(RCM MED & BS) st Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black seas

Transcription

1 EU Council Regulation 199/2008 Establishing a Community Framework for the Collection, Management and Use of Data in Fisheries sector for scientific Advice regarding the CFP Report of the 1 st Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black seas (RCM MED & BS) 2008 Sète, France, November 2008

2 Table of Contents: 1 Introduction Participants Regional coordination in the new DCR framework Terms of reference The geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS region... 6 Geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS Timing of the RCM... 6 RCM recommendations and updating of the National Programmes Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2007 RCM-MED Follow-up of 2007 RCM-MED and 2008 LM recommendations Presentation of outcomes from 2008 PGMED report Presentation of outcomes from 4th PGTT Meeting Status of tagging actions for large pelagics under DCR GFCM stock assessment, data needs and links with DCR data collection Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals following the new DCR framework Economic variables Fishing fleet: Homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra region The participation of Economists in RCM Quality issues Transversal variables Collection of transversal variables Common understanding of effort definition Transversal variables: Commun understanding of effort definition Metier related variables General issues Regional harmonisation of the metiers at level Métier variables: Coding procedures Updating of the SGRN guidelines Métier variables: Updating of the matrix (appendix IV.4 Decision 2008/949/EC)) Fishing grounds, shared metiers by fishing grounds and sample intensities Métier variables: Accuracy on geographical origine of landings and effort data Métier variables: bilateral agreements on sampling task sharing for blue fin tuna... 22

3 3.3.4 Planned sampling programmes on recreational fisheries Stock related variables General issues Task-sharing on ageing and other biological parameters Stock variables: ageing and other parameters task sharing for blue fin tuna Group 3 species Quality issues COST Project Métier variables: Naming of the metiers and accuracy on geographical origine of landings and effort data Accuracy workshop (WKACCU) Regional database Theme session on data quality at the ICES Annual Science Conference Surveys and Ecosystemic indicators Medias Medits Black sea surveys Future Workshops and Studies (added value to DCR) Workshops Studies32 7 Next 2009 PGMED Terms of Reference Any Other Business Next RCM-Med&BS venue Summary of recommendations References Annex 1: Agenda of the meeting Annex 2: List of participants Annex 3: Sofia meeting Annex 3: National key indicators on marine production sector Annex 4: Sofia meeting report Annex XXX: XXX Annex XXX: XXX Annex 3: XXX Annex XXX: XXX... 43

4

5 1 Introduction Ifremer hosted in Sète the fifth (5th) Regional coordination meeting for the Mediteranean Sea and for the first time for the Black Sea. The Chairman, Christian Dintheer welcomed the representatives from EC/DGMARE, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Spain. It was noted that there were no representative from Romania. The Chairman apologized for the non attendance of the French national correspondent due to former engagements with the industry when the venue of the meeting has been confirmed. He informed the RCM-MED&BS about all his wishes for an open-minded and fruitful meeting. The EC representative welcomed the participants in the meeting. He underlined the recent changes in the DGMARE organisation and gave assurance to the Member states (MS) that they will not affect the continuation of the DCR machinery. The RCM-MED&BS proceeds from the new Data Collection Regulation (Council EU Council Regulation 199/2008) establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice regarding the CFP. According to this regulation and without prejudice to their current data collection obligations under Community law, Member States (MS) shall collect primary biological, technical, environmental and socio economic data within the framework of a multi-annual national programme drawn up in accordance with the Community programme. According to EC Regulation 665/2008, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008, and its technical Decision 2008/949/EC specifying practical aspects for data collection, actions planned by MS in their national programme shall be presented according to the following regions: the Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d), the North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) and the Eastern Arctic (ICES areas I and II), the North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO areas), the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, regions where fisheries are operated by Community vessels and managed by Regional Fisheries Management Organisation's (RFMO) to which the Community is contracting party or observer. Regional coordination is recommended at these regional levels and specific meetings (RCMs) are in charge to facilitate it and to identify areas for standardisation, collaboration and task sharing between MS. RCMs are held annually and involve National Correspondents and both biologists and economists from each MS involved in the DCR programme As a consequence of the new regions definition, the RCM-MED&BS was established in 2008 and arose from the former RCM for the Mediterranean Sea (RCM-MED) and the new joining of both Black Sea coastal Member states Bulgaria and Romania. The agenda for the meeting is given in Annex Participants Avdič Edo XXX, Slovenia Granata Valeria (part) XXX, Italy Bondokova Asya NAFA, Bulgaria Gutoranow Georgi NAFA, Bulgaria Carpentieri Paolo MIPAF, Italy Herraiz Isabel IEO, Spain Cervantes Antonio EC / DG MARE Jadaud Angélique IFREMER, France

6 Charilaou Charis DFMR, Cyprus Kallianotis Argyris NAGREF, Greece Conte Plinio (part) XXX, Italy Marčeta Bojan XXX, Slovenia Dimech Mark MCFS, Malta Merrien Claude IFREMER, France Dintheer Christian (chair) IFREMER, France Papaconstantinou Costas HCMR, Greece Farrugio Henri (part) GFCM/SAC Sabatella Evelina IREPA, Italy Fromentin Jean Marc (part) Ifremer, France Tserpes George HCMR, Greece Gatt Mark MCFS, Malta Vassilev Milen XXX, Bulgaria Gonzales Mariá IEO, Spain Institutional affiliations and contact details about the attendees are given in Annex 2. Christian Dintheer chaired the meeting. Rapporteurs were appointed for each agenda sections. 1.2 Regional coordination in the new DCR framework Within the new Data Collection Framework, the role of the RCMs and their tasks in regional co-ordination are clearly defined: Council Regulation 199/2008: Article 5: Coordination and cooperation 1. Member States shall coordinate their national programmes with other Member States in the same marine region and make every effort to coordinate their actions with third countries having sovereignty or jurisdiction over waters in the same marine region. For this purpose the Commission may organise Regional Coordination Meetings in order to assist Member States in coordinating their national programmes and the implementation of the collection, management and use of the data in same region. 2. In order to take into account any recommendation made at regional level at the Regional Coordination Meetings, Member States shall where appropriate submit amendments to their national programmes during the programming period. Those amendments shall be sent to the Commission at the latest two months prior to the year of implementation. Commission Regulation 665/2008: Article 4: Regional co-ordination 1. The Regional Coordination Meetings referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 shall evaluate the regional co-ordination aspects of the national programmes and where necessary shall make recommendations for the better integration of national programmes and for task-sharing among Member States. 2. The Chair of the meeting shall be designated by the Regional Coordination Meeting in agreement with the Commission for a two year period. 3. The Regional Coordination Meetings may be convened once a year. The terms of reference for the meeting shall be proposed by the Commission in agreement with the Chair and shall be communicated to the national correspondents referred to in Article 3(1) three weeks prior to the meeting. Member States shall submit to the Commission the lists of participants two weeks prior to the meeting. COM Decision 2008/949/EC: CHAPTER III: Module of evaluation of the fishing sector: A. COLLECTION OF ECONOMIC VARIABLES:

7 2. DISAGGREGATION LEVELS: (4) In cases where a fleet segment has less than 10 vessels: (d) Regional Coordination Meetings shall define homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra regions so that economic variables are comparable. B1. METIER-RELATED VARIABLES: 2. DISAGGREGATION LEVEL: (1) In order to optimise the sampling programmes, the metiers defined in Appendix IV (1 to 5) may be merged. When metiers are merged (vertical merging), statistical evidence shall be brought regarding the homogeneity of the combined metiers. Merging of neighbouring cells corresponding to fleet segments of the vessels (horizontal merging) shall be supported by statistical evidence. Such horizontal merging shall be done primarily by clustering neighbouring vessel LOA classes, independently of the dominant fishing techniques, when appropriate to distinguish different exploitation patterns. Regional agreement on mergers shall be sought at the relevant Regional Coordination Meeting and endorsed by STECF. (4) For the purpose of collection and aggregation of data, spatial sampling units may be clustered by regions as referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) 665/2008 after agreement by the relevant Regional Co-ordination Meetings. 3. SAMPLING STRATEGY (1) For the landings: (a) The Member State on whose territory the first sale take place, shall be responsible for ensuring that biological sampling occurs according to the standards defined in this Community Programme. If necessary, Member States shall co-operate with the authorities of non EU third countries to set up biological sampling programmes for the landings carried out by vessels flying the third country s flag. (d) Precision values and ranking system are referenced at the same level as the sampling programmes, i.e. at the national metier level for data that are collected through national programmes and at regional metier level for data that are collected through regionally coordinated sampling programmes. (f) When sampling a fishing trip, the species shall be sampled concurrently as follows: Each species within a region as defined in Appendix II, shall be classified within a group according to the following rules: Group 1: Species that drive the international management process including species under EU management plans or EU recovery plans or EU long term multi-annual plans or EU action plans for conservation and management based on Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy; Group 2: Other internationally regulated species and major non-internationally regulated by-catch species; Group 3: All other by-catch (fish and shellfish) species. The list of Group 3 species shall be established at the regional level by the relevant regional co-ordination meeting and agreed by STECF. (2) For the discards: (c) Precision values and the ranking system are referenced at the same level as the sampling programmes, i.e. at the national metier level for data that are collected through national programmes and at regional metier level for data that are collected through regionally coordinated sampling programmes. B2. STOCK-RELATED VARIABLES:

8 5. EXEMPTIONS RULES (1) The national programme of a Member State may exclude the estimation of the stock related variables for stocks for which TAC's and quota have been defined under the following conditions: (a) The relevant quota must correspond to less than 10 % of the Community share of the TAC or to less than 200 tonnes on average during the previous three years ; (b) The sum of relevant quotas of Member States whose allocation is less than 10%, must account for less than 25 % of the Community share of the TAC. (2) If the condition set out in above point 1(a) is fulfilled, but not the condition set out in point 1(b), the relevant Member States may set up a coordinated programme to achieve, for their joint landings, a joint sampling scheme, or Member States may individually set up other national sampling schemes leading to the same precision. (3) If appropriate, the national programmes may be adjusted until 1st February of each year to take into account the exchange of quotas between Member States: (4) For stocks for which TAC's and quotas have not been defined and which are outside the Mediterranean Sea, the same rules established under point 5(1) apply on the basis of the average landings of the previous three years and with reference to the total Community landings from a stock; (5) For stocks in the Mediterranean Sea, the landings by weight of a Mediterranean Member State for a species corresponding to less than 10 % of the total Community landings from the Mediterranean Sea, or to less than 200 tonnes, except for Bluefin tuna. C. COLLECTION OF TRANSVERSAL VARIABLES 2. DISAGGREGATION LEVEL (2) The degree of aggregation shall correspond to the most disaggregated level required. A grouping of cells within this scheme may be made provided that an appropriate statistical analysis demonstrates its suitability. Such mergers must be approved by the relevant Regional Coordination Meeting. APPENDIX Appendix II: Geographical stratification by Region Footnote: Sub-regions or fishing grounds are established by Member States for the first programming period ( ); they may be redefined by Regional Coordination Meetings and agreed by STECF if necessary. This level should be consistent with existing geographical divisions. Appendix VIII: List of transversal variables with sampling specification Hours fished 2 Number of trips 2 Number of rigs 2 Number of fishing operations 2 Number of nets / Length 2 Number of hooks, Number of lines 2 Numbers of pots, traps 2 Soaking time 2 Footnote: 2) Some adjustments could be proposed by Regional Coordination Meetings

9 1.3 Terms of reference According to these prior legal requirements, the terms of reference for RCMs have been defined by the EC in agreement with the Chairs. They are in 2008 the same for all RCMs, and as following. Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 stipulates that "The Regional Coordination Meetings referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 shall evaluate the regional co-ordination aspects of the national programmes and where necessary shall make recommendations for the better integration of national programmes and for tasksharing among Member States". To achieve this goal, the RCMs in autumn 2008 are requested to: 1. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2007 RCM (follow-up of recommendations) and 2008 Liaison Meeting report 2. Make recommendations in order to harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals following the new DCR framework, with particular emphasis on the following: 2.a. Economic variables Fishing fleet (homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra region; homogeneous understanding of the definitions and protocols to achieve the goals; quality issues) 2.b. Metier-related variables 2.b.1. Ranking system (regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6, especially regarding mesh size ranges per gear type; creation of a regional view on fishing activities; creation of a regional ranking system to assess the Member States obligations and demands for derogation; establishment of sub-regions or fishing grounds) 2.b.2. Landings (sampling agreement for landings abroad; discussion/agreement on concurrent sampling; agreement on merging of metiers for sampling; sampling intensities and data quality) 2.b.3. Discards (creation of a regional view of the discard sampling programmes, identification of gaps and discrepancies for optimising the spatial, time and metiers coverage) 2.b.4. Recreational fisheries (review of the actions proposed in the NP proposals, proposals for regionally co-ordinated actions) 2.c. Biological stock-related variables (sampling intensities and data quality; identification of stocks suitable for international age-length keys and task sharing for ageing; possibilities for extension to regional collection of data for maturity, sex-ratio and mean weights; ensure that exemptions for biological sampling do not exceed 25% of quota/landings for stock; list of Group 3 species) 2.d. Transversal variables (common understanding of effort definitions) 3. Propose actions and where possible conclude regional agreements on the collection of data outlined under ToR 2 4. Quality issues (regional databases, progress on the COST tools and anticipation of their use at national level; outcome of the WKACCU workshop) 5. Studies and pilot projects 6. Any other business

10 1.4 The geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS region To precise the new geographical context, short presentations by MS of general description of marine production sector and its monitoring were made as follows : France (by Claude Merrien), Spain (by Isabel Herraiz), Italy (by Evelina Sabatella), Malta (by Mark Dimech), Greece (by George Tserpes), Bulgaria (by Georgi Gutoranow ), Cyprus (by Charis Charilaou ) and Slovenia (by Bojan Marčeta). Short summaries are provided in Annex 3 (please except Cyprus send me your summary). Among the discussions, some relevant points could be highlighted: - Some MS already identified some areas for cooperation in the regional level (large pelagic sampling, list of level 3 species, selected fisheries. - Discussion took place concerning the possibility of including the fishing activities exercised in lagoons in the ranking system procedure, for the selection of metiers to be sampled under the DCR, and also on approaches taken by different MS for collecting information on lagoon fisheries. The various status of the vessels operating in lagoons was also noted. The RCM MED&BS suggests that, as first step, any sampling of fishing activities exercised in lagoons under the DCR should be made on a national basis, as currently this is not always required by the Data Collection framework. To improve participation of the two new countries from the Black sea in the DCR and RCM dynamics machinery appeared also important to the group. The non-attendance of Romanian experts to the first meeting enlarged to the whole Supra-region Mediterranean sea and Black sea strengthened that need. Based on the 2008 Romania and Bulgaria National Programs and Bulgarian NP, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to be organized a regional meeting between Bulgaria and Romania with the participation of EC DG MARE and RCM MED representative in the beginning of The necessity of such meeting lays on the need to coordinate Black sea data collection. Geographic scope of the RCM-MED&BS RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) Because the necessity on the need to coordinate Black sea data collection, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to be organized a regional meeting between Bulgaria and Romania with the participation of EC DG MARE and RCM-MED representative. Venue to be proposed by Bulgarian National Correspondent European Commission Beginning of 2009 The recommended meeting took place in Sofia, January Conclusions of the meeting are given in annex XXX Please Georgi send me copy of the final draft with a list of participants). 1.5 Timing of the RCM Ideally the RCM recommendations for co-ordination should be made before the end of October. MS would then have two months to take the recommendations of RCM into account in the MS s NPs. The year 2008 is exceptional due to delayed implementation of the revised DCR regulation. Given that evaluation of NPs is already ongoing it is recommended that any

11 modifications suggested by the RCM be addressed with track changes in MS s NPs before SGRN evaluation in mid-february RCM recommendations and updating of the National Programmes RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) Considering the delayed implementation of the revised DCR regulation and the tardy RCM venues in 2008, the RCM-NA recommends that any modifications suggested by the RCM be addressed with track changes in MS s NPs before SGRN evaluation in mid-february Member States End of January 2009, before evaluation by SGRN. 2 Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2007 RCM-MED As specified in the meeting agenda and as support to the RCM discussions on regional coordination, three presentations were added to the item around the follow-up of the 2007 RCM-MED and 2008 last Liaison Meeting: aims of PGMED and conclusions of March 2008 meeting conclusions of the last PGTT meeting on tuna and swordfish tagging. GFCM stock assessment, data needs and links with DCR data collection. 2.1 Follow-up of 2007 RCM-MED and 2008 LM recommendations A follow up of the main recommendations and actions from the LM (Brussels, February 2008) were discussed by the RCM. The Liaison Meeting (LM) between the chair of SGRN, the chairs of the different RCM, the chair of PGCCDBS and PGMED, and ICES and EU/DGMARE representatives is held annually to analyse the RCM reports in order to ensure overall co-ordination between the RCMs. On the basis of the reports, the LM makes recommendations to the Commission. The RCM-MED&BS rejoiced over the first attendance of the chair of PGMED to the LM. Relevant points to the RCM MED were presented and discussed. The comments by the LM covered the following aspects: Fleet based approach and ecosystem approach: regional design and regional protocols for the collection of biological and economic data and for estimating ecosystem indicators in the view of the new DCR. Cooperation and coordination between countries at RCM scale with regards to data access and use of biological data, including regional databases development and quality issues (ongoing process and tools). Data quality assurance and common exchange format for the information need to the quality evaluation system. Future workshops and studies in support of the CFP. The EC representative clarified to the RCM-Med&BS that the LM should be held not very far after the RCMs meetings. It is to be noted that the 2008 LM met 10 months after the

12 Mediterranean RCM, and that most of the RCM-MED recommendations were already addressed by the time of the LM. At the light of the system adopted by other RCMs, LM recommends the chairmanship duration to be two years. In addition, LM recommends the chair to participate in the RCM the third year to ensure the continuity. This opportunity was confirmed by the EC representative. LM encourages the participation of economists in RCMs. However, LM realises that it is difficult to ensure such broad participation and in order to optimise the situation, LM recommends to STECF/SGECA to appoint economists to RCMs. The LM recommends also the participation of the national correspondents in the RCMs meeting. The EC representative stresses the problem of constancy for presence of economists from one year to another and the role of the NC correspondents to define the national participation in the regional coordination and the helpful contribution their attendance to RCMs meetings would be. Only three NC and two economists attended the 2008 RCM-MED&BS meeting. Comments for general issues (overview of all RCM) concerning the LM were considering not to process data during the meeting and to work on standardised datasets prepared before. To promote regional database was also suggested by the LM to facilitate work progress during the RCMs. RCM MED&BS agrees with these proposed working methods. LM notes that the coordination process is ongoing through an acoustic coordination meeting (MEDIAS). The workshop was held in Athens in February 2008 and the involved MS (Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Greece) have included their national contribution to the MEDIAS survey in their national programmes (see also section 5.1). LM was informed that the participation to any meetings regarding DCR (RCM, MEDIAS, MEDITS, ICES Planning and Working groups, Workshops ) are eligible in reference to the list of meetings provided by the EC before the end of each year. The EC representative confirms this way of proceeding and adds that the EC would also consider for funding attendance to GFCM working groups with similar rules (2 members by MS). Despite of request of most of MS attending the RCM, no decision was given for funding opportunities considering ICCAT participation. The RCM-MED&BS noted also the following deadlines and venues : the results of pilot studies mixed species landings will be presented in PGCCDBS/PGMED next March. the need for a recreational fisheries workshop has been taken up within ICES in 2009 with Workshop on Sampling Methods for Recreational Fisheries [WKSMRF] to be held in Nantes (France), April The workshop on Mullus barbatus and Mullus surmuletus ageing, previously planned to be organised by Greece, will be held in Boulogne-sur-Mer (France) in the 2 nd quarter an ICES Workshop on crustaceans (Aristeus antennatus, Aristaeomorpha foliacea, Parapenaeus longirostris, Nephrops norvegicus) maturity stages [WKMSC] will be held in Italy in Concerning studies in support of DCR proposed and supported by last RCM-MED, LM gave the following advices: Maturity Photodatabase for the Mediterranean: LM noted that the WebGR study has been already published under call for tenders FISH/2007/07. Pilot study investigating the feasibility of routine sampling of bluefin tuna calcified structures from the European fisheries for routine estimation of age structure of the catch. Contact person: Enrique Rodríguez-Marín (rodriguez.marin@st.ieo.es). LM agreed with this proposal. But no outcome given in the 2007 and 2008 calls for tenders. Delimitation of swordfish stocks in the Mediterranean. Contact persons: George Tserpes (gtserpes@her.hcmr.gr) and Jaime Mejuto (jaime.mejuto@co.ieo.es). LM suggested that this proposal should be addressed in a research project. Harmonization of past acoustic data in the Mediterranean ( ). Coordinator Athanassios Machias (amachias@her.hcmr.gr). LM noted that this study is included

13 in the work programme The ad hoc workshop was held in Athens in February 2008 and recommendations inflected in the concerned MS national programmes. Harmonization of the collected series of catch and effort data towards a fishery based approach to fishery management in the Mediterranean ( ). Contact person: Mary Labropoulou (gmlabro@athe.hcmr.gr). LM agreed with this proposal as it is complementary to the log-book analysis (include in 2007 and 2008 calls of tenders) and together would complete the needs. Joint study with the industry in the Mediterranean. LM agreed with the rationale, and considered it is up to RCM-Med to elaborate upon and propose the study. Considering on one hand these advices and on the other hand the LM recommendation to RCMs, about the inflation in the number of recommendations and proposals, for setting up the priorities when proposing studies and workshops (considering the relevance and their addedvalue for the DCR), and for carefully selecting those which are important for further considerations, the RCM-MED&BS : stresses that it is the responsibility of authors of proposals for small scale projects to follow up the submission, namely the comments made by the RCM, the Liaison Meeting and their inclusion or not in the EU work programme for the current year. Only amended proposals in ways given by authorised bodies will be reviewed again by RCM-MED&BS and, if justified, readdressed to LM. noted that during the past years the studies published by the European Commission concerned mainly regions other than the Mediterranean. It is anticipated that future studies proposed by the RCM-MED&BS will be included in the list of studies published by the EC. 2.2 Presentation of outcomes from 2008 PGMED report Paolo Carpentieri (PGMED Chairman), small summary of your PPT or comments please if the following Charis notes have to be amended The Chairman of the PGMed presented the outcomes of the 2 nd meeting of the PGMed that took place in Cyprus, March 2008 (see Annex XXXX). ToRs, - information flow models, - common template on landings data (to be used in the preparation of national NPs ). - Mixed landings / problem in providing info by species level. PGMed agreed to carry out implementation study on all Group 1 and Group 2 species. - Review Annex 4 (output of Nantes SGRN-SGECA Meeting) - Xxxxx - Applicability of ranking system - Minimum sampling protocol. - Review changes in data collection procedure - Common threshold on allocation of metiers (e.g. when OTB targets demersal species and when deep sea species) The RCM-MED&BS was informed that the next PGCCDBS/PGMED meeting will take place in Montpellier (France), during the first week of March The EC representative invited the new Mediterranean MS to participate in the meeting.

14 2.3 Presentation of outcomes from 4th PGTT Meeting J.M. Fromentin please small summary of your PPT or comments on following paragraphs Outcomes of the 4 th Planning Group on Tuna Tagging meeting (XX XX October 2008, Sète, France) were presented to the RCM-MEED&BS. First a brief history of the creation of the PGTT was provided. The objectives of the planning group were to address key issues in assessment of exploited tuna (and tuna-like) stocks which are currently not covered by routine-based data collection programmes. Such key issues are the migration routes of the stocks, estimates of fishing (and natural) mortality and habitat-based CPUE standardisation. The programmes focused on Eastern Atlantic blue fin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) as well as Mediterranean and Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius) stocks. Referred to the achievements during the triennial period of the tagging programmes, the recommendations made during the 4 th PGTT Meeting are the following: - As there is no possibility for large pelagics to conduct traditional scientific surveys, all data available for stock assessment derives from commercial data and tagging. A strong recommendation has been set from international body for. - It was acknowledged that the funding of such a programme is difficult, as it can be considered either as a routine-based survey, or as a research project. There is a format problem to include the tagging programme in the Data Collection Framework. The SGRN and STECF conclusions and recommendations were also evoked. These conclusions must be taken in account and the RCM-MED&BS encourages the PGTT participants to work in this direction to ensure that this could be in the future again part of DCR The RCM-MED&BS recommends the creation of a steering committee, which will elaborate the data collected during the implementation of the tagging programmes for the triennial period and produce a final document with a full analysis of the results and proposed follow up. This document should be reviewed by the next RCM-MED&BS, for proposing future actions Status of tagging actions for large pelagics under DCR RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) Considering that all data available for stock assessment for large pelagics derive from commercial data and tagging and the need to precise the status of tagging operations under the new DCR, the RCM- MED&BS recommends the creation of a steering committee, which will elaborate the data collected during the implementation of the tagging programmes for the triennial period and produce a final document with a full analysis of the results and proposed follow up. Final document compiling PGTT conclusions to be reviewed by the next RCM-MED&BS, for proposing future issues PGGT experts Autumn 2009, before next RCM-MED&BS venue. 2.4 GFCM stock assessment, data needs and links with DCR data collection The contribution of the Chairman of GFCM/SAC to the meeting was welcomed by the RCM- MED&BS (see Annex XXXX). He gave an overview on the objectives of the GFCM and the role of the SAC as regards to the field of fisheries and gave suggestions on better use of DCR data from the GFCM s point of view. The organisational framework between the two organisations was presented to highlight the importance of the DCR data for the operation of the GFCM. The data from EU DCR is used to

15 fill the data in the GFCM database together with other non-eu countries for feeding the SGMED and GFCM working groups. The aims of STECF/SGMED objectives were also explained A description was also given on the structure of the GFCM databases, mainly on the task I and task II statistical matrixes. Reference was made to the GFCM details (website page?) for more detailed information on the task I sub tasks. During the discussion, the following points were put forward: For the DCR to provide necessary funds for better participation from national scientists in working groups of the GFCM. Proposal for DCR to fund specific project on assessment of hake/mullet by France and Spain. Mechanism needed with GFCM on the actual transmission of data and quality of info. More collaboration needed between the two organisations to better trace out the information being sent and any possible missing information. Regular reminders sent to countries for submitting data. DGMARE representative confirmed that EC would be able to finance participation in Working Groups considered to have particular importance. The Commission asked for a full list of future meetings to be organised by the GFCM so that to be able to select the ones which are in the community s interest (especially WG) for financing (2 participants each country). The Commission requested further details on the type of information that was submitted to GFCM after the WG on stock assessments to check on the outcome and pointed out that the new regulation is very clear in the obligation of each MS for the regular submission of data. It was agreed that, in addition to the GFCM statistical bulletin, ad hoc information from GFCM on this issue following the different WG would be established. The Commission had otherwise positive comments as regards to the GFCM data matrix and DCR data matrix which have become more compatible following recent meetings. Some days after the RCM meeting, GFCM/SAC Chairman notified EC and RCM-MED&BS Chair about first priority GFCM meetings to promote as eligible under the 2009 national programmes: Sessions of the 4 SAC Sub-Committees (Rome, Nov-Dec 2009), Working group on stock assessment of small pelagic species (Ancona, Nov-Dec 2009), Transversal workshop on fishing capacity (Rome, May-June 2009), Transversal workshop on the GFCM logbook (Rome, May-June 2009), Workshop on selectivity (Tunis, Sep-Oct 2009). 3 Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals following the new DCR framework Considering the few number of economists (2) and the large dominant biological expertise capacities of the attendance in the meeting, the RCM MED&BS decided not to work by subgroups as initially planned in the agenda. Therefore all discussions were in plenary sessions. 3.1 Economic variables Many of the issues discussed at the RCM-NS&EA (meeting held the week before the RCM- MED&BS one) are relevant also in other regions because they refer to the aspect of the methodology or procedures and protocols. Therefore, and taking into account the low participation of economist and the recommendation of the RCM-NS&EA that its Chair

16 circulates its first draft related to economic variables to the other RCMs., the RCM-MED&BS reviewed the recommendations from RCM-NS&EA Fishing fleet: Homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra region Clustering is needed to allow sampling to be cost effective. But it is also necessary when fleet segments are too few and a random sample cannot be extracted. Clustering can introduce some degree of bias in the results for the combined segments; therefore a regional methodology should be applied in order to assure that the segments to be clustered are homogeneous. RCM-MED&BS agrees with RCM-NS&EA that guidelines should be produced by STECF/SGECA for Member States when clustering fleet segments. These guidelines should be produced in the workshop on data quality to be conducted in According to the DCR, Regional Coordination Meetings shall define homogeneous clustering methodology at the level of supra regions so that economic variables are comparable. Spain, Cyprus and Italy clustered their segments for economic sampling in 2009 and Each of these countries clustered segments according to the length classes. That is, segments with few vessels are merged with a neighbouring length category and not with other segments. The RCM-MED&BS agrees with this approach and recommends that also other MSs should follow this methodology to cluster only length classes in order to compare economic variables. However, RCM recalls that, according to regulation, MS should justify the clustering on the basis of statistical analysis, which in these three cases was only provided by Italy. Other member states are recommended to provide statistical evidence if clustering of vessels is to be conducted. Economic variables: Fishing fleet: Clustering RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) The RCM-MED&BS recommends that all MS inf the Supra-region follow the methodology to cluster only length classes in order to compare economic variables, and so doing, give justification on the basis of statistical analysis, as required by the regulation Member states, SGRN Updating of 2009 NP, at last implementation of the 2010 NP The participation of Economists in RCM RCM-NS&EA discussed the role and participation of economists in the RCMs. The RCM-NS&EA considers that it may not be necessary for the involvement of economists in every RCM meeting, but that if there are specific issues that require the economists involvement it would be best to involve the full range of Member States rather than a small group to ensure a wide range of opinions may be represented. Moreover, RCM-NS&EA considers that given the role for SGECA in coordination of methodology, there is not as great a need for economists to meet at the RCMs to coordinate actions, as the collection of economic data does not require the same degree of interaction between Member States as with the collection of biological data. However the RCM-MED&BS considers more useful to have the full attendance of economists at regional co-ordination meetings. Their involvement is especially necessary if one considers that in the new DCR framework several issues involve an interaction between the biological

17 and economical data for example, related to bio-economic modelling and common data calls, or related to the development of data related to the ecosystem approach. There are several tasks that should be addressed by economists in RCM: i) to produce a document on data collection practices for economic variables to assess the degree of convergence/divergence in practices across the region ii) to clarify problems with the collection of data for particular variables and to assure a common interpretation of parameters iii) to draw up a summary table of data sources used and quality measures planned from the National Programmes as an input to SGECA iv) to allocate economic data at the level of metiers The RCM-MED&BS considers that these tasks are its responsibility and not that of SGECA because they require national expertise that should be available in RCM. SGECA is attended by independent experts that should address methodological issues and carry out data analysis (like the preparation of the Annual Economic Report). SGECA and RCM are hence complementary bodies with different tasks sharing. The group also considers that involvement of economists in RCM could facilitate the process of appointments of economists at national level, also considering that specific budget is allocated in NP for the collection of economic data. The RCM MED&BS recommends the attendance of economists from all the Member States in future meetings of the RCM MED&BS and that member states should ensure the attendance of their national economists. Economic variables: Participation of Economists in RCMs RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) Considering the tasks that should be addressed by economists in RCM, that SGECA and RCM are complementary bodies with different tasks sharing, and that economics is a mandatory part of the NP, the RCM- MED&BS recommends the attendance of economists from all the MS in future meetings of the RCM MED&BS and that MS should ensure the attendance of their national economists. Member states Next RCM-MED&BS Quality issues The RCM-NS&EA recommends that STECF and SGECA consider whether or how the data quality issues might be included in the work plan for SGECA in either 2009 or The RCM-MED&BS agrees with this recommendation and stresses the importance of the future SGECA meeting on data quality which should suggest homogenous methods to assess the quality of economic data. At the same time, each RCM can contribute to the quality of data in the phase of transmission of data to the European Commission or to other end users. For example, in future RCMs, an analysis of the data calls could be carried out, in order to assure the transmission of data to the Commission and other end users in a consistent format at regional and/or supra-regional levels.

18 3.2 Transversal variables Collection of transversal variables The DCR states that: The degree of aggregation shall correspond to the most disaggregated level required. A grouping of cells within this scheme may be made provided that an appropriate statistical analysis demonstrates its suitability. Such mergers must be approved by the relevant Regional Coordination Meeting. In the NP proposals, no MED&BS MS has merged cells for the collection of transversal variables. Therefore, no approval by RCM is required. Derogations for some effort variables have been required by some Member States. These derogations will have to be evaluated by SGRN. The RCM-MED&BS recognizes the difficulties to estimate some effort variables for several metiers, especially for passive gears. Official data sources cannot be used to estimate fishing effort variables at the level of detail required. Different data sources (sampling, surveys, logbook or sales notes) need to be used. Therefore, the RCM MED&BS agrees with the recommendation made by RCM-NS&EA that the Commission and STECF take note of the concerns with regards to the quality of some of the transversal variables related to fishing effort, and recommends that an assessment of the quality of the data be made before any use of if it. Transversal variables: Effort data RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) SGRN considers the priorities for collecting these data need to match the rankings of metier for biological purposes, and should bear this in mind when considering requests for derogations in National Programmes. STECF/SGRN to consider this principle when evaluating National Programmes STECF/SGRN, EU Commission February Common understanding of effort definition Variables listed in appendix VIII of EC Decision 2008/949 have been reviewed. Capacity and landings variables do not present problems of interpretation. The following effort variables: Number of fishing operations, Number of nets / Length, Number of hooks, Number of lines, Numbers of pots, traps and Soaking time, present different problems of estimations. The RCM MED&BS recommends that the next PGMED should collate information on these variables in order to discuss on the possible use of these data and to propose the best methodology to estimate the effort variables. Transversal variables: Commun understanding of effort definition RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Considering that some effort variables, and particularly those illustrating passive gears effort, could present different problems of estimations, the RCM MED&BS recommends that the next PGMED should collate information on these variables in order to discuss on the possible use of these data and to propose the best methodology to

19 Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) estimate the effort variables. To include in 2009 PGMED terms of reference Chair of PGMED, Member states to provide first information Next PGMED in March 2009 Furthermore there are no tables in the guidelines of the program proposals for the collection of transversal variables. The RCM-MED&BS suggests to add such tables in the guidelines of the program proposals and future technical reports 3.3 Metier related variables General issues During the meeting combined Tables III_C_1 and III_C_3 from the NP Proposals of the Member States were prepared, for reviewing the metiers used in the ranking system by all Member States and the sampling schemes proposed for those sorted by the ranking system. It was noted that the data from two Member States (Greece and Rumania) where not available at the time of the meeting. However, the tables prepared by Greece were provided unofficially during the meeting, and the Romanian tables were provided during the sub-regional meeting on Black sea held in Sofia in January They have been merged with data of the other countries used for the November meeting. Therefore, the overview on fishing activities given in the next chapters can be considered therefore as complete at the RCM-MED&BS level. To avoid these delays, boring time to process the data during the meeting (as recommended by the 2008 Liaison Meeting) and to gain in efficiency, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to prepare exchange of data enough time in advance to allow their merging and their validation at the regional level before the meeting. Métier variables: harmonisation and preparation of exchange data RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) In order to use the time of the RCM more efficient, the pre-processing of the exchange data tables, namely the merging of the data on fisheries statistics and planned sampling NP proposal tables in the NPs, for the harmonisation of the NPs, including the quality checks, should be carried out before the next RCM. Preparation of exchange data for task-sharing RCM Chair and RCM participants until Aug/Sep Regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6 As it was the first time the RCM-MED&BS was comparing the planned sampling and the fisheries statistics given in the NP proposals on a regional level, the production of working tables took a large part of the meeting time and it has not been possible to discuss the quality and the intensities of the sampling programmes. The data presented in the relevant combined tables were not homogeneous, and the first task was the correction of the values in the different fields describing fishing activities.

20 Recoding with homogenous rules was a long work and concerned almost all the fields of the tables III_C_1 and III_C_3: Region: different languages and spellings, Geographical areas and more particularly the GSAs, which are the usual GFCM spatial scale: were found for example to be linked to the final retained code GSA07, spellings GSA07, GSA7, GSA 7, All areas. Sometimes also MS use ICCAT codes for metiers targeting large pelagics, Metier at level 5 : gears and target assemblages difficult to distinguish (DRB/DRH, GNS/GTR, LHP/LHM, SPF/DEF/MPD), leading to find in the tables not existing combinations between gear and target assemblage at level 5 according to the regulation (Appendix IV matrix for MED&BS region) and SGRN guidelines, Metier coding at level 6: with meshsize documented or not, similar between countries or not, etc. To avoid these boring corrections in the tables, the RCM-MED&BS recommends clearer rules on filling up the technical tables of the national programme to be specified: language, reference lists of allowed codes for each field according to the Region covered, forbidden completions, etc. Métier variables: Coding procedures Updating of the SGRN guidelines RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation Follow-up actions needed Responsible persons for follow-up actions Time frame (Deadline) The RCM-MED&BS recommends that all MS should follow strictly the naming conventions for reporting the sampling and statistics information. The SGRN Guidelines for NP proposals should be revised in order to ensure unambiguous coding of the métiers and fishing grounds and to stress the importance to adhere to these rules. Revision of the SGRN Guidelines and templates for NP proposals STECF-SGRN 2009 During the discussions to define common metiers at the regional level, it became clear that a description of the fishing activities (target species, spatial distribution etc.) in the métiers is needed to allow the RCM to fully evaluate the compatibility of the fishing activities and consequently possibilities for task-sharing. A short description of all métiers selected by the 90% ranking procedure should be provided in the NP proposals (Table III.C.1), e.g. providing the target species, fishing sites, etc. The RCM-MED&BS acknowledged that the knowledge on meshsize is scarce for most of the metiers. However, according to current regulations in force, some assumptions were proposed for bottom trawling (meshsize >= 40 mm), trammel and gillnet netting (meshsize >= 32 mm except Black sea métiers), purse seining for small pelagics (meshsize >= 14 mm.) On other hand, lack of information or not similar data led to give no precision on metier coding at level 6 (dredging, potting, longlines, fyke and drift netting, puurse seining for large pelagics, etc.). As consequence of this state of knowledge on metiers at level 6, the RCM-MED&BS recommends to improve the global description of metiers at level 6 in terms of target species, fishing areas, meshsizes used etc. and to provide these information in the MS natiojnal programmes. Métier variables: Description of metiers RCM-MED&BS 2008 Recommendation In the NP proposals, a short description of all métiers selected by the 90% ranking procedure should be provided. Such a table would enable RCM to identify whether a métier with the same name covers the same or different fisheries in different NP.