types of advice, data requirements and sources of information will
help avoiding mis-interpretations and will facilitate completing
the data requirement matrices introduced in Section 2.12.
3.2 Data needs and data collection schemes
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show one possible representation (the most
general one, we believe) of how data collection under the DCR
relates to fisheries advice, including ecosystem aspects. In these
tables, an overview is given of the current and expected types of
advice that are / may be requested from the advisory bodies, the
data types needed to provide the scientific basis for each type of
advice, and the data collection schemes available to obtain the
required information.
Table 3.1 allows to identify the data needs for each type of
fisheries advice, but also to see where the different types of data
feed into the advisory system. Based on the information contained
in Chapter 2, the following types of fisheries management advice
could be identified:
• Advice on capacity and effort management.
• Advice on TAC and quota regulations.
• Advice on closed areas, closed seasons and marine protected
areas (MPAs).
• Advice on technical measures with regards to the selective
properties of fishing gears.
• Advice on ecosystem effects of fishing.
Within each of these, a distinction is made between the
different types of analysis that are / may be required to provide
the advice.
The right-hand side of Table 3.1 lists the data that are needed
to underpin the analyses and hence, the management advice. Here, a
distinction is made between:
• Data related to fishing activity:
- Fishing capacity. - Fishing effort. - Catch statistics, which
means total removals, i.e. landings + discards. - Length
composition data on the (commercial) removals. - Data on the
occurrence (at least numbers and weight) of non-commercial
species (primarily fish) in the catches. This is the only data
type which is not part yet of the DCR.
-
30
• Data related to populations:
- Fecundity. - Maturity and maturation. - Growth (i.e. length-
and weight-at-age) and age-length keys (ALKs). - Sex ratio.
• Indices of recruitment, stock abundance, etc., derived from
fishery-independent surveys at sea.
It should be clear that the position of the different data types
in Table 3.1 also has implications with regards to the design of
their collection schemes. Under the new DCR, fishery-related data
should be collected